ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[gongora]

Assuming SpaceX, Orbital, Boeing, SNC all bid then the downmass proposals would probably be: SpaceX 6 hour return on Dragon v2 or 24 hour return on Dragon v1; Boeing 6 hour return on CST-100; SNC 6 hour return on Dreamchaser; Orbital disposal with Cygnus.  So if NASA chooses 2 of them they are going to get cargo return (which is certain to be a requirement for one of the providers, Dragon seems to bring down as much as it takes up).

[OnWithTheShow]

SpaceX 6 hour return on Dragon v2 or 24 hour return on Dragon v1; Boeing 6 hour return on CST-100; SNC 6 hour return on Dreamchaser;

Why do you assume that CST-100 could provide a 6-hr handover and Cargo Dragon could not? Both are water landing and retrieval.

[Lars-J]

SpaceX 6 hour return on Dragon v2 or 24 hour return on Dragon v1; Boeing 6 hour return on CST-100; SNC 6 hour return on Dreamchaser;

Why do you assume that CST-100 could provide a 6-hr handover and Cargo Dragon could not? Both are water landing and retrieval.

No, CST-100 uses airbags to land on dry land.

[OnWithTheShow]

Of course you are right. Not sure what I was thinking. (Maybe of Orion?)

[gongora]

After a cursory look it seems that Dragon V1 would probably qualify after all, albeit on the low end of the pressurized upmass requirement?  Although I don't see a volume requirement in the blurb above, so that might be an issue.

The volume requirement I see is "2.1.1   A minimum usable pressurized cargo density of 65 Cargo Transfer Bag Equivalents (CTBE) per 1000 kg of pressurized cargo shall be used."  The only definition I could find for CTBE said it's .053m^3.  For minimum 2500kg upmass that would be about 8.6m^3 usable cargo volume if I did the math right.  So Dragon is probably about the minimum size (if the 10m^3 for Dragon is entire volume and you lose some around the edges from having rectangular cargo).

[joek]

Yes I noted that given the language for sure it could be awarded to SpaceX and someone who doesn't provide return capability. But could SpaceX be excluded even if no one else provides return capability. The disposal option is not consistent with seeking 24 hour and 6 hour express delivery of returned cargo. So, again I ask, has anyone seen clear language that suggests, as part of this RFP and its modifications, that some of the contracted services must be awarded to a company that provides a return option?

Part of the confusion appears to be due to mixing contractual constraints, requirements, and capabilities.  It's fairly simple to parse.

1. Required capabilities:
a) pressurized up
b) (i) pressurized disposal OR (ii) pressurized down (or both)
c) unpressurized up
d) unpressurized disposal
2. Optional capabilities:
a) Accelerated pressurized return (implies 1.b.ii)

No, SpaceX could not be summarily excluded because SpaceX satisfies all of the required capabilities.  However, that does not guarantee an award to SpaceX.

With regards to 1.b ... There is nothing in the solicitation that requires NASA to award a contract for anything other than pressurized return.  There is nothing in the solicitation that requires NASA to award a contract for anything other than pressurized disposal.  However, the probability of NASA awarding contracts that provide only for pressurized return or only for disposal is nil.

The pressurized disposal capability is not inconsistent with accelerated pressurized return.  Accelerated return is an optional capability.  That the capability to do both with a single vehicle and a single mission may not exisdt today is irrelevant from a contract perspective.

At this time, based on publicly known capabilities, only SpaceX meets all of the required capabilities.  OSC Cygnus does not, as it does not provide for unpressurized up or disposal.

However, also note that there is nothing in the solicitation that requires the contractor to perform all missions with the same vehicle or configuration.  For example, OSC might develop and qualify a variant of Cygnus that provides for unpressurized up and disposal.

[deltaV]

However, the probability of NASA awarding contracts that provide only for pressurized return or only for disposal is nil.

TL;DR: I agree that the probability of NASA awarding contracts for pressurized disposal only is essentially nil, but I disagree that the probability of NASA awarding contracts for pressurized return only is negligible.

A pressurized return vehicle can easily accomplish pressurized disposal missions by returning the trash to Earth and then using the existing Earth-based waste management infrastructure to dispose of the trash. Sure it's a bit inefficient to haul the unnecessary heat shield to the ISS, but inefficiency is not a crime. If NASA values having redundant pressurized return they could plausibly order two pressurized return vehicles. They might or might not develop a variant of one of the vehicles that's specialized for pressurized disposal (e.g. skip the heat shield) depending on how the ROI calculations work out.

[getitdoneinspace]

I have a question for those who are more knowledgeable than I about ISS trash. Why is there any need for "pressurized" disposal? Specifically, why does "pressurized" trash need to be placed within a "pressurized" spacecraft? Is it possible to simply place all disposal items within the Dragon trunk and simply release the trunk and all its contents for burn up in the atmosphere before reentry? I would think there could be a rather simple and inexpensive container, that could even maintain a pressure if needed, to hold trash "a trash can". This "trash can" could have two attachment points. The trash can be placed outside station, then grabbed with the arm, and then attached in the trunk. Seems like there is no reason to waste usable "pressurized" volume or mass for trash. Am I missing something? Obviously, if you have spacecraft leaving station that will burn up in the atmosphere it makes sense to take the current approach to trash day. But seems like trash day could be handled by any vehicle with an ability to carry the trash can to the dump (the atmosphere) instead of to someone else's home (the Earth). 

[Jim]

I have a question for those who are more knowledgeable than I about ISS trash. Why is there any need for "pressurized" disposal? Specifically, why does "pressurized" trash need to be placed within a "pressurized" spacecraft? Is it possible to simply place all disposal items within the Dragon trunk and simply release the trunk and all its contents for burn up in the atmosphere before reentry? I would think there could be a rather simple and inexpensive container, that could even maintain a pressure if needed, to hold trash "a trash can". This "trash can" could have two attachment points. The trash can be placed outside station, then grabbed with the arm, and then attached in the trunk. Seems like there is no reason to waste usable "pressurized" volume or mass for trash. Am I missing something? Obviously, if you have spacecraft leaving station that will burn up in the atmosphere it makes sense to take the current approach to trash day. But seems like trash day could be handled by any vehicle with an ability to carry the trash can to the dump (the atmosphere) instead of to someone else's home (the Earth). 

You are missing that your idea would require an EVA.    "pressurized" disposal means the crew can access the disposal volume in their shirts sleeves, just like taking the garbage from the kitchen to the can in the garage.  This requirement also covers Cygnus and it does destructive entry.

[RonM]

I have a question for those who are more knowledgeable than I about ISS trash. Why is there any need for "pressurized" disposal? Specifically, why does "pressurized" trash need to be placed within a "pressurized" spacecraft? Is it possible to simply place all disposal items within the Dragon trunk and simply release the trunk and all its contents for burn up in the atmosphere before reentry? I would think there could be a rather simple and inexpensive container, that could even maintain a pressure if needed, to hold trash "a trash can". This "trash can" could have two attachment points. The trash can be placed outside station, then grabbed with the arm, and then attached in the trunk. Seems like there is no reason to waste usable "pressurized" volume or mass for trash. Am I missing something? Obviously, if you have spacecraft leaving station that will burn up in the atmosphere it makes sense to take the current approach to trash day. But seems like trash day could be handled by any vehicle with an ability to carry the trash can to the dump (the atmosphere) instead of to someone else's home (the Earth). 

Then you would need an expensive pressure vessel with a berthing hatch as you trash can. It would have to connect somewhere on the station to be filled by the crew. It would also take away from the mass Dragon could carry uphill. Why bother with all the extra steps and expense when you can just fill the visiting vehicles?

[guckyfan]

Then you would need an expensive pressure vessel with a berthing hatch as you trash can. It would have to connect somewhere on the station to be filled by the crew. It would also take away from the mass Dragon could carry uphill. Why bother with all the extra steps and expense when you can just fill the visiting vehicles?

Dragon is volume limited, not mass limited. An additional pressure vessel makes a lot of sense. Not only for waste disposal but also for upmass cargo in flights, where vacuum cargo in the trunk is not needed.

But true, a pressure vessel is needed for waste disposal. Otherwise spacewalks are needed to fill the junk container. Also any waste like organic waste, used towels and wipes need to be stored in pressurized containers if the external junk container itself is not pressurized. A pressurized container directly docked or berthed to the ISS is really needed.

[getitdoneinspace]

Appreciate the feedback Jim and Ron. I was unsure of the means available to transfer items from the pressurized interior of the ISS to the unpressurized exterior. I do know the Kibo laboratory has an airlock to the terrace and can make use of the JEMRMS but I am not familiar with all the airlocks on ISS. I do appreciate the simplicity of using Cygnus for trash. I am just suggesting that this may not be the best solution in the long term when re-usability becomes a reality and spacecraft that burn up are less cost effective. These transfer interfaces between unpressurized and pressurized space perhaps is an area for improvement if human activity in space grows as I hope it does.

[yg1968]

A few interesting questions in the most recent Q&A:

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-OTHER-003-001.pdf

3. Q. How are the benefits of reusability going to be considered? In the answer to the Draft RFP question 15 where you state "minimize offeror price by having standard vehicles that could be produced repeatedly" and through a similar statement made during the Pre-Solicitation Conference on 8/7/14, it appears you are focused on expendable vehicles and not considering the benefits of reusability.

A. It will be at the offerors discretion to propose the use and benefits of its proposed approach, whether that approach entails a reusable vehicle or one that is expendable. The information would be evaluated with other information of how an offeror would be able to provide the best value to the Government in accordance with the RFP.

5. Q. At the Pre-solicitation Conference, when discussing chart 32 and the bullet that states "The only crew interaction with the vehicle shall be during the period when the vehicle is mated to ISS " Marybeth stated "in other words we don't want a pilot on a cargo flight.." Can you please explain why no piloted flights are being considered?

A. NASA’s desire to not have crew on the cargo flights stems from the higher levels of safety and oversight required on crewed vehicles. Additionally, on crewed flights, upmass is required for life support systems to support the crew, abort systems, etc., which takes away from the upmass capability of the vehicle for cargo.

37. Q. The requirements for pressurized delivery upmass as stated in SOW 2.1 appear to state that offerors that want to offer pressurized delivery up mass must be able to deliver at least 2500 kgs in no less than 185 CBTEs (assuming a density of 74 CBTEs per 1000 kgs). None of the domestic, flight proven vehicles are believed to meet the mass and CBTE quantity specifications simultaneously.
a. Will proposals that cannot meet the minimum mass requirement and the density requirement simultaneously be deemed non-compliant and excluded from further evaluation?
b. Could the volume be split across multiple Standard Missions? If not, this would seem conflict with the requirement that offerors may propose an only-pressurized and an only-unpressurized vehicle.

A. The requirements for a standard mission that contains pressurized upmass are required to provide a minimum of 2500 kg and 74 CTBEs/1000 kg (the # of CTBEs/1000kg may be lowered to 65 in the RFP). Proposals which do not meet the capabilities requested will be evaluated according to the criteria described in Section VII.B section T1. The volume cannot be split across multiple standard missions. If a capability is not offered in a standard mission, it is to be listed as N/A on that mission.

74. Q. Will NASA consider a mix of return downmass and disposal downmass for the 2,500kg pressurized downmass requirement?

A. Yes, NASA will consider a mix of downmass as long as the total mass being removed from ISS is at least 2,500 kg. NASA will clarify the final RFP.

94. In order to better leverage the services that NASA is procuring, as well as to further utilize space station as a launch pad for commercial low-earth orbit, I wonder if the ability of NASA to have the cargo ships be directed to any existing commercial platforms in similar orbit and inclination, on a per needed basis, where possible post ISS delivery, could be included as part of the eventual SOW? This would, for no additional funding, position the NASA ISS services as supporting both the current Program and any eventual follow-on. Most useful for raising funds from the commercial sector for a commercial platform. Thanks for your consideration

A. With this CRS2 procurement, NASA is procuring fixed-price services (i.e., missions) to and from the International Space Station (ISS). As such, NASA will not direct the contractor on how it should transport cargo to and from the ISS or whether it should or should not make stops at any commercial platforms along the way. Pursuant to II.A.5, Contractor Objectives on ISS Resupply Service Missions, in the RFP, the contractor may utilize unused space on a NASA purchased ISS resupply missions to deliver non-NASA cargo to other destinations, including existing commercial platforms.

[joek]

If NASA values having redundant pressurized return they could plausibly order two pressurized return vehicles. They might or might not develop a variant of one of the vehicles that's specialized for pressurized disposal (e.g. skip the heat shield) depending on how the ROI calculations work out.

NASA is ordering services not vehicles.  Yes, a variant or differnt vehicle could be used for to meet the requirements--as I subsequently stated.

It is irrelevant whether pressurized return and pressurized disposal capabilities from the same provider use the same vehicle, a completely different vehicle, or a variant of a common vehicle.  NASA has stated a desire to minimize the number of different vehicles and configurations.  However, if they need N variants for M capabilities--regardless of how many providers--that is likely what we will see.

[yg1968]

RFP posted online today http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/

Attached is the RFP.

Some of the more interesting parts of the RFP are on pages 79-86 :

2.0.5   The Contractor’s Vehicle shall be able to be captured, berthed and released at Node 2 Nadir and berth and release at Node 1 Nadir or dock to Node 2 Forward and Node 2 Zenith as defined in SSP 50808.  All analysis shall consider that other vehicles may be docked or berthed to ISS concurrently with the Contractor’s vehicle. Note that for Unpressurized Cargo Delivery/Disposal mission capability, the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) has limited reach access to Node 2 Forward.

Pressurize cargo shall be delivered ranging from 2500 to 5000 kg per flight which consists of the capabilities defined in subparagraph 2.1.1.
2.1.1   A minimum usable pressurized cargo density of 65 Cargo Transfer Bag Equivalents (CTBE) per 1000 kg of pressurized cargo shall be used.  Useable pressurized cargo volume is defined as the volume which can accommodate ISS cargo and payloads types as defined in SSP 50833, paragraph 3.1, Pressurized Volume Area Cargo Requirements. The various cargo transfer bags equivalencies to be used for calculating cargo volume CTBE count are defined in Table 2.1.1-1 below.

Pressurized cargo shall be removed from ISS ranging from 2500 to 5000 kg per flight which consists of the capabilities defined in subparagraph 2.2.1.  If pressurized downmass is split between disposal and return on a single Standard Mission, the minimum downmass for disposal shall be 1000 kg and the minimum downmass for return shall be 1500 kg.  If pressurized downmass on a single Standard Mission consists of all return or disposal, the minimum pressurized downmass shall be 2500 kg.  Use of non-standard volumes that were not used for launch should be considered.

3.1   The contractor may provide accelerated pressurized return capability.  The requirements for this capability consist of the same required as paragraph 2.2, Pressurized Downmass, with the following modifications.  Cargo defined in subparagraph 2.2.1.2  shall be available for handover to NASA within R+6 hours in lieu of R+24 hours.

2.4.1  The contractor shall provide delivery of unpressurized cargo upmass ranging from 500 to 1500 kg per flight.
2.4.2  The contractor shall provide disposal of unpressurized cargo downmass ranging from 0 to 1500 kg per flight. 

2.6   LAUNCH ON NEED (LON)
A Launch On Need (LON) capability should be provided in the event there is an interruption in the provision of cargo services from any of the providers through the life of the contract.
The Contractor should meet the following technical capabilities to satisfy LON:
(a)   Able to be called up after the Contractor’s initial CRS2 flight,
(b)   Able to launch within two months after launch of a planned CRS2 mission,
(c)   Accommodate up to the full complement of pressurized cargo that had been planned for the next mission, as applicable to the standard mission, , including standard powered payloads and standard late load for launch and return,
(d)   The next planned launch following a LON can be as early as 2 months from completion of the LON mission,
(e)   In any 12 month period, accommodate one (1) LON mission in addition to the planned flight rate.

[guckyfan]

Some of the more interesting parts of the RFP are on pages 79-86 :

2.0.5   The Contractor’s Vehicle shall be able to be captured, berthed and released at Node 2 Nadir and berth and release at Node 1 Nadir or dock to Node 2 Forward and Node 2 Zenith as defined in SSP 50808.  All analysis shall consider that other vehicles may be docked or berthed to ISS concurrently with the Contractor’s vehicle. Note that for Unpressurized Cargo Delivery/Disposal mission capability, the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) has limited reach access to Node 2 Forward.

So the initially quoted option of docking is not in the RFP?

[joek]

So the initially quoted option of docking is not in the RFP?

Docking is still an option.

[yg1968]

Some other interesting clauses in the RFP, there is a minimum of six flights per CRS2 contract and there is an on-ramp clause for new participants:

I.A.2   INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ), FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACT
In accordance with Provision VI.A.5, Single or Multiple Awards (FAR 52.216-27) (Oct 1995), NASA may elect to award multiple contracts.  The guaranteed minimum value for any awarded contract is six (6) cargo resupply service missions with the capabilities defined for the awarded mission in Table I.A.3-1, Mission Capabilities for the Standard Resupply Services Missions.  The total maximum value of any contract awarded will be $14 billion. The total amount of all task orders under all contracts awarded shall not exceed $14 billion.

II.A.6   ON-RAMP
6.1   The purpose of the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) on-ramp is (1) to ensure competition exists for deliveries which have not previously been awarded throughout the life of the contract, (2) to allow qualified service providers the opportunity to provide services and (3) for providers to introduce new capabilities not available or identified at the time of the award of the initial contract.
[...]
6.5   The guaranteed minimum order amount for IDIQ contracts awarded in accordance with the On-Ramp Clause will be two cargo resupply service missions with the capabilities defined for the awarded mission in Table I.A.3-1, Mission Capabilities for the Standard Resupply Services Missions. The maximum value of IDIQ contracts awarded in accordance with the On-Ramp Clause are subject to the limitations defined in Clause I.A.2, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Firm Fixed Price Contract.

[joek]

The most interesting aspect of this RFP is that based on current capabilities, SpaceX is the only provider who could submit a qualifying  proposal or be awarded a contract.

Other than SpaceX, all other potential providers--OSC, Boeing and SNC--require new development to submit a qualifying proposal (never mind compete for an award).

[gongora]

This contract doesn't start for 3 years, and anyone that submits a proposal is competing for the award, it's not a multi-stage process anymore.