Author Topic: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services  (Read 77911 times)

Offline pochimax

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • spain
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Draft RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #140 on: 11/09/2019 08:35 pm »
It seems that the bus is different (square instead of exagonal). Maybe a Maxar one?
Why do you think bigger solar paneles are needed? I suppose PPE must deal with the whole Gateway mass.
A lunar cargo (8 Tm) could need less powerful ion engines (not AEPS), isn't it?

Anyway I was only speculating.

Offline pochimax

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • spain
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: Draft RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #141 on: 11/09/2019 08:47 pm »
Also take into account it appears to be some like a 15 feet derived module (cylindrical part) and Starliner is also 15 feet diameter. So the dark grey cone could be a CST-100 derived module, for sample return.
Just speculating, again.

Online GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1762
  • Likes Given: 1153
Re: Draft RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #142 on: 11/21/2019 04:30 pm »
Looking for an update on this RFP.
In August it was said that one or more proposals would be awarded before the end of the year.

Is there comprehensive information on who all is bidding and what that is?

From this thread and other places I can see a few:
1. Boeing cargo module - renders but no details
2. Northrup Grumman - another Cygnus derivative
3. SNC "Shooting star" - best I can tell its just the expendable cargo module that attaches to Dream Chaser, not DC itself

And then??

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16169
  • Liked: 6314
  • Likes Given: 2742
Re: Draft RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #143 on: 11/22/2019 08:38 pm »
Here is the updated link for the RFP:
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/ebc79e378b0ce146e91f81c121eb5668/view?keywords=80KSC019R0002&sort=-relevance&index=&is_active=true&page=1

It seems that the proposals were due October 16th.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2020 01:50 am by yg1968 »

Offline HeartofGold2030

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • England
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #144 on: 12/09/2019 06:00 pm »
Does anybody know when the contracts for logistics services are going to be announced? I heard a while back that it was supposed to happen before the year’s end...

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16169
  • Liked: 6314
  • Likes Given: 2742
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #145 on: 03/27/2020 07:07 pm »
SpaceX wins the first award with its Dragon XL. See the dedicated thread on Dragon XL:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50467.0

See also Chis B.'s article and related thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50468.0
« Last Edit: 03/27/2020 07:11 pm by yg1968 »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36934
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 21542
  • Likes Given: 11085
Re: Draft RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #146 on: 03/27/2020 10:29 pm »
Hi,

now that SpaceX has confirmed Falcon Heavy as its launcher for Gateway cargo services....

I wonder if, for Dragon cargoes, it is needed (FH) to be fully expendable, partially reusable or fully reusable?

I have no clue.

Thanks for your answers (elaborated)
Probably reusable. Expendable can do like 17-20 tons TLI.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1762
  • Likes Given: 1153
Re: Draft RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #147 on: 03/28/2020 12:43 am »
Hi,

now that SpaceX has confirmed Falcon Heavy as its launcher for Gateway cargo services....

I wonder if, for Dragon cargoes, it is needed (FH) to be fully expendable, partially reusable or fully reusable?

I have no clue.

Thanks for your answers (elaborated)
Probably reusable. Expendable can do like 17-20 tons TLI.

I am still hung up on the caption on the NASA release that the Dragon XL separates in high earth orbit. If that is taken literally it would mean Dragon XL completes TLI.

I know with F9 a hypergolic 3rd stage isn't a good trade due to the low mass of F9 US, but maybe for FH there would be sufficiently low staging velocity to catch all 3 cores?

Also if one wanted to leverage development of this cargo craft for HLS it would make sense to develop a vehicle with greater propulsive capabilities.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2020 12:45 am by GWH »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36934
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 21542
  • Likes Given: 11085
Re: Draft RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #148 on: 03/28/2020 01:14 am »
Hi,

now that SpaceX has confirmed Falcon Heavy as its launcher for Gateway cargo services....

I wonder if, for Dragon cargoes, it is needed (FH) to be fully expendable, partially reusable or fully reusable?

I have no clue.

Thanks for your answers (elaborated)
Probably reusable. Expendable can do like 17-20 tons TLI.

I am still hung up on the caption on the NASA release that the Dragon XL separates in high earth orbit. If that is taken literally it would mean Dragon XL completes TLI.

I know with F9 a hypergolic 3rd stage isn't a good trade due to the low mass of F9 US, but maybe for FH there would be sufficiently low staging velocity to catch all 3 cores?

Also if one wanted to leverage development of this cargo craft for HLS it would make sense to develop a vehicle with greater propulsive capabilities.
I suspect it may be possible for HLS to make the trip with a 3 core recovery FH. The caveat being, of course, that the center core recovery has been sketchy every time so far.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16169
  • Liked: 6314
  • Likes Given: 2742
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #149 on: 04/02/2020 04:44 pm »
There is some additionnal information this week, it seems that SpaceX will be receiving $76,824 for some work.

Quote from: Contract Action
Action Obligation:   
  Current $76,824.00
  Total $76,824.00

Base And Exercised Options Value:   
  Current $0.00
  Total $7,000,000,000.00

Base and All Options Value (Total Contract Value):   
  Current $0.00
  Total $7,000,000,000.00

Fee Paid for Use of IDV: $0.00

https://www.fpds.gov/common/jsp/LaunchWebPage.jsp?command=execute&requestid=106019718&version=1.5


« Last Edit: 04/02/2020 04:53 pm by yg1968 »

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3373
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1496
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #150 on: 04/08/2020 08:06 pm »
Source selection statement [redacted] has been posted today, copy attached.

Proposals received from:

The Boeing Company (Boeing)
Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems (NGIS)
Sierra Nevada Corporation, Space Systems (SNC)
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX)

https://beta.sam.gov/opp/51cf8e1fc2ac48279834a0cce70f8622/view

Online GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1762
  • Likes Given: 1153
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #151 on: 04/08/2020 08:33 pm »
Huh. Lots of redacted parts about the proposals not selected and what those specific weaknesses were.

I was hoping to learn about more about what each proposal was, but I guess that isn't the point of this document.

SpaceX was said to be the least expensive than any of the proposals. SNC in 2nd, NGIS in 3rd place for pricing - although both noted as signifigantly higher than SpaceX.
Boeing's price had issues with the contract terms - "Boeing's proposed schedule significantly exceeded the cumulative percentage of payment allowed".
 
Quote
The SEB was unable to determine whether Boeing's proposed price was reasonable given its inaccurate conditional assumption and exceptions to the contract terms.

Notes also that SpaceX's proposal can perform fast or slow transit within the same configuration.

Rating was SpaceX scored the highest for mission suitability, NGIS second and Boeing dead last.

All in all it sounds like SpaceX really rocked off Bowersox's socks.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • Home
  • Liked: 905
  • Likes Given: 204
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #152 on: 04/08/2020 08:53 pm »
Quote
Additionally, SpaceX could have been clearer in stating its launch vehicle’s performance capability, especially since this configuration has not yet flown and thus, performance margins for lifting its Dragon XL are uncertain.

Even NASA is confused by Falcon Heavy performance numbers.

Stating that "this configuration has not yet flown" suggests Falcon Heavy will be expending the center core?
« Last Edit: 04/08/2020 08:53 pm by DreamyPickle »

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • USA
  • Liked: 3241
  • Likes Given: 100
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #153 on: 04/08/2020 09:08 pm »
Seems certain that a second provider will have to be selected later on, especially if Gateways grander future plans pan out (multiple additional modules, permanent habitation, multiple landings per year). From this, I still expect SNC to win the second slot. Price was the highest-rated factor, and they're the next-best option there. And the points they lost were largely from Dream Chaser having not yet done an ISS mission, but by the time this onramp happens that should be solved (while Northrop is unlikely to have reduced their risk much in that time, since Cygnus is already thoroughly proven)

Online TrevorMonty

The Cygnus seem to have some weakness in micrometorite protect here. Otherwise well proven design which is no surprise, same goes for their pricing.
Seems SpaceX has learnt lot from CRS1 and applied it to internal layout of XL Dragon.

For LEO missions the SS cargo bay could allow SpaceX to recover XL Dragon and return it to earth.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16169
  • Liked: 6314
  • Likes Given: 2742
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #155 on: 04/08/2020 10:58 pm »
Here are some of the highlights from the Selection Statement:

Quote from: pp. 19-20 of the Selection Statement
SpaceX’s technical proposal contained five weaknesses I consider to be minor in nature and correctable.

First, its design approach would locate the service section of the Dragon XL between the pressurized volume and the Gateway, meaning crew would have to translate through the service section, which is mechanically active. (Weakness #5). There is a small possibility that human health and performance standards, such as acoustics environment, would require mitigations if they are at an unacceptable level.

Further, SpaceX, like NGIS and SNC, inadequately defined what will likely be a new hardware interface between its launch vehicle and cargo vehicle. (Weakness #1).

Additionally, SpaceX could have been clearer in stating its launch vehicle’s performance capability, especially since this configuration has not yet flown and thus, performance margins for lifting its Dragon XL are uncertain. (Weakness #2).

There were also two minor technical weaknesses regarding a drag-through duct for ventilation between Gateway and Dragon XL (Weakness #3) and internet communications protocol (Weakness #4).

However, because these weaknesses are minor and correctable, I do not consider them to be an obstacle to SpaceX’s successful contract performance.

Quote from: p.23
[SpaceX’s] unpressurized cargo capability is also the best among all offerors and is approximately double of what is required.

Quote from: p. 24
I note the RFP allows me to award GLS contracts to more than one offeror; however, given the evaluation results and my assessment of those results, I have determined awarding more than one GLS contract at this time is not in the Government’s best interest. Furthermore, the on-ramp clause in the RFP will allow these offerors to submit GLS proposals in the future.
« Last Edit: 04/08/2020 11:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6415
  • Liked: 9047
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #156 on: 04/09/2020 04:43 am »
The Cygnus seem to have some weakness in micrometorite protect here.

I don't think that's a weakness in the hardware, the weakness is that they used the wrong micrometeorite environment in their proposal, they used ISS/LEO environment instead of Gateway environment. (side note: for a big contract like this, it's surprising that a lot of proposal mistakes were made, NGIS forgot to submit a Safety and Health Plan, Boeing messed up the pricing, etc)

Cygnus (or Exploration Cygnus as they called it) does have a hardware problem, but we don't know what it is since it's all redacted, but it sounds serious:

Quote
This is a significant concern that could ultimately lead to significant degradation (or even total failure) of the Exploration Cygnus, the launch vehicle, or both.

Seems launch related, maybe vibration?

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6415
  • Liked: 9047
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #157 on: 04/09/2020 05:01 am »
Company 1 has significant weakness because they don't allow enough NASA insight and have problem with independent verification of their software.

Company 2 has strength because they offer to let 3rd party verify their software as part of the baseline price.

If you ask me to guess which is which, I would say company 1 is SpaceX and company 2 is Boeing, but the reality is exactly the opposite, totally not what I was expecting.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11564
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 15849
  • Likes Given: 10139
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #158 on: 04/09/2020 07:15 am »
Company 1 has significant weakness because they don't allow enough NASA insight and have problem with independent verification of their software.

Company 2 has strength because they offer to let 3rd party verify their software as part of the baseline price.

If you ask me to guess which is which, I would say company 1 is SpaceX and company 2 is Boeing, but the reality is exactly the opposite, totally not what I was expecting.

For an agile software company like SpaceX it is business as usual to have their software reviewed by third parties. Not so for Boeing. Otherwise the glaring software mistakes on Starliner would have been caught much earlier.
« Last Edit: 04/09/2020 12:40 pm by woods170 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11564
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 15849
  • Likes Given: 10139
Re: Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services
« Reply #159 on: 04/09/2020 07:37 am »
Source selection statement on why Boeing was eliminated from award consideration:

Quote from: Kenneth D. Bowersox
As a preliminary matter, I note that Boeing received the lowest adjectival rating and score under the Mission Suitability factor amongst the four offers while also submitting the highest price. Particularly within the Technical Approach subfactor (the most important within the Mission Suitability factor), Boeing’s proposal was the lowest rated of the four offers, with the inadequacy of its cargo stowage design identified as a significant weakness. I further note that Boeing took several exceptions to the RFP and predicated its fixed price on several key assumptions/exceptions. This made it impossible for the SEB to determine whether Boeing’s offered price was reasonable. From a Past Performance standpoint, Boeing did very well, having earned a High Level of Confidence rating (along with NGIS and SpaceX). However, Boeing’s High rating cannot overcome its Mission Suitability ratings and the significant issues present in its Price proposal. That is, since Boeing’s proposal was the highest priced and the lowest rated under the Mission Suitability factor, while additionally providing a conditional fixed price, I have decided to eliminate Boeing from further award consideration. This offeror’s evaluation results and my assessment thereof, combined with the relative order of importance of the RFP’s evaluation factors, have led me to conclude that Boeing is not competitive for award.


As a result, only the three remaining offerers were up for award consideration.

How the mighty have fallen...

As I mentioned in another thread: Boeing will have to take many steps of improvement before it returns to its former greatness.
« Last Edit: 04/09/2020 07:41 am by woods170 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0