Given Deep Space Logistics vision to create a vibrant supply chain in deep space, please address the capabilities listed below that your company would be interested in providing. Describe in detail your company’s solution and provide a ROM [Rough Order of Magnitude] cost to support your anticipated solution. 1. other deep space destinations including cislunar orbits and lunar surface; 2. a dedicated delivery tug capability; 3. a rapid response delivery service; 4. other potential delivery services/solutions
Quote from: On Ramp GLS RFIGiven Deep Space Logistics vision to create a vibrant supply chain in deep space, please address the capabilities listed below that your company would be interested in providing. Describe in detail your company’s solution and provide a ROM [Rough Order of Magnitude] cost to support your anticipated solution. 1. other deep space destinations including cislunar orbits and lunar surface; 2. a dedicated delivery tug capability; 3. a rapid response delivery service; 4. other potential delivery services/solutionsRedundant, diverse, and competitive lunar cargo transport capabilities are all good, well, and probably necessary. But unless the agency imagines crew transport can be shoehorned under #4, there’s still no path here for addressing the Artemis program’s largest weakness in crew transport. A bunch of stuff accumulating at Gateway through a wider pipeline doesn’t do much good if only a few astronauts are still arriving through the Orion/SLS straw every couple years.
One day SLS and Orion will be replaced by a public private partnership but not now. But that doesn't mean that BLEO public private partnerships aren't worth pursuing. The alternative would be to have government owned Gateway Logistics which would be worse. Besides having a cargo capability from Earth to NRHO is a step in the right direction much like commercial cargo to ISS was a precursor to commercial crew to ISS but I don't need to tell you about that...
Totally Agree. All "redundancy" for Artimis stuff means is letting more companies get in on the money. There cannot be redundancy as long as EVERYTHING revolves around SLS/Orion which CANNOT have redundancy due to the 10s of billions of dollars they each cost.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 04/05/2022 10:16 pmTotally Agree. All "redundancy" for Artimis stuff means is letting more companies get in on the money. There cannot be redundancy as long as EVERYTHING revolves around SLS/Orion which CANNOT have redundancy due to the 10s of billions of dollars they each cost.Partial redundancy is still a good thing. If your car's transmission breaks your screwed. That doesn't mean you shouldn't carry a spare tire. Similarly, having redundancy for other parts of Artemis is still a good idea, inspite of SLS/Orion being a single point of failure.
Gateway Logistics Services On-Ramp RFI (which was mentioned today by Jim Free at the Space Symposium):https://sam.gov/opp/15cb2c85b27440dcb7ab8fbc646ed282/view
1.Is your company interested in on-ramping to the GLS contract to provide Logistics Services as described in the original solicitation?2.Describe in detail your company’s capabilities, including a minimum and maximum range of cargo delivery capacity, optimized to your company’s capabilities, to provide Logistics Services. Describe significant development milestones necessary to demonstrate the capability as described in the original solicitation. Provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost to support your anticipated solution. If a solicitation is released, the Government anticipates that offerors exceeding the minimum pressurized and/or unpressurized upmass capabilities may be viewed more favorably.3.Describe new and/or innovative capabilities that your company may bring into service in the next five years that can significantly increase the pressurized and unpressurized cargo delivery capacity (mass and/or volume) while continuing to provide competitive pricing.4.If on-ramped, would your company be in a position to compete for the delivery of the Gateway External Robotic System (GERS) in the mid 2020’s as described in the original solicitation, Attachment 01, GLS SOW, Annex A. Provide a ROM cost and your anticipated solution.5.The Government recognizes outside the box solutions such as more than one launch to meet mission requirements. Provide alternative work plan(s) and milestone payment schedule(s) that offer mission solutions that minimize upfront costs to the Government for initial and standard Logistics Service missions.6.Since GLS solicitation release in 2019, are there are any pertinent and significant technical development activities, design reference missions, new/emerging product lines and/or partnerships that have allowed your company to reduce operating costs (design engineering/ hardware production)?7.Does your company have any specific recommendations, best practices, innovative approaches and/or lessons learned that have proved to be successful in minimizing the cost impact of future/pending technical requirement changes?8.Given Deep Space Logistics vision to create a vibrant supply chain in deep space, please address the capabilities listed below that your company would be interested in providing. Describe in detail your company’s solution and provide a ROM cost to support your anticipated solution. 1. other deep space destinations including cislunar orbits and lunar surface; 2. a dedicated delivery tug capability; 3. a rapid response delivery service; 4. other potential delivery services/solutions
2.2.24 ON-RAMP(a) The purpose of the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) on-ramp is (1) to ensure competition exists for future requirements not currently on contract, (2) to allow qualified new service providers the opportunity to provide services, and (3) for current contract providers to introduce new capabilities not available or identified at the time of the award of the initial contract.(b) In accordance with this clause, the original solicitation (as revised) shall remain open throughout the ordering period. The decision to request proposals under this clause will be solely at NASA’s discretion and will only occur after the action has been synopsized. When requested, new and incumbent providers will be allowed to submit proposals that may result in contract award(s) to new providers or the addition of capabilities to existing contracts.(c) The minimum contract requirements, the technical acceptability standards, evaluation factors, solicitation terms and conditions, price reasonableness, and basis for award shall remain in full force and effect for each new proposal. Upon award of each additional contract, the Government shall notify all present Contractors of the award, and the new Contractor shall thenceforth be eligible to compete with all present Contractors for the award of IDIQ task orders. (d) Existing contracts will be unaffected by the use of this On-Ramp provision and will remain active. Existing Contractor(s) may propose services consistent with the Instruction to Offerors of the “OnRamp” Request for Proposal, as revised. If the existing Contractor(s) chooses not to respond to the “OnRamp” RFP, they remain as a candidate for competition of future orders under the terms of the existing contract. If the existing Contractor(s) chooses to respond to the On-Ramp RFP but is not awarded a new contract in that competition, they remain as a candidate for competition of future orders under the terms of the existing contract. If the existing Contractor(s) chooses to respond to the On-Ramp RFP and are awarded additional service capabilities in that competition, their existing contract will be modified to incorporate the additional capabilities.(e) Expansion of Performance Capabilities. NASA reserves the right to expand the performance capabilities covered by the GLS contract, by properly soliciting offers from all interested sources capable of meeting the updated requirements as captured in a revised solicitation.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/06/2022 04:22 amOne day SLS and Orion will be replaced by a public private partnership but not now. But that doesn't mean that BLEO public private partnerships aren't worth pursuing. The alternative would be to have government owned Gateway Logistics which would be worse. Besides having a cargo capability from Earth to NRHO is a step in the right direction much like commercial cargo to ISS was a precursor to commercial crew to ISS but I don't need to tell you about that...I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing. I’m saying it doesn’t address the albatross around the program’s neck that will choke Artemis unless an effort is made to replace Orion/SLS sooner than later.
IF SpaceX are proposing Starship & wins this RFP (among a secondary provider if it happens), this will in some sense answer this quoted reply. Afterall this is IMO equivalent to CRS for ISS, and as we know from it the Commercial Crew came out...Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 04/06/2022 02:37 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 04/06/2022 04:22 amOne day SLS and Orion will be replaced by a public private partnership but not now. But that doesn't mean that BLEO public private partnerships aren't worth pursuing. The alternative would be to have government owned Gateway Logistics which would be worse. Besides having a cargo capability from Earth to NRHO is a step in the right direction much like commercial cargo to ISS was a precursor to commercial crew to ISS but I don't need to tell you about that...I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing. I’m saying it doesn’t address the albatross around the program’s neck that will choke Artemis unless an effort is made to replace Orion/SLS sooner than later.
<snip>Questions #3 ("more cargo") and #6 ("can you do cheaper now than in 2019"), together with the fact that they have not allowed SpaceX to proceed on their Dragon XL contract, kind of makes me think that they maybe are looking at if Dragon XL can be replaced by a hopefully cheaper Starship.
IF SpaceX are proposing Starship & wins this RFP (among a secondary provider if it happens), this will in some sense answer this quoted reply. Afterall this is IMO equivalent to CRS for ISS, and as we know from it the Commercial Crew came out...
Quote from: Alvian@IDN on 04/07/2022 02:43 amIF SpaceX are proposing Starship & wins this RFP (among a secondary provider if it happens), this will in some sense answer this quoted reply. Afterall this is IMO equivalent to CRS for ISS, and as we know from it the Commercial Crew came out...I'm not sure Starship makes sense for this. The concept of Dragon XL was a temporary Gateway module that would stay there for like 12 months. It would have more than just crew supplies, but also short/medium term experiments and other stuff - all of it automated (since all of Gateway will be WAY more automated than ISS). It would arrive and do alot of its stuff without any crew present. When its done, Dragon XL would be discarded (crash on moon, lunar orbit that degrades to solar orbit, or whatever). Anything sent for this RFP will be a 1 way trip and not reusable. Why not send something designed specifically for Gateway? Starship could launch a Dragon XL cheaply, which is always nice for spaceX.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 04/07/2022 02:17 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 04/07/2022 02:09 pmQuote from: Alvian@IDN on 04/07/2022 02:43 amIF SpaceX are proposing Starship & wins this RFP (among a secondary provider if it happens), this will in some sense answer this quoted reply. Afterall this is IMO equivalent to CRS for ISS, and as we know from it the Commercial Crew came out...I'm not sure Starship makes sense for this. The concept of Dragon XL was a temporary Gateway module that would stay there for like 12 months. It would have more than just crew supplies, but also short/medium term experiments and other stuff - all of it automated (since all of Gateway will be WAY more automated than ISS). It would arrive and do alot of its stuff without any crew present. When its done, Dragon XL would be discarded (crash on moon, lunar orbit that degrades to solar orbit, or whatever). Anything sent for this RFP will be a 1 way trip and not reusable. Why not send something designed specifically for Gateway? Starship could launch a Dragon XL cheaply, which is always nice for spaceX.A standard(?!) cargo Starship can deliver a customized CLS Gateway module to Gateway by using the usual(?!) depot refuelling scheme. It can deliver the fresh one and take away the empty for reuse. The cost savings from full reuse more than offset the cost of the tanker launches. The design, manufacture, and infrastructure for depot and tanker operations is already paid for.This same approach works for CRS to the ISS but does not need refuelling. What is a CLS Gateway module? I am guessing that you mean GLS (Gateway Logistic Services).
Quote from: deadman1204 on 04/07/2022 02:09 pmQuote from: Alvian@IDN on 04/07/2022 02:43 amIF SpaceX are proposing Starship & wins this RFP (among a secondary provider if it happens), this will in some sense answer this quoted reply. Afterall this is IMO equivalent to CRS for ISS, and as we know from it the Commercial Crew came out...I'm not sure Starship makes sense for this. The concept of Dragon XL was a temporary Gateway module that would stay there for like 12 months. It would have more than just crew supplies, but also short/medium term experiments and other stuff - all of it automated (since all of Gateway will be WAY more automated than ISS). It would arrive and do alot of its stuff without any crew present. When its done, Dragon XL would be discarded (crash on moon, lunar orbit that degrades to solar orbit, or whatever). Anything sent for this RFP will be a 1 way trip and not reusable. Why not send something designed specifically for Gateway? Starship could launch a Dragon XL cheaply, which is always nice for spaceX.A standard(?!) cargo Starship can deliver a customized CLS Gateway module to Gateway by using the usual(?!) depot refuelling scheme. It can deliver the fresh one and take away the empty for reuse. The cost savings from full reuse more than offset the cost of the tanker launches. The design, manufacture, and infrastructure for depot and tanker operations is already paid for.This same approach works for CRS to the ISS but does not need refuelling.
Can we PLEASE get away from starship solving LITERALLY every problem in the universe?
