NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[yg1968]

Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) has been awarded two additional missions by NASA under the Commercial Resupply Services contract-2 (CRS-2) with launches occurring in 2023. Northrop Grumman will deliver a combined total of approximately 16,500 lbs. of cargo to the International Space Station during these missions.

https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-awarded-additional-cargo-resupply-missions-to-the-international-space-station

See also this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52291.0

[yg1968]

NASA says SpaceX is now on the hook for nine CRS-2 missions, three more than the guaranteed minimum of six.

NASA signed a new cargo delivery contract with SpaceX for at least six upgraded Cargo Dragon space station flights in 2016. A NASA spokesperson said in November that the resupply contract has been extended to cover nine Cargo Dragon missions.

https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1335678224253263876

[yg1968]

At yesterday's NAC HEO meeting, Phil McAlister said that there would be a CRS-3 at some point in the future:

https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1349419794370617346

See slide 16:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nac_-_csd_update_-_jan_2021_v3.pdf

[yg1968]

NG will get 2 more CRS2 missions (NG-18 and NG-19, for a total of 8 CRS2 missions):

https://twitter.com/HDerrey/status/1363808668714754048

[Thunderscreech]

https://twitter.com/nasaprocurement/status/1387441631096459265?s=21

[yg1968]

CRS2 has been extended by 2 years. Boeing, Firefly and Astra objected as they wanted to be able to bid. NASA provided justification (attached) for dismissing these objections for sole-sourcing the extension of the contract to the existing providers (i.e., SpaceX, NG and Sierra Nevada).

This justification provides the rationale for contracting by other than full and open competition to award sole-source extensions from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2026 for the current Commercial Resupply Services (CRS-2) contracts NNJ16GX08B to Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX), NNJ16GX07B to Sierra Nevada, and NNJ16GU21B to Northrop Grumman (Orbital Sciences).

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1489310120123285505

[yg1968]

NASA's comments on Astra's proposal for CRS2 (attached image).

[yg1968]

NASA's comments on Boeing's proposal for CRS2 (attached image).

[yg1968]

NASA's comments on Firefly's proposal for CRS2 (attached image).

[yg1968]

NASA said that it could use the on-ramp clause for future extensions of CRS2:

The CRS-2 contract has an On-Ramp Clause, which allows qualified service providers the opportunity to provide services. In order to have additional time and resources required to integrate new CRS-2 contractors, this clause could be a viable alternative for future CRS-2 extensions upon approval of Congress to extend the ISS through CY2030. NASA JSC will continue to examine the market in the future for alternative solutions or new sources before executing any subsequent acquisitions for the same requirements.

[yg1968]

NASA will now have post-splashdown press conferences for CRS2 missions:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1489648707897372676

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1489648749496487938

[eeergo]

NASA will now have post-splashdown press conferences for CRS2 missions:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1489648707897372676

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1489648749496487938

Right thing to do IMO. NASA in particular and the US space program in general have long distinguished and prided themselves in their transparency. This has also greatly aided them, building up an image few other organizations in the world can match up to, and attracting talent that otherwise might not be inspired to follow a path "to the stars", not to mention funding. While these events can be "boring" and routine, at least comparatively to others, they are nevertheless amazing in their own right - plus routine ops are also a sight to behold. How many people stare at construction sites, harbors, railways or logistics centers all around the world spontaneously when they get a chance?

Regarding the beancounting of "cost of deploying broadcast assets", it's certainly cheaper to shut off the whole thing and go home after switching off the lights. With a slightly wider vision, it's a negligible investment that will be amortized in no time.

[woods170]

Regarding the beancounting of "cost of deploying broadcast assets", it's certainly cheaper to shut off the whole thing and go home after switching off the lights. With a slightly wider vision, it's a negligible investment that will be amortized in no time.

You clearly have no idea of
A. How expense it actually is to get those broadcast assets out there
B. How much NASA is in a bind right now with regards to funding.

The continued string of CRs is beginning to hurt NASA. They are scrounging funds from less important activities to keep more important activities going. One example being that the current delays, in getting Artemis 1 launched, is sucking money directly from preparations for Artemis 2, 3 and 4.

Not broadcasting the splash downs of CRS missions is such a choice. Why spend funding on uninteresting (to the larger public at least) cargo return splash downs, when those funds can be used more efficiently elsewhere?
People wanna see humans return to Earth. That is exciting. Seeing 2.1 metric tons of cargo splashing down is whole lot less interesting.
Besides, under CRS-1 it was standard practice to NOT cover the splash downs. Why should that be different for CRS-2 splash downs?

But, undoubtly, someone will come up with the "but...but...its my taxpayers dollars!"-argument. Which foregoes the fact that most space agencies worldwide are funded with taxpayer's money, but are far less transparent than NASA. NASA is the exception with regards to transparency. They are not the rule.
NASA has to make do with the funding they actually get. And if insufficient funding results in the loss of a bit of transparency...well than so be it.

[eeergo]

Regarding the beancounting of "cost of deploying broadcast assets", it's certainly cheaper to shut off the whole thing and go home after switching off the lights. With a slightly wider vision, it's a negligible investment that will be amortized in no time.

You clearly have no idea of
A. How expense it actually is to get those broadcast assets out there
B. How much NASA is in a bind right now with regards to funding.

The continued string of CRs is beginning to hurt NASA. They are scrounging funds from less important activities to keep more important activities going. One example being that the current delays, in getting Artemis 1 launched, is sucking money directly from preparations for Artemis 2, 3 and 4.

Not broadcasting the splash downs of CRS missions is such a choice. Why spend funding on uninteresting (to the larger public at least) cargo return splash downs, when those funds can be used more efficiently elsewhere?
People wanna see humans return to Earth. That is exciting. Seeing 2.1 metric tons of cargo splashing down is whole lot less interesting.
Besides, under CRS-1 it was standard practice to NOT cover the splash downs. Why should that be different for CRS-2 splash downs?

But, undoubtly, someone will come up with the "but...but...its my taxpayers dollars!"-argument. Which foregoes the fact that most space agencies worldwide are funded with taxpayer's money, but are far less transparent than NASA. NASA is the exception with regards to transparency. They are not the rule.
NASA has to make do with the funding they actually get. And if insufficient funding results in the loss of a bit of transparency...well than so be it.

True, although I really doubt it amounts to much in the grand scheme of the Agency's budget. Also, government entities are not households, and the zero-sum mentality actually hurts what they are able to accomplish. But it's also true I can speak in first person when saying the assets that covered STS missions, however uninteresting the actual operation was, is what inspired me into becoming a space sector worker. I assume I am not a special case. This alone should already amortize the expenses. See the increased attention SpaceX (to give a booming example in tight cooperation with this site) is obtaining from showing parts of their operations publicly, outsourcing those expenses to interested fans willing to set it up - covering 24/7 what could be defined as "uninteresting" activities. NASA, for better or worse, seldom has that possibility, and in any case it is the government's responsibility to provide adequate funding for worthwhile enterprises, even if financially deficitary.

Of course the CRs are hurting NASA, and of course they have to fight for funding, especially now. Precisely for that they shoud strive to make everyone see what amazing work they do every day, yes with taxpayers dollars but also beyond that rationale, and continue being the steward of transparency they've generally been. Cutting down on that, like during CRS-1, should not be the goal or the first place to go cut down on costs, rather the contrary. Corporate marketing and PR may be good for business short-term, but real openness and nitty-gritty detail is what gives you the real dividends in the long run.

[envy887]

NASA will now have post-splashdown press conferences for CRS2 missions:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1489648707897372676

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1489648749496487938

Right thing to do IMO. NASA in particular and the US space program in general have long distinguished and prided themselves in their transparency. This has also greatly aided them, building up an image few other organizations in the world can match up to, and attracting talent that otherwise might not be inspired to follow a path "to the stars", not to mention funding. While these events can be "boring" and routine, at least comparatively to others, they are nevertheless amazing in their own right - plus routine ops are also a sight to behold. How many people stare at construction sites, harbors, railways or logistics centers all around the world spontaneously when they get a chance?

Regarding the beancounting of "cost of deploying broadcast assets", it's certainly cheaper to shut off the whole thing and go home after switching off the lights. With a slightly wider vision, it's a negligible investment that will be amortized in no time.

Which is the right thing to do? NASA is only going to do press conferences, they are not going to livestream the cargo returns.

[Redclaws]

Also, government entities are not households, and the zero-sum mentality actually hurts what they are able to accomplish.

Governments are not households and I agree with the idea that the “household budget” mentality is harmful when applied to them.  Government *entities*, in the sense of specific departments or programs, however, often have even less budgetary flexibility than a household.  They generally *cannot* take on debt or (often, though not always) cannot take from next year for this one (something most households can use temporary debt to do).

NASA really does have a mostly fixed pile of money and it’s in many ways *more* fixed and *less* flexible than a household budget.

[spacenut]

Getting rid of SLS would free up billions of dollars to actually get things done in space.  We already have rockets that can do the Artemis program without SLS. 

[edzieba]

Getting rid of SLS would free up billions of dollars to actually get things done in space.  We already have rockets that can do the Artemis program without SLS.

NASA does not have budget flexibility. If Congress stops funding SLS, that means SLS goes. It does not mean Congress will be funding any other programmes at NASA (or elsewhere). And it will 100% absolutely not mean NASA has an SLS-sized pool of 'extra budget' to distribute at the whims of NASA, because NASA's funding does not work that way.

[eeergo]

Which is the right thing to do? NASA is only going to do press conferences, they are not going to livestream the cargo returns.

More transparency and technical openness is the right thing. If one were forced to choose, I believe it's undebatable a press conference is more cost-effective and informative than livestreaming of the event itself, although having both would be super IMO.

Getting rid of SLS would free up billions of dollars to actually get things done in space.  We already have rockets that can do the Artemis program without SLS. 

Wrong, not on topic and not related to the CRS coverage discussion at hand - thanks.

[yg1968]

Another 6 CRS2 missions for SpaceX:
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1507388386297876481