NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[yg1968]

Here is a useful chart from the OIG report:

[envy887]

What were the per-kg costs for Shuttle delivering cargo payload again? Anyone know?

I join your question and ask how does shuttle compare to 7 crew and 20 ton cargo commercials?

The Shuttle could not deliver 20,000 kg of pressurized upmass to ISS. A fully loaded MPLM held more like 13,000 kg of cargo.

Shuttle also could not support 7 crew member rotations, since it could not stay docked for 6 months. Crew rotations were limited to the number of Soyuz seats available.

More details are in the attached study.

[ncb1397]

The relevant paragraph.

"Under the existing CRS contracts awarded in 2008, Orbital ATK and SpaceX will deliver an estimated 93,800 kilograms of cargo to the ISS over 31 missions for a total cost of $5.93 billion. With the CRS-2 contracts, those two companies and Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) will transport 87,900 kilograms to the station on 21 missions for a projected cost of $6.31 billion."

CRS-1 average mission cost was $191M compared with $300M for CRS-2. Per kg costs are an eye watering $63,200/kg for CRS-1 and $71,800/kg for CRS-2.

So just to be completely clear here the payload has gone down 6.28% and the price has gone up 6.4% over 10 years.
But that $/Kg cost is 13.6% higher, an annual "inflation rate " of 1.283%
While US inflation had <1% inflation in 2014 and 2015 most of those years had annual inflation rates of > 1.5%
My issue was I thought the original contract award was very generous, if you didn't hand most of it out in the form of shareholder dividends.

If CRS-1 spanned 2010-2020 and CRS-2 Spans 2020-2024. The distance between the midpoints of 2015 of 2022 would be 7 years. The annualized inflation rate would be 1.8%.

[yg1968]

Another interesting chart with the CRS2 options:

[woods170]

Looks like there will be 21 CRS2 missions:

By the end of 2017, NASA had ordered 8 CRS-2 missions that followed this strategy; however, it is unclear whether the Agency will continue this pattern for the remaining 13 CRS-2 missions.

21 CRS-2 missions in case ISS ends in 2024. If ISS is extended to 2028 the number will be 37 missions. The really juicy figures are on pages 19 and 21 of the report.

[yg1968]

Looks like there will be 21 CRS2 missions:

By the end of 2017, NASA had ordered 8 CRS-2 missions that followed this strategy; however, it is unclear whether the Agency will continue this pattern for the remaining 13 CRS-2 missions.

21 CRS-2 missions in case ISS ends in 2024. If ISS is extended to 2028 the number will be 37 missions. The really juicy figures are on pages 19 and 21 of the report.

I just saw that, here is the full quote from the OIG:

Using current flight cadence projections, at least three missions could be competed through the CRS-2 contract’s existing competition requirements or the On-Ramp clause prior to the Station’s potential retirement in 2024. However, if the ISS is extended through 2028, NASA will have the opportunity to compete up to 19 additional cargo missions if four missions per year are assumed.

[yg1968]

Some interesting stuff on DC:

Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

[envy887]

Some interesting stuff on DC:

Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).

[rayleighscatter]

Some interesting stuff on DC:

Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).

Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

Ariane and HII-B should both be able to loft DC as well.

[yg1968]

More on DC:

Sierra Nevada’s plan to build a single Dream Chaser spacecraft for CRS-2 missions is a single point-of-failure that represents substantial technical and schedule risks for the ISS Program.[69] During a visit to Sierra Nevada in June 2017, company officials told us they had no plans to build a second Dream Chaser. In August 2017, ISS Program officials said Sierra Nevada was considering building a second Dream Chaser to be completed by 2021, but no decision had been made as of October 2017. In the event of a failure, Sierra Nevada officials told us in June 2017 that a second spacecraft could be built from spare parts without additional costs to NASA.

[69] For the first CRS-2 mission, the Dream Chaser will be required to demonstrate additional orbital maneuvers before approaching the ISS. Other cargo vehicles such as the Cygnus, European cargo spacecraft, and Japanese cargo spacecraft were allowed to berth with the ISS on their maiden flight after performing similar maneuvers.

[envy887]

Some interesting stuff on DC:

Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).

Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

Ariane and HII-B should both be able to loft DC as well.

Ariane 5 is not in that price range; Ariane 64 is expected to be, but would NASA accept a launch from a foreign facility for CRS-2?

[Coastal Ron]

Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

You are correct that the standard fairing may not work for Dream Chaser. But Musk recently said that stretched fairings can be an option - I wonder if that was a public appeal to Sierra Nevada?

[yg1968]

Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

You are correct that the standard fairing may not work for Dream Chaser. But Musk recently said that stretched fairings can be an option - I wonder if that was a public appeal to Sierra Nevada?

Not that I don't believe you but do you have a reference for that?

[envy887]

Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

You are correct that the standard fairing may not work for Dream Chaser. But Musk recently said that stretched fairings can be an option - I wonder if that was a public appeal to Sierra Nevada?

Not that I don't believe you but do you have a reference for that?

Here:

Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963095860060934144

It would be pretty funny to see BFR launch DC...

[yg1968]

Some interesting stuff on DC:

Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).

Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

Ariane and HII-B should both be able to loft DC as well.

In their recent interview to Space News, the Ozmen (the owners of of SNC) specifically mentioned Blue Origin as well. They also said that a foreign launcher was possible under CRS2.

[envy887]

Some interesting stuff on DC:

Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).

Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

Ariane and HII-B should both be able to loft DC as well.

In their recent interview to Space News, the Ozmen (the owners of of SNC) specifically mentioned Blue Origin as well. They also said that a foreign launcher was possible under CRS2.

Do you mean in this article: http://spacenews.com/why-sierra-nevadas-owners-are-betting-big-on-dream-chaser/

I don't see anything about foreign launches.

They do say

We are working with many launch providers and they are coming up with very affordable new launch vehicles in the 2021 timeframe.

I'd read that as Vulcan and New Glenn. A64 and H3 are both expected in that timeframe, though.

[Coastal Ron]

Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

You are correct that the standard fairing may not work for Dream Chaser. But Musk recently said that stretched fairings can be an option - I wonder if that was a public appeal to Sierra Nevada?

Not that I don't believe you but do you have a reference for that?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963095860060934144

Elon Musk:
Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected.

[yg1968]

Do you mean in this article: http://spacenews.com/why-sierra-nevadas-owners-are-betting-big-on-dream-chaser/

I don't see anything about foreign launches.

They do say

We are working with many launch providers and they are coming up with very affordable new launch vehicles in the 2021 timeframe.

I'd read that as Vulcan and New Glenn. A64 and H3 are both expected in that timeframe, though.

Yes but there was also this article, a couple of days later:

http://spacenews.com/sierra-nevada-weighing-options-for-launching-future-dream-chaser-missions/

He [Sirangelo] noted that there are no requirements under its NASA contract that require those cargo missions to fly on U.S. vehicles, citing NASA’s use of European and Japanese cargo vehicles to resupply the ISS. “We think it’s certainly feasible,” he said, adding that there was interest in launching Dream Chaser on vehicles outside the U.S.

[Robotbeat]

Some interesting stuff on DC:

Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).

Droneship-recovered Block 5 should have equivalent performance to 5-SRB Atlas V.

Fairing size may be fine with fairing mods already in the pipeline.

[Steven Pietrobon]

The Shuttle could not deliver 20,000 kg of pressurized upmass to ISS. A fully loaded MPLM held more like 13,000 kg of cargo.

Assuming $500M for a Shuttle launch, that works out to $38,500/kg.