NASA Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services: RFI for Round 2

[Rebel44]

Is there any reason for a hard cap of five flights each, or do they just need to be recertified?

IIRC, 5 is current certification - not a hard limit.

[DanClemmensen]

Is there any reason for a hard cap of five flights each, or do they just need to be recertified?

The number five stuck in my head from something I read two months ago or so, but my memory isn't very good. Unless the number five is too high, it really doesn't matter. A Starship mission will be cheaper because of the Crew Dragon refurbishment costs, so Crew Dragon will retire except for any missions that are already contracted. And of course I couldn't possibly make any mistakes whatsoever with these predictions. 

Yes, 5 was mentioned during a recent press conference.

I also recall a comment (by SpaceX?) that if they refurbish after 5, they will convert the capsule to Cargo Dragon. But the same argument applies for Cargo Dragon even more. They have 2 active and one under construction, so at least fifteen flights of which they have used three. At three flights per year, the twelve remaining flights will run out in late 2025, but by then they should have a cargo version of Starship that will be much cheaper to operate and which can carry far, far more cargo if NASA qualifies Starship for ISS docking. Furthermore once Starship is crew qualified and ISS-qualified, one Starship flight will handle both crew and cargo at the same time. Taken together, this would call for a grand total of two Starship flights to ISS per year to cover all Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo. Cost to SpaceX is the opportunity cost of about 400 days per year for the SSs docked at ISS. The number of years is in question due to ISS retirement (maybe four years starting in 2026) but the same logistics apply for other space stations. Given the low number of ISS flights, is it even worth it for SpaceX? NASA might need to pay a bunch to get their attention.

[yg1968]

Concerning CCSTS, another piece of the puzzle is that it is possible that this round will also cover missions to the commercial LEO destinations. See below for more on this.

McAlister said (at 15-16 minutes of the briefing) that the providers combined contribution is over 60% (so NASA's contribution is less than 40%). He said at 16-17 minutes that both Axiom and the other providers announced today are part of commercial LEO destinations' efforts. Axiom's award is the Commercial Destinations-ISS (or CDISS); the awards of today are the Commercial Destinations Free Flyer (CDFF).

Angela Hart said that NASA wants at least one provider for the next phase (the services phase).

NG said that its initial capability is for 4 astronauts but that it could be extended to 8 astronauts if the market is there.

At 50-51 minutes, McAlister said that for Phase 1, NASA assumed that the Commercial LEO destination providers would be responsible for transportation of crew and cargo but that they haven't decided if that is what they will do for Phase 2 of the program (Phase 2 is the services phase). But he added that either way, NASA will require the transportation of crew to be a certified system and therefore the commercial crew program has a long life ahead of them. He added that by the time that these free flyers are ready, maybe there will be new certified systems (in addition to the ones from Boeing and SpaceX).

At 52 minutes, Nanoracks and NG said that they haven't yet decided who will be their crew transportation partners, they have talked to both companies but no decision has been made.

At 59 minutes, Robin Givens said that every agency agreed to extend the ISS to 2030 in September but that they have to go through their respective governments to approve it for it to be official. They are kind of waiting for the US to go first (i.e., getting approval). Starting to talk to the international partners as to how it's going to work for the commercial LEO destinations habitats. The companies said that they are talking to the space agencies but that the specifics will depend on how NASA wants to do it.

Concerning what was said at that press conference, it got me thinking that NASA might be considering if it shouldn't bring its own commercial crew system (byoccs...) to the commercial habitats. The advantage of doing that is that it ensures that SpaceX doesn't become the only commercial crew provider.

A second thing is that NASA said previously that it needs 2 astronauts full-time in LEO for these commercial habitats. If each stay on the commercial habitats is for a period of 6 months that means 4 astronauts per year. Presumably that means two commercial crew flights per year (as it is now). The other two non-NASA astronauts on these commercial crew missions could be internationals.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1483814626429218827

https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1483814479892779008

[yg1968]

See slide 5 of this presentation:

• CCP is pursuing acquisition of up to three (3) additional PCMs from SpaceX in the near-term to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. capability for human access to the space station through 2024
• CCP is evaluating options to competitively purchase additional PCMs required for ISS crew rotation through 2030

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_status_to_nac_january_2022_draft_rev_4_2022-01-18_23.12.18_1.pdf

[yg1968]

The Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) for the 3 extra crew Dragon missions (which is attached to the post linked below) mentions in several places the October 20th 2021 RFI on Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services (CCSTS):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.msg2348645#msg2348645

I am encouraged that NASA will still push forward with the CCSTS RFI efforts. NASA stated the following concerning the RFI:

11. FAR 6.303-2(b)(11) – A statement of actions, if any, the Agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required:

NASA will continue to examine the market in the future for alternative solutions or new sources before executing any subsequent acquisitions for the same requirements. NASA will take into consideration information received in response to the [October 20th CCSTS] RFI when developing an acquisition strategy for any procurement of additional Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services.

[yg1968]

It seems that there will be no other round for commercial crew. NASA will sole-source commercial crew transportation services to SpaceX. NASA said that it considered responses to the October 20th (CCTS) RFI when deciding upon this sole-source acquisition approach.

https://twitter.com/NASAProcurement/status/1532067026147364865

See also this post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.msg2373563#msg2373563

[DanClemmensen]

It seems that there will be no other round for commercial crew. NASA will sole-source commercial crew transportation services to SpaceX. NASA said that it considered responses to the October 20th (CCTS) RFI when deciding upon this sole-source acquisition approach.

Does this mean that NASA will not use Starliner for any flights after the Starliner-6? If so, why make such a decision now?

[Robotbeat]

It seems that there will be no other round for commercial crew. NASA will sole-source commercial crew transportation services to SpaceX. NASA said that it considered responses to the October 20th (CCTS) RFI when deciding upon this sole-source acquisition approach.

Does this mean that NASA will not use Starliner for any flights after the Starliner-6? If so, why make such a decision now?

Because ISS will be gone after Starliner-6? Starliner CFT probably 2023 timeframe (if everything goes well), then one crewed Starliner mission per year means the last will occur in 2029. ISS will last *optimistically* until 2028 or sometime in 2030.

NASA needs to procure flights now. Starliner has still not completed certification and is so delayed that now even with the original awarded flights, at the typical one flight per year per provider, ISS will be done before another Starliner will need to be ordered. And it'd make no sense to award the second mission per year also to Starliner, as that'd mean no backup.

SpaceX is the only other crew provider besides Starliner, so they'd have to be chosen. Not only that, but they're also the only one already certified.

...which doesn't mean Starliner won't get another mission ever. There's Orbital Reef, plus Gateway/Artemis, if NASA wants to retire Orion and go with commercial providers for later missions.

[Mark K]

Just a thought, - is this decision NASA foretelling the end of ISS fairly soon after the end of the standard missions?
NASA doesn't think there will be a whole lot of flights after the contracts are fulfilled?
Any Commercial Station or similar would be under a new program, I would guess.

[Robotbeat]

Just a thought, - is this decision NASA foretelling the end of ISS fairly soon after the end of the standard missions?
NASA doesn't think there will be a whole lot of flights after the contracts are fulfilled?
Any Commercial Station or similar would be under a new program, I would guess.

I mean, it's going to be pretty old by the time Starliner-6 flies, sometime in 2029 or so. ISS is currently *tentatively* extended to 2030, at least in principle and assuming relations with Russia don't get even worse.

ISS has a limited lifespan. The constant thermal cycling fatigues the metal, and the station structure has already shown signs of problems. The first module went up in 1998. 32 years is quite a long run for a space station. More than 3 times as long as Mir.

[yg1968]

It seems that there will be no other round for commercial crew. NASA will sole-source commercial crew transportation services to SpaceX. NASA said that it considered responses to the October 20th (CCTS) RFI when deciding upon this sole-source acquisition approach.

Does this mean that NASA will not use Starliner for any flights after the Starliner-6? If so, why make such a decision now?

According to my estimates, NASA now has enough missions to last until June 30th 2030. Unless, they are extra Atlas Vs, I don't think that there will be a Boeing-7 mission. I don't think that NASA will certify Vulcan for the last remaining mission in December 2030 (assuming that the extension of ISS is until the end of 2030). 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.msg2373573#msg2373573

[yg1968]

Just a thought, - is this decision NASA foretelling the end of ISS fairly soon after the end of the standard missions?
NASA doesn't think there will be a whole lot of flights after the contracts are fulfilled?
Any Commercial Station or similar would be under a new program, I would guess.

The ISS is extended until 2030. There is supposed to be an overlap between ISS and the Commercial LEO Destinations between 2028 and 2030. The Commercial LEO Destinations providers will decide which companies will transport cargo and crew to their habitats (but they must use a certified system). NASA is encouraging companies to have redundant crew transportation systems.

[JayWee]

According to my estimates, NASA now has enough missions to last until June 30th 2030. Unless, they are extra Atlas Vs, I don't think that there will be a Boeing-7 mission. I don't think that NASA will certify Vulcan for the last remaining mission in December 2030 (assuming that the extension of ISS is until the end of 2030). 

Hmm, launching Atlas V in 2029 will be fun. Would make much more sense to switch it to Vulcan tbh.

[Robotbeat]

According to my estimates, NASA now has enough missions to last until June 30th 2030. Unless, they are extra Atlas Vs, I don't think that there will be a Boeing-7 mission. I don't think that NASA will certify Vulcan for the last remaining mission in December 2030 (assuming that the extension of ISS is until the end of 2030). 

Hmm, launching Atlas V in 2029 will be fun. Would make much more sense to switch it to Vulcan tbh.

Will it? Let’s not count our chickens before they’re hatched for Vulcan. It has no flight history at the moment. It’ll also likely take years to integrate abort systems into Vulcan and ensure the weird aerodynamics that required an aero skirt and other mods to the Starliner/Atlas stack won’t be needed.

I think Atlas V is still the best choice in 2029 unless they need several flights.

[DanClemmensen]

According to my estimates, NASA now has enough missions to last until June 30th 2030. Unless, they are extra Atlas Vs, I don't think that there will be a Boeing-7 mission. I don't think that NASA will certify Vulcan for the last remaining mission in December 2030 (assuming that the extension of ISS is until the end of 2030). 

Hmm, launching Atlas V in 2029 will be fun. Would make much more sense to switch it to Vulcan tbh.

Will it? Let’s not count our chickens before they’re hatched for Vulcan. It has no flight history at the moment. It’ll also likely take years to integrate abort systems into Vulcan and ensure the weird aerodynamics that required an aero skirt and other mods to the Starliner/Atlas stack won’t be needed.

I think Atlas V is still the best choice in 2029 unless they need several flights.

ULA has 23 remaining Atlas Vs and no way to build more. All 23 are already allocated to specific customer flights: seven for Starliner, nine for Kuiper, and seven "other". All of the "others" will be launched before Q2 2023. Thus, if Starliner needs more flights after Starliner-6 in 2028, they must get them from Kuiper. But most or all of the Kuiper flights will have flown by then.

[Robotbeat]

I would consider betting money that Starliner-6 won’t fly until 2029.

[DanClemmensen]

I would consider betting money that Starliner-6 won’t fly until 2029.

Note: This clueless external analysis may not match reality. A ULA person may wish to comment.
Whatever. If Starliner-1 flies in  Q4 2023, then Starliner-6 will fly in Q4 2028. A half-year slip won't change things much. The very last Atlas V will either be Starliner-6 or Kuiper-9 and will fly in 2028 or 2029, and there will be three or fewer Atlas V missions per year in the last years, so maintaining Atlas V support infrastructure and expertise will be expensive.

[Robotbeat]

Starliner CFT probably won’t fly until well into 2023, and then Starliner 1 will fly in 2024, etc. That seems both likely due to how long such things usually take and also how you would operate to spread out the remaining Starliner launches through the end of ISS, enabling full backup as long as possible without needing to do a new launch vehicle right at the end. So again, I suspect Starliner 6 won’t fly until 2029.

[DanClemmensen]

Starliner CFT probably won’t fly until well into 2023, and then Starliner 1 will fly in 2024, etc. That seems both likely due to how long such things usually take and also how you would operate to spread out the remaining Starliner launches through the end of ISS, enabling full backup as long as possible without needing to do a new launch vehicle right at the end. So again, I suspect Starliner 6 won’t fly until 2029.

If CFT flies before about April 2023, I guess NASA could assign Starliner-1 to the November 2023 flight. There is no particular need for a 1-year gap between CFT and Starliner-1. Boeing has two Starliner capsules. The only constraint would be based on crew assignments: I assume the Starliner crew and the Crew Dragon crew would really like to know which crew is going to fly, and if NASA ever flies a Russian again, the Russians won't fly on Starliner until it has a longer flight history.