NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Commercial Space Flight General => Topic started by: AnalogMan on 02/21/2014 11:22 pm

Title: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AnalogMan on 02/21/2014 11:22 pm
Posted today:

NASA Seeks U.S. Industry Feedback on Options for Future Space Station Cargo Services
February 21, 2014

Over the past two years, NASA and its American industry partners have returned International Space Station resupply launches to U.S. soil, established new national space transportation capabilities and helped create jobs right here on Earth. More than 250 miles overhead, hundreds of science experiments not possible on Earth are being conducted by an international team of astronauts, enabled by these new cargo delivery and return services.

In January, the Obama Administration announced plans to extend the life of the space station through at least 2024 – marking another decade of discoveries to come that will benefit Earth while increasing the knowledge NASA needs to send astronauts to an asteroid and Mars.

NASA has issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking industry feedback on options to meet the future needs of the International Space Station for cargo delivery of a variety of new science experiments, space station hardware and crew supplies.

› View the Request For Information (http://go.nasa.gov/MhfIUl)

The International Space Station is a convergence of science, technology and human innovation that demonstrates new technologies and makes research breakthroughs not possible on Earth. The space station has had crew members continuous on board since November 2000. In that time, it has been visited by more than 200 people and a variety of international and commercial spacecraft. The space station remains the springboard to NASA's next great leap in exploration, including future missions to an asteroid and Mars.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-seeks-us-industry-feedback-on-options-for-future-space-station-cargo-service (http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-seeks-us-industry-feedback-on-options-for-future-space-station-cargo-service)


Link to Request For Information (RFI) and basic details:
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=159700 (https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=159700)

Quote
General Information
    Solicitation Number:     NNJ14ZBG007L
    Posted Date:     Feb 21, 2014
    FedBizOpps Posted Date:     Feb 21, 2014
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act Action:     No
    Original Response Date:     Mar 21, 2014
    Current Response Date:     Mar 21, 2014
    Classification Code:     18 -- Space vehicles
    NAICS Code:     481212

Contracting Office Address
     
    NASA/Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas, 77058-3696, Mail Code: BG

Description
     
    NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) seeks information from industry to assist in addressing the Agency’s need for a follow on capability for the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS1) to the International Space Station (ISS). The information will facilitate NASA in its acquisition planning for future procurements.

    The primary purpose of this Request For Information (RFI) is to inform industry of NASA’s resupply service requirements and to collect information on key parameters that would help NASA refine and mature the follow on acquisition plan for procuring safe, cost effective, timely, and reliable ISS research and cargo resupply, disposal, and return services.

    This document is for information and planning purposes and to allow industry the opportunity to verify reasonableness and feasibility of the requirement, as well as promote competition. Prospective offerors are invited to submit written responses to the RFI. When responding reference NNJ14ZBG007L. Please see attached RFI for further details at:

    http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/RFI-CRS2-022014-v2.docx (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/RFI-CRS2-022014-v2.docx)

    Questions concerning this RFI shall be submitted via email to Omar Collier at [email protected] Electronic submission of the responses is due close of business March 21, 2014 to [email protected] Questions and responses shall reference this RFI. Please limit responses to 20 pages or less.

    This RFI is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government, nor will the Government pay for the information submitted in response. Respondents will not be notified of the results.

RFI document attached as a pdf  for those unable to read Word format.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/21/2014 11:44 pm
Here are some of the highlights of the RFI:

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/

Quote from: page 1 of the RFI
RFI – Commercial Resupply Services (CRS2) to the ISS [...]

Period of Service

NASA requires this service from 2017 through 2024. NASA may elect to have one contract or multiple contracts to meet the requirements.

Quote from: page 1 of the RFI
Funds Available to Procure the Service

NASA’s budget to procure this service is anticipated to be between $1.0B and $1.4B per year. If the described services cannot be provided as defined within this budget range, NASA requests feedback on options to procure the required upmass and downmass for the defined budget. Identify which services would need to be modified or removed to stay within the available budget. For example, propose a different number of flights per year that still meets the required upmass and downmass required.

Quote from: pages 1 to 3 of RFI
Capabilities Required of the Service [...]

-Delivery of 14,250 to 16,750 kilograms (kg) per year of pressurized cargo.
-Delivery of 1,500 to 4,000 kg per year of unpressurized cargo comprised of 3 to 8 total items per year.
-Return/disposal of up to 14,250 to 16,750 kg per year of pressurized cargo.
-Disposal of 1,500 to 4,000 kg per year of unpressurized cargo comprised of 3 to 8 total items per year.
-Ground support services will be required for the end-to-end ISS resupply mission.

Quote from: pages 3 and 4 of the RFI
Operational Concept Envisioned for the Service [...]

Services are required to be provided in 4 to 5 missions per year and the capabilities described above are required to be distributed across the year.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Confusador on 02/22/2014 12:21 am
Here's the bit I found most notable:

Quote
ISS will maintain the capability to support a berthing and a docking capability as physical interfaces to the ISS.  Service providers must be compatible with both prime and backup attachment ports.  Berthing will be to a Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM).  Docking will be to the new ISS Docking Adapter (IDA).  If providers propose utilizing a docking capability to provide the cargo services, the provider should include a description and schedule associated with incorporating a docking system into their design.  NASA prefers cargo vehicles to berth since some cargo items are larger than what can be accommodated through the docking adapter, for instance an M03 bag.  If docking is proposed, the providers should consider methods of transferring cargo through the docking adapter. 

So they're definitely leaving it open for the Commercial Crew folks to submit designs with no (external) changes to the vehicle - should make it interesting.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/22/2014 12:30 am
Good find. This suggests that CRS-2 will be open to new participants such as Boeing and SNC.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 02/22/2014 01:37 am
Thanks for posting this AnalogMan.  A couple other items of note:
1. "The ability to access unpressurized cargo at L-24h is required to allow for removal of optics covers and similar items."  (is that currently a requirement?)
2. "A Launch on Need (LON) capability is required within 2 months of the previous flight." (previous flight from another provider or from same provider?)

Although, the RFI is not very clear on this, it seems that the budget of betweeen $1B to $1.4B per year would essentially be the same as it is under CRS-1.
...

I think you overestimated the number of flights and $ per year for CRS-1 (not 4+4/yr over 3 years, but more like 3+2/yr over 4-5 years). Ignoring inflation, NASA appears to be budgeting more for CRS-2; at $1.0-1.4B/yr and 4-5 flights/yr, that is $200-350M per flight, which would be significantly higher than the current CRS-1 average of ~$175M/flight.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 02/22/2014 01:50 am
Posted today:

NASA Seeks U.S. Industry Feedback on Options for Future Space Station Cargo Services
February 21, 2014

Over the past two years, NASA and its American industry partners have returned International Space Station resupply launches to U.S. soil, established new national space transportation capabilities and helped create jobs right here on Earth. More than 250 miles overhead, hundreds of science experiments not possible on Earth are being conducted by an international team of astronauts, enabled by these new cargo delivery and return services.

In January, the Obama Administration announced plans to extend the life of the space station through at least 2024 – marking another decade of discoveries to come that will benefit Earth while increasing the knowledge NASA needs to send astronauts to an asteroid and Mars.

NASA has issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking industry feedback on options to meet the future needs of the International Space Station for cargo delivery of a variety of new science experiments, space station hardware and crew supplies.

› View the Request For Information (http://go.nasa.gov/MhfIUl)

The International Space Station is a convergence of science, technology and human innovation that demonstrates new technologies and makes research breakthroughs not possible on Earth. The space station has had crew members continuous on board since November 2000. In that time, it has been visited by more than 200 people and a variety of international and commercial spacecraft. The space station remains the springboard to NASA's next great leap in exploration, including future missions to an asteroid and Mars.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-seeks-us-industry-feedback-on-options-for-future-space-station-cargo-service (http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-seeks-us-industry-feedback-on-options-for-future-space-station-cargo-service)


Link to Request For Information (RFI) and basic details:
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=159700 (https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=159700)

Quote
General Information
    Solicitation Number:     NNJ14ZBG007L
    Posted Date:     Feb 21, 2014
    FedBizOpps Posted Date:     Feb 21, 2014
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act Action:     No
    Original Response Date:     Mar 21, 2014
    Current Response Date:     Mar 21, 2014
    Classification Code:     18 -- Space vehicles
    NAICS Code:     481212

Contracting Office Address
     
    NASA/Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas, 77058-3696, Mail Code: BG

Description
     
    NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) seeks information from industry to assist in addressing the Agency’s need for a follow on capability for the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS1) to the International Space Station (ISS). The information will facilitate NASA in its acquisition planning for future procurements.

    The primary purpose of this Request For Information (RFI) is to inform industry of NASA’s resupply service requirements and to collect information on key parameters that would help NASA refine and mature the follow on acquisition plan for procuring safe, cost effective, timely, and reliable ISS research and cargo resupply, disposal, and return services.

    This document is for information and planning purposes and to allow industry the opportunity to verify reasonableness and feasibility of the requirement, as well as promote competition. Prospective offerors are invited to submit written responses to the RFI. When responding reference NNJ14ZBG007L. Please see attached RFI for further details at:

    http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/RFI-CRS2-022014-v2.docx (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/RFI-CRS2-022014-v2.docx)

    Questions concerning this RFI shall be submitted via email to Omar Collier at [email protected] Electronic submission of the responses is due close of business March 21, 2014 to [email protected] Questions and responses shall reference this RFI. Please limit responses to 20 pages or less.

    This RFI is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government, nor will the Government pay for the information submitted in response. Respondents will not be notified of the results.

RFI document attached as a pdf  for those unable to read Word format.
Finally! I've been waiting for this announcement for years.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 02/22/2014 02:09 am
Although, the RFI is not very clear on this, it seems that the budget of betweeen $1B to $1.4B per year would essentially be the same as it is under CRS-1.

SpaceX's CRS contract: 4 flights per year x $133.3M = $533M ($1.6B for 12 flights under CRS-1)
Orbital's CRS contract: 4 flights x $237.5M per year = $950M ($1.2B for 8 flights under CRS-1)

Total would be $1.483B per year assuming 4 flights per year for each of these two providers (should they be selected for CRS-2).

Have the CRS contracts changed from their original values? I thought SpaceX had $1.6 B for 12 flights and Orbital was $1.9 B for 8 flights, not $1.2 B.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/CRS-Announcement-Dec-08.html
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Comga on 02/22/2014 02:27 am
Thanks for posting this AnalogMan.  A couple other items of note:
1. "The ability to access unpressurized cargo at L-24h is required to allow for removal of optics covers and similar items."  (is that currently a requirement?)
2. "A Launch on Need (LON) capability is required within 2 months of the previous flight." (previous flight from another provider or from same provider?)

Although, the RFI is not very clear on this, it seems that the budget of betweeen $1B to $1.4B per year would essentially be the same as it is under CRS-1.
...

I think you overestimated the number of flights and $ per year for CRS-1 (not 4+4/yr over 3 years, but more like 3+2/yr over 4-5 years). Ignoring inflation, NASA appears to be budgeting more for CRS-2; at $1.0-1.4B/yr and 4-5 flights/yr, that is $200-350M per flight, which would be significantly higher than the current CRS-1 average of ~$140M/flight.

I agree that this is more money per year, but how much per kg?
CRS-1 was for for up to 20 tons each (40 tons total) over 3 or 4 years for up to $3.5B. Thats ~ $88M/ton
CRS-2 appears to be 14-17 tons per year for $1.1B-$1.4B .  That's ~$64M-$100M/ton
That doesn't reflect much savings for what could be fully developed and proven systems, but isn't a massive increase.
If Dragon can carry up 2-3 tons per flight that's $125-$300M/flight.  That does seems to extend to the high side.
On the speculative side, if SpaceX gets's their reusable cost down to even a few times the projected $7M these prices would seem to be very high.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/22/2014 02:30 am
Have the CRS contracts changed from their original values? I thought SpaceX had $1.6 B for 12 flights and Orbital was $1.9 B for 8 flights, not $1.2 B.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/CRS-Announcement-Dec-08.html

Yes, $1.9B for 8 flights. Sorry for the typo. The rest of my numbers actually took into account $1.9B (not $1.2B).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/22/2014 02:43 am
Thanks for posting this AnalogMan.  A couple other items of note:
1. "The ability to access unpressurized cargo at L-24h is required to allow for removal of optics covers and similar items."  (is that currently a requirement?)
2. "A Launch on Need (LON) capability is required within 2 months of the previous flight." (previous flight from another provider or from same provider?)

Although, the RFI is not very clear on this, it seems that the budget of betweeen $1B to $1.4B per year would essentially be the same as it is under CRS-1.
...

I think you overestimated the number of flights and $ per year for CRS-1 (not 4+4/yr over 3 years, but more like 3+2/yr over 4-5 years). Ignoring inflation, NASA appears to be budgeting more for CRS-2; at $1.0-1.4B/yr and 4-5 flights/yr, that is $200-350M per flight, which would be significantly higher than the current CRS-1 average of ~$175M/flight.

I was assuming 4 or 5 flights per provider per year. So if you have two providers, you would have 8 to 10 flights per year.  $1.4B divided by 8 flights gives you $175M per flight which is essentially the same price per flight than CRS-1. But I might be wrong about this. I don't find the RFI very clear on this.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 02/22/2014 03:01 am
I think that they mean 4 or 5 flights per provider per year. So if you have two providers, you would have 8 to 10 flights per year.  $1.4B divided by 8 gives you $175M per flight which is essentially the same price per flight than CRS-1.
They mean 4-5 flights/year total (not per provider).  As stated:
Quote
Services are required to be provided in 4 to 5 missions per year and the capabilities described above are required to be distributed across the year.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/22/2014 03:05 am
I think that they mean 4 or 5 flights per provider per year. So if you have two providers, you would have 8 to 10 flights per year.  $1.4B divided by 8 gives you $175M per flight which is essentially the same price per flight than CRS-1.
They mean 4-5 flights/year total (not per provider).  As stated:
Quote
Services are required to be provided in 4 to 5 missions per year and the capabilities described above are required to be distributed across the year.

Actually, you are probably right. But that is a bit surprising. There is 18 CRS-1 flights from the beginning of 2014 until the end of 2016 for an average of 6 flights per year. So the number of CRS flights per year would slightly decrease. With the addition of a 7th astronaut on ISS, I would expect cargo needs to increase.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 02/22/2014 03:34 am
This was also interesting.

"Mission mated capability must be 45 to 75 days."

I think that they mean 4 or 5 flights per provider per year. So if you have two providers, you would have 8 to 10 flights per year.  $1.4B divided by 8 gives you $175M per flight which is essentially the same price per flight than CRS-1.
They mean 4-5 flights/year total (not per provider).  As stated:
Quote
Services are required to be provided in 4 to 5 missions per year and the capabilities described above are required to be distributed across the year.
With the addition of a 7th astronaut on ISS, I would expect cargo needs to increase.
Probably not by much.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2014 04:13 am
A big, fat giant-Cygnus (ie MPLM-sized) on an Atlas V may be pretty competitive. That's a lot of cargo...

Very interesting. Lots of room for combining Crew and Cargo. Seems to give both SpaceX and Orbital a fair shot at this.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 02/22/2014 04:34 am
A big, fat giant-Cygnus (ie MPLM-sized) on an Atlas V may be pretty competitive. That's a lot of cargo...

Only for pressurized up and down disposal, assuming current Cygnus configuration.  Still need pressurized up- and -down,  and unpressurized up.  Unless someone proposes a "do it all" solution, likely we'll see at least two vehicles, if not two providers.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2014 04:40 am
Dragon itself is good for large down-mass... But it's a little small for that much cargo. What if SpaceX proposed MCT (perhaps launched on Falcon heavy at first) for the later years as a possible on-ramp? That'd have plenty of pressurized volume... You could send up and return a bunch of full racks and possibly even unpressurized cargo, just like during Shuttle...

Okay, that was a little indulgent of me.

But Dragon, though very well-suited to pressurized down-mass, isn't well-suited to bulky pressurized up mass, though with a stretched trunk and v1.1, it should be capable of a lot of total up mass.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Comga on 02/22/2014 04:49 am
[snip]

Very interesting. Lots of room for combining Crew and Cargo. Seems to give both SpaceX and Orbital a fair shot at this.

But doesn't including external payloads mean that SpaceX is the only qualified bidder for at least that part of the contract?  (Assuming JAXA can't compete with additional HTVs.)

I do know of a payload on which NASA has spent $100M that has no ride in the current planning.  Plus there are several battery units listed for future flights that would have gone on HTVs.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2014 04:51 am
No, Cygnus can be flown in an unpressurized variant.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 02/22/2014 04:58 am
No, Cygnus can be flown in an unpressurized variant.
Not at present.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: docmordrid on 02/22/2014 05:02 am
Or Boeing could team with ATK for a variant of the Liberty Logistics Module.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lars_J on 02/22/2014 05:09 am
Or Boeing could team with ATK for a variant of the Liberty Logistics Module.

I think that concept has been staked through the heart several times now. It could come back, but that is very unlikely.

But the option of delivering cargo through docking hatch does open up the possibility of overlap with a crew variant - or at least a cargo version of DC or CST-100.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 02/22/2014 06:44 am
A big, fat giant-Cygnus (ie MPLM-sized) on an Atlas V may be pretty competitive.
Maybe also include an unpressurized cargo container (think HTV). This new spacecraft bus could also be used to deliver new modules (not that there's money for them). But I don't think Orbital would want to launch Cygnus on the Atlas V because it's Antares' only payload.

No, Cygnus can be flown in an unpressurized variant.
I'm not sure if the current design can (thrusters are mounted on the PCM).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/22/2014 11:18 am
But the option of delivering cargo through docking hatch does open up the possibility of overlap with a crew variant - or at least a cargo version of DC or CST-100.

I don't know what the timing of the award of CRS-2 will be. But the best scenario would be for it to be awarded after CCtCap so that whomever gets downselected under CCtCap is unlikely to be much of a contender for CRS-2.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Space Pete on 02/22/2014 03:18 pm
Looking at the needs of the ISS out to 2024, here's how I think any CRS-2 bidders could gain a competitive edge:

. Ability to launch and return racks

. Ability to launch and return large external ORUs

. Possible combination of crew and cargo delivery:

-For "rent-a-car" model, MPLM-sized module launches with crew, containing all items (scientific and crew support) needed for that particular increment. Remains at ISS for duration of increment and returns to Earth/is jettisoned with crew at end of increment.

-For "taxi" model, small logistics module launches with inbound crew, spacecraft commander & pilot (likely ISS-trained NASA astronauts) spend their short time at ISS unloading logistics module and filling it with trash/return items, then module returns to Earth/is jettisoned after two weeks along with outgoing crew.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 02/22/2014 03:43 pm
Looking at the needs of the ISS out to 2024, here's how I think any CRS-2 bidders could gain a competitive edge:

. Ability to launch and return racks

. Ability to launch and return large external ORUs

. Possible combination of crew and cargo delivery:

-For "rent-a-car" model, MPLM-sized module launches with crew, containing all items (scientific and crew support) needed for that particular increment. Remains at ISS for duration of increment and returns to Earth/is jettisoned with crew at end of increment.

-For "taxi" model, small logistics module launches with inbound crew, spacecraft commander & pilot (likely ISS-trained NASA astronauts) spend their short time at ISS unloading logistics module and filling it with trash/return items, then module returns to Earth/is jettisoned after two weeks along with outgoing crew.

Not really.  It doesn't do them any good if it is outside of the scope of the contract.  NASA will only contract for tasks it has money set aside for.  If NASA isn't going to contract for rack swap outs, then there is no return for somebody to design for that capability.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2014 04:09 pm
But the option of delivering cargo through docking hatch does open up the possibility of overlap with a crew variant - or at least a cargo version of DC or CST-100.

I don't know what the timing of the award of CRS-2 will be. But the best scenario would be for it to be awarded after CCtCap so that whomever gets downselected under CCtCap is unlikely to be much of a contender for CRS-2.
Why? This may allow the next-best-thing to having 2 crew providers.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2014 04:11 pm
If like to see a diagram comparing Cygnus's mini-CBM to a NDS (or whatever it's called now) docking port with the petals removed.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Space Pete on 02/22/2014 05:47 pm
Not really.  It doesn't do them any good if it is outside of the scope of the contract.  NASA will only contract for tasks it has money set aside for.  If NASA isn't going to contract for rack swap outs, then there is no return for somebody to design for that capability.

True, however I hope the contract leaves room for NASA to consider "any additional capabilities" that bidders may propose - looking past 2020, having the capability to return failed racks for repair, or disposing of old racks to make room for new racks could be useful.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/22/2014 06:00 pm
But the option of delivering cargo through docking hatch does open up the possibility of overlap with a crew variant - or at least a cargo version of DC or CST-100.

I don't know what the timing of the award of CRS-2 will be. But the best scenario would be for it to be awarded after CCtCap so that whomever gets downselected under CCtCap is unlikely to be much of a contender for CRS-2.
Why? This may allow the next-best-thing to having 2 crew providers.

Let's say that one company (say Boeing) gets downselected under CCtCap. I think that their chance of winning a CRS-2 award would be small. Under such a scenario, SpaceX and SNC could each win both a CCtCap and a CRS-2 award.  The advantage of this scenario is that it allows NASA to maintain two commercial crew companies even after post-certifications missions are completed. The current plan is to eventually downselect to one commercial crew provider for the crew transportation system (CTS) contract. However, this scenario would allow NASA to maintain a backup crew provider for CTS through its CRS-2 cargo contract.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 02/22/2014 06:08 pm
Is there a possibility to offer a  reusable space tug to this contract.
of course RnD will be much more expensive but operation will be a lot cheaper.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parom

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 02/22/2014 06:16 pm
A big, fat giant-Cygnus (ie MPLM-sized) on an Atlas V may be pretty competitive. That's a lot of cargo...
a falcon 9 will be a much more economical choice.
there is no reason why spacex wont want to participate with orbital, and orbital are used to outsourcing.
this will allow more flights of falcon9 every year, making it even more economical, and allowing it to better integrate reuseability.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/22/2014 06:34 pm
I'm not sure if the current design can (thrusters are mounted on the PCM).

According to Orbital the Cygnus Service Module is based on Orbital's GEOStar Satellite bus and handles all the transportation tasks.  It appears to be completely independent of the cargo it carries.

I'm not sure how scaleable the current SM is, but if we ever need to add more modules onto the ISS or build a new station in LEO, the Cygnus SM could probably be the tug to deliver station elements to a robotic construction arm.  Might need to launch it on something other than Taurus though.  No doubt tug versions of the ATV and HTV could do the same, so we have already been testing and validating that we don't need something like the Shuttle to build or expand space stations.

Regarding the CRS2 contract, while Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser would provide flexibility, Cygnus provides less expensive one-way transportation for bulky cargo.  The question is whether there is a big need for that during the CRS2 contract period, or if NASA can live with the volume constraints of a Dragon or other spacecraft?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Hauerg on 02/22/2014 06:38 pm
Is there a possibility to offer a  reusable space tug to this contract.
of course RnD will be much more expensive but operation will be a lot cheaper.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parom

The services have to be available from 2017 onwards. That is 3 years from now. No time for fancy new developments.
Except maybe for a company that is VERY quick in producing fresh hardware. (A certain one is coming to moind.)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 02/22/2014 07:05 pm
No, Cygnus can be flown in an unpressurized variant.
Not at present.

Very true. But when you look at the complexity of making a pressurized cargo vehicle that can safely berth with the ISS, and a brand new launch vehicle to launch it, I think making an unpressurized version of Cygnus is relatively easy compared to what OSC has already proven it can do for a relatively small budget.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 02/22/2014 07:11 pm
If like to see a diagram comparing Cygnus's mini-CBM to a NDS (or whatever it's called now) docking port with the petals removed.

Cygnus  is 94 cm square.
NDS (w/ petals installed) is 80 cm circular.

Not sure if petals are still removable. References to removing the guide petals have disappeared from the latest document I've found. If you pull the whole Soft capture system out you get 125 cm circular at best. The minimum clearance could also be in the APAS/NDS adapter on the PMA.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: simonbp on 02/22/2014 07:17 pm
IMHO, the ability to deliver cargo through the hatch is going to mean the end of Cargo Dragon, allowing SpaceX to focus on just one variant for the next version of Dragon. I could easily see them proposing to do crew flights with new-build Dragon capsules and then cargo flights with reused Dragons, as a low-risk way of building up reusable flight hours.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 02/22/2014 07:53 pm
If like to see a diagram comparing Cygnus's mini-CBM to a NDS (or whatever it's called now) docking port with the petals removed.
The petals can no longer be removed on orbit. I don't have time to toss together a diagram (maybe later) but here are the dimensions.

CBM with standard hatch, passage size: 50 in (1270 mm) by 50 in (1270 mm)
CBM with mini hatch, passage size: 37 in (940 mm) by 37 in (940 mm)
NDS/IDSS (post-SIMAC redesign) passage size: 31 inches (800 mm) in diameter
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2014 08:50 pm
Isn't it possible the cargo contenders would propose a compatible system that DOES allow the petals to be removed? I don't see why they'd be forced to use the SIMAC design.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Space Pete on 02/22/2014 09:08 pm
I don't see why they'd be forced to use the SIMAC design.

Because the corresponding docking adapters (IDAs) on ISS will use SIMAC.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2014 09:13 pm
I don't see why they'd be forced to use the SIMAC design.

Because the corresponding docking adapters (IDAs) on ISS will use SIMAC.
Ah, you're right... there are petals on both sides...

It seems pretty short-sighted to me that the petals are non-removable.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 02/22/2014 09:56 pm
I don't see why they'd be forced to use the SIMAC design.

Because the corresponding docking adapters (IDAs) on ISS will use SIMAC.
Ah, you're right... there are petals on both sides...

It seems pretty short-sighted to me that the petals are non-removable.
Why? It all still has to go through the APAS hatch on the PMAs.

Also just a remainder, on the old version of NDS the passage diameter was 31 inches (800 mm) with the petals removed. With the petals it was 27 inches (685 mm).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 02/22/2014 09:58 pm
To put that in perspective with respect to cargo packaging (edit: drawing to scale, give or take a mm)...
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2014 10:23 pm
Thanks, Joek! EDIT: (and manboy)

It's too bad a better docking adapter couldn't be used instead, allowing perhaps the soft-docking mechanism to be temporarily removed. This would allow even larger cargo to be transfered using a docking port, allowing standardization of all the main spacecraft interfaces for both cargo and crew (other than ISS's necessarily larger berthing ports... although the Russians did just fine for decades with their relatively tiny docking ports for Soyuz, Progress, Mir, Salyut7, etc).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/22/2014 11:05 pm
Very good thread. Going to write up a shortish article to cover this as a lot of people - myself included - go blind really fast when reading documents like RFIs.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Prober on 02/22/2014 11:37 pm
Or Boeing could team with ATK for a variant of the Liberty Logistics Module.

or will Blue Origin be ready?  :-\
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/22/2014 11:38 pm
Or Boeing could team with ATK for a variant of the Liberty Logistics Module.

or will Blue Origin be ready?  :-\
More likely to me than ATK.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 02/23/2014 12:27 am
Very good thread. Going to write up a shortish article to cover this as a lot of people - myself included - go blind really fast when reading documents like RFIs.
RFI is worth a read.  Short and concise with very little boilerplate (and thanks again to AnalogMan for the catch).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/23/2014 12:54 am
IMHO, the ability to deliver cargo through the hatch is going to mean the end of Cargo Dragon, allowing SpaceX to focus on just one variant for the next version of Dragon. I could easily see them proposing to do crew flights with new-build Dragon capsules and then cargo flights with reused Dragons, as a low-risk way of building up reusable flight hours.

I don't think Cargo Dragon's are going away, especially if SpaceX is able to reuse the ones they are using from the current CRS contract (12 total, only used once).  Since the CRS2 contract calls for frequent flights per year, that would mean SpaceX would have to build a larger fleet of Crew Dragon's than if all they needed to fly Crew Dragon's for was just for Commercial Crew.

But once they get the ability to land on land perfected, SpaceX may indeed decide to standardize on one type of vehicle.  But even if they do standardize on the crew version, they can still change out the hatch from NDS to CBM, and remove seats.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/23/2014 03:52 am
Article on this. What you already know, per this thread, with a sprinkling of other things out of L2.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/nasa-iss-resupply-options-through-2024/
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: simonbp on 02/23/2014 04:58 am
But once they get the ability to land on land perfected, SpaceX may indeed decide to standardize on one type of vehicle.  But even if they do standardize on the crew version, they can still change out the hatch from NDS to CBM, and remove seats.

True, but if I remember right, most of the cargo delivered by Dragon so far was much smaller than the berthing port (i.e. wasn't full-sized racks). It may be worth it for SpaceX to surrender the big cargo to Orbital and standardize on one Dragon version.

And the docking and berthing procedures and hardware are very different, so it's not just a matter of swapping out a docking port for a CBM.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/23/2014 05:00 am
Any guesses on who, other than SpaceX/OSC/Boeing/SNC, have some chance of winning with a completely new spacecraft?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 02/23/2014 06:02 am
I'd love to see Biglow offering their space tug concept for affordable space access.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/23/2014 06:08 am
Any guesses on who, other than SpaceX/OSC/Boeing/SNC, have some chance of winning with a completely new spacecraft?
Blue Origin.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Hauerg on 02/23/2014 07:24 am
Is Antares/Cygnus already out because
1. their stock of engines will not last until 2024, even at 2 flights per year and
2. no capability to bring back anything?

Seems like NASAS allow use of docking (with the disadvantage when transferring large objects) to keep SpaceX from winning this by default.

CST-100 and DC are far from flight ready while Dragon has a history.

NASA might want to select two suppliers, but will they really do it if the price difference is "ridiculous" (should F9R succeed)?

And first planned flight in 2017 means a really fast selection process is necessary. Getting me some popcorn.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 02/23/2014 07:40 am
Remember this is a RFI (not a RFP), NASA are looking to find what capabilities the different companies involved might have ready by 2017. The requirements for the RFP might be different as a result, though probably not significantly different in my opinion.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/23/2014 11:45 am
Article on this. What you already know, per this thread, with a sprinkling of other things out of L2.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/nasa-iss-resupply-options-through-2024/

Good article! It covers all of the main points of the RFI.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: JBF on 02/23/2014 12:19 pm
Is Antares/Cygnus already out because
1. their stock of engines will not last until 2024, even at 2 flights per year and
2. no capability to bring back anything?

Orbital is already looking at alternates and/or getting the engine line restarted.  3 years is plenty of time to find a solution.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/23/2014 12:34 pm
Article on this. What you already know, per this thread, with a sprinkling of other things out of L2.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/nasa-iss-resupply-options-through-2024/

Good article! It covers all of the main points of the RFI.

Thanks very much! This thread helped a lot!
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: clongton on 02/23/2014 12:54 pm
Thanks, Joek! EDIT: (and manboy)

It's too bad a better docking adapter couldn't be used instead, allowing perhaps the soft-docking mechanism to be temporarily removed. This would allow even larger cargo to be transferred using a docking port, allowing standardization of all the main spacecraft interfaces for both cargo and crew (other than ISS's necessarily larger berthing ports... although the Russians did just fine for decades with their relatively tiny docking ports for Soyuz, Progress, Mir, Salyut7, etc).

From the lessons learned department: perhaps a standard requirement for future stations? But if it gets proposed in some fashion in the RFI, it might find a place in the RFP as a system offering. This would allow Boeing to enter the foray with CST-100 and their SIMAC.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 02/23/2014 01:41 pm
Just want to express my (very mild) frustration with the name "CRS2"

It defies search engines since everyone and their brother refers to Spx-2 as CRS-2.

Better choices in my book:

-CRS 2017

-CRS FO ("follow on")

-CRS B

-Or perhaps CRS II

Thank you, that is all.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/23/2014 03:14 pm
Is Antares/Cygnus already out because
1. their stock of engines will not last until 2024, even at 2 flights per year and
2. no capability to bring back anything?

Orbital is already looking at alternates and/or getting the engine line restarted.  3 years is plenty of time to find a solution.
Well, besides that, Cygnus (especially advanced) has much more pressurized volume than any other domestic vehicle in the near-term.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 02/23/2014 03:40 pm
Cygnus (especially advanced) has much more pressurized volume than any other domestic vehicle in the near-term.

It should not be hard for SpaceX to implement that solution of ATK to have a second pressurized pod.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/23/2014 04:11 pm
I am not sure how realistic it is but the best scenario would be for NASA to have three CRS2 providers. The two CCtCap winners plus Orbital.  The RFI doesn't seem to preclude this option as it speaks of having multiple providers.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/23/2014 07:38 pm
I'd love to see Biglow offering their space tug concept for affordable space access.

Off topic.

The Bigelow space tug is an inspace only vehicle.  It has neither the high thrust engines nor the thermal protection system (heat shield) needed to operate in an atmosphere.  It may however end up being a second customer for the CRS2 launch vehicles.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ehan_light on 02/23/2014 09:17 pm
From my point of view neither Orbital nor SpaceX have currently a Product available to meet all NASA wishes.

The Dragon would have to launch too often (>5 times due to return/disposal cargo volume of 70 to 90 m3). Cygnus can't launch 14.25t in 5 flights, has currently no return and no unpressurized cargo transportation capability. The price of new NK-33s is (at least to me) unknown and potentially objectionably hight. And for Orbital the callange to provide L-24h late load capability at Wallops is in my opinion harder to achieve.

So I've given it some thought, considered the stated wishes of NASA and came up with the following scenario optimized for simplicity and low price. Please take it with a grain of salt as I've no professional experience in the aerospace industry.

Scenario with expendable F9 v1.1 - but it should be compatible with partly reusable F9/F9Rs

Orbital would assemble a bigger version of Cygnus
- max launch weight ~10t (Cygnus's launch weight is ~5.2t)
- Everything has to fit inside a standard Falcon payload fairing.
- Orbital procures again the pressurized cargo module (PCM) from Thales Alenia Space*. The diameter of the section would be the same as the one of the ATV (~4.5m). The inner volume aimed for 30-45m3 and strong enough to support 4-5t of cargo.
- Orbital develops and produces a bigger propulsion module.
- gets launched 2x per year on a F9/F9R
- price per mission: ~160-350** million USD

SpaceX would launch their Dragon 3 times per year with a price per mission of ~150-200 million USD.

Total cost without reusability: ~770-1300 million USD per year
And it gets potentially cheaper with the introduction & maturation of the reusable F9 first stage and reusable Dragon.

estimated cost are higher than today due to the following:
- SpaceX as a single launch provider would be asked to store some almost launch ready to launch reserve LVs at the Cape as a backup.
- "A Launch on Need (LON) capability is required within 2 months of the previous flight."
- quite fix/unflexible launch windows
- inflation

*they've already built the PCMs for the ATVs, so the manufacturing machines and experience might be still in the company.
**compared to the ATV it should be easier to manufacture as there are less liquid transfer lines required.

changelog: added "per year", spelling & phrasing improved, added "inflation"
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ehan_light on 02/23/2014 09:30 pm
And an other obvious reason for higher prices than today: - inflation
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Roy_H on 02/23/2014 10:47 pm
From the article:
"The document also notes the Agency expects to allocate between $1.0B and $1.4B per year to facilitate these services.

CRS2 outlines call for the delivery of 14,250 to 16,750 kilograms (kg) of pressurized cargo, along with 1,500 to 4,000 kg of unpressurized cargo per year."

So averaged, $1.2B for 15,000kg pressurized per year. With the expectation that this would take about 5 flights.

Does anyone know what percentage is just for food and clothing?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 02/24/2014 03:58 am
And an other obvious reason for higher prices than today: - inflation
Along with the need to pick up the slack caused by the retirement of ATV and HTV.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: DGH on 02/24/2014 10:26 am
Is Antares/Cygnus already out because
1. their stock of engines will not last until 2024, even at 2 flights per year and
2. no capability to bring back anything?

Orbital is already looking at alternates and/or getting the engine line restarted.  3 years is plenty of time to find a solution.
Well, besides that, Cygnus (especially advanced) has much more pressurized volume than any other domestic vehicle in the near-term.

This is very important!
There are several areas dealing with volume in the RFI.
NASA wants 70-90 cubic meters of pressurized down volume per year.
It also wants this done in 4-5 missions.
In reality IMO this contact is designed to be largely split between Cygnus and Dragon.
2.5 mission for each a year meets all the requirements.
Also Orbital has 43 engines and another 12-18 it can purchase total 55-61 total.
For 20 original contract and 35 in the new contract the total is 55 the minimum it has available.
I would also expect both to try to increase their capability per launch.
So they could do their part in 2 launches.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2014 12:07 pm
No reason they couldn't launch Cygnus on Falcon 9 or Atlas V (besides cost), either. So, I don't think anyone is sweating the engines. As far as I know, Cygnus is the only thing flying on Antares (which I will admit is a little surprising).

...and heck... Stratolaunch might be relevant by the end of the contract.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/24/2014 01:16 pm
And an other obvious reason for higher prices than today: - inflation
Along with the need to pick up the slack caused by the retirement of ATV and HTV.

HTV isn't being retired. Gesrt said that NASA wants more HTVs.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 02/24/2014 02:39 pm

In reality IMO this contact is designed to be largely split between Cygnus and Dragon.


No, there can be more than just OSC and Spacex.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/24/2014 02:57 pm
And an other obvious reason for higher prices than today: - inflation

A reason prices for CRS2 could be quoted lower from both OSC and SpaceX is that unlike with CRS1 when they bid, now they know what their operational costs are.  Usually for new service contracts you bid very conservatively, since you don't know how well things will work.  For CRS2 though they have lots of real experience and cost data to use for the bid.

For SpaceX, their costs could be dramatically lower if they are allowed to reuse the fleet of once-used cargo Dragon's that they'll have at the end of the CRS1 contract.  That would also allow them to focus on a slow buildup of the crew/multipurpose version of the Dragon.

I don't see SpaceX Falcon 9 reusability (i.e. Falcon 9R) factoring into this, since they likely won't have perfected it by the time they submit their bid.  If the ISS gets extended beyond 2024 though, use of Falcon 9R could drive down prices for a future CRS3 contract even more.

And that's what you would hope to see going forward, that the costs for supporting operations in space would GO DOWN, not up over time.  If costs only go up, then humanity will never be able to afford to expand out into space.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/24/2014 03:04 pm
I am guessing that SpaceX will maintain their CRS1 prices (per kg) for CRS2.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/24/2014 03:09 pm
No reason they couldn't launch Cygnus on Falcon 9 or Atlas V (besides cost), either. So, I don't think anyone is sweating the engines. As far as I know, Cygnus is the only thing flying on Antares (which I will admit is a little surprising).

...and heck... Stratolaunch might be relevant by the end of the contract.

I wonder if Orbital would be allowed to switch LVs in the middle of the contract. Although, I suppose that you could argue that is exactly what SpaceX did under CRS-1 with its upgraded F9. Incidentally, Culbertson said that Orbital is currently in negotiation with a customer for Antares.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: robertross on 02/24/2014 03:50 pm
I am guessing that SpaceX will maintain their CRS1 prices (per kg) for CRS2.

With only SNC's DC coming down the pipe for possible Cargo return capability, they may be in a better position to bring their prices up.

We need to remember that many companies, research institutes, and schools held back on developing large budget science projects that could be sent up to the ISS because the End-of Life for station was uncertain. With a potential 10 year future (or more), they may start asking for greater science time up there, and having robust 'up-mass' AND 'down-mass' capability for their experiments could be critical.

Plus there is only so much analysis that can be done on station, and that analysis would like require expensive test equipment (to develop, test, certify, and launch). It could be cheaper to just send the samples back down. It also frees up valuable astronaut time for other experiments, rather than it spent on analysis training.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: BrightLight on 02/24/2014 03:59 pm
I am guessing that SpaceX will maintain their CRS1 prices (per kg) for CRS2.

With only SNC's DC coming down the pipe for possible Cargo return capability, they may be in a better position to bring their prices up.

We need to remember that many companies, research institutes, and schools held back on developing large budget science projects that could be sent up to the ISS because the End-of Life for station was uncertain. With a potential 10 year future (or more), they may start asking for greater science time up there, and having robust 'up-mass' AND 'down-mass' capability for their experiments could be critical.

Plus there is only so much analysis that can be done on station, and that analysis would like require expensive test equipment (to develop, test, certify, and launch). It could be cheaper to just send the samples back down. It also frees up valuable astronaut time for other experiments, rather than it spent on analysis training.
I must have missed something - why would cargo version of Dragon not have down mass capabilities?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: clongton on 02/24/2014 04:12 pm
I am guessing that SpaceX will maintain their CRS1 prices (per kg) for CRS2.

With only SNC's DC coming down the pipe for possible Cargo return capability, they may be in a better position to bring their prices up.

We need to remember that many companies, research institutes, and schools held back on developing large budget science projects that could be sent up to the ISS because the End-of Life for station was uncertain. With a potential 10 year future (or more), they may start asking for greater science time up there, and having robust 'up-mass' AND 'down-mass' capability for their experiments could be critical.

Plus there is only so much analysis that can be done on station, and that analysis would like require expensive test equipment (to develop, test, certify, and launch). It could be cheaper to just send the samples back down. It also frees up valuable astronaut time for other experiments, rather than it spent on analysis training.
I must have missed something - why would cargo version of Dragon not have down mass capabilities?

The statement needs to be understood in it's context, namely that Dragon has down-mass capability. Then [besides Dragon] "With only SNC's DC coming down the pipe ...".

The intent was that Dragon will only share down-mass capability with one other provider; SNC.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2014 04:13 pm
CST-100 would have down-mass capabilities. They may bid on CRS-2. But Dragon obviously is far ahead in this regard, since, um, they've already flown to ISS 4 times doing cargo up and down.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/24/2014 04:31 pm
CST-100 would have down-mass capabilities. They may bid on CRS-2. But Dragon obviously is far ahead in this regard, since, um, they've already flown to ISS 4 times doing cargo up and down.

We'll see what the selection criteria are but I suspect that they will be similar to CCtCap. If that is the case, price will be very important (as it should be). I suspect that SpaceX will come out on top because of prices again. But after SpaceX, the competition is wide open. Isn't competition, great?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 02/24/2014 05:07 pm
SpaceX may try and go for it all. A pressurized version of the extended trunk could carry about 30 m^3 of cargo, so 4 flights per year (2 with a pressurized trunk) would give 100 m^3 of pressurized up-volume and 28 m^3 of unpressurized up-volume. By using the unpressurized trunk flights to carry denser cargo I reckon about 16 tonnes of pressurized cargo and up to 4 tonnes of unpressurized cargo can be carried.

Alternatively they could do it with 8 flights/year of F9R + reused Dragons at about $70M/flight. NASA would have to change the requirements before the RFP for this to be possible .

Alternatively a large Dragon (5-5.5m diameter) could probably meet the requirements - but this is probably only worth doing for SpaceX if they had another customer.

The cost to SpaceX is roughly the same for each of these options, possibly  in the order of $400M.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: rpapo on 02/24/2014 05:13 pm
Alternatively a large Dragon (5-5.5m diameter) could probably meet the requirements - but this is probably only worth doing for SpaceX if they had another customer.
The problem with this is the same problem that gives us a tall skinny Falcon: road clearances on American highways.  I don't think they will fabricate a wider pressure shell in two or more pieces to be assembled at the launch site.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2014 05:16 pm
This is the only reason I brought up MCT as a possible part of their bid. More likely than a large Dragon, about on par with a pressurized "trunk". Dragons are a little too small for cargo if you're limited to just 4 or 5 per year for 15t. It can be done, if a lot of the mass is stuff like water, but it's tight.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lars_J on 02/24/2014 05:16 pm
SpaceX may try and go for it all. A pressurized version of the extended trunk could carry about 30 m^3 of cargo

Please explain how *that* would work. A bit far-fetched IMO.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/24/2014 05:22 pm
The cost to SpaceX is roughly the same for each of these options, possibly  in the order of $400M.

NASA isn't providing any development funds for cargo - they already did that with the COTS program.

Unless there is some deficit that NASA currently sees that needs to be addressed with the current cargo providers, I'm sure they would quite happy if they continued to use the current Orbital Sciences and SpaceX cargo transportation systems.  Between the two of them they provide everything that the station needs, and if they need something else they can create a separate contract to handle that.

And I'll state again that from my perspective if we're not LOWERING the overall cost to support the ISS, then we don't yet know enough to expand humanity out into space.  And isn't that really the goal we all want?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 02/24/2014 05:24 pm
SpaceX may try and go for it all. A pressurized version of the extended trunk could carry about 30 m^3 of cargo

Please explain how *that* would work. A bit far-fetched IMO.

Have the trunk as a pressure vessel. Berthing port at the lower end (opposite end to Dragon). Fly to ISS, berthed to ISS by the berthing port on trunk. After offload and load of cargo fly away. Use Dragon only as a tug.

Extra marks if the Dragon can be used to carry cargo as well, but this needs a second berthing which seems to be outside the spirit of the RFI.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 02/24/2014 06:46 pm
SpaceX may try and go for it all. A pressurized version of the extended trunk could carry about 30 m^3 of cargo

Please explain how *that* would work. A bit far-fetched IMO.

Look at Chris Bergins article.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/nasa-iss-resupply-options-through-2024/

They could do it similar to the ATK proposal. Should not be hard to implement. That vessel can be almost totally passive.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: InfraNut2 on 02/24/2014 06:48 pm
SpaceX may try and go for it all. A pressurized version of the extended trunk could carry about 30 m^3 of cargo

Please explain how *that* would work. A bit far-fetched IMO.

Have the trunk as a pressure vessel. Berthing port at the lower end (opposite end to Dragon). Fly to ISS, berthed to ISS by the berthing port on trunk. After offload and load of cargo fly away. Use Dragon only as a tug.

Extra marks if the Dragon can be used to carry cargo as well, but this needs a second berthing which seems to be outside the spirit of the RFI.

This generates too many operational and other problems IMHO.

It would be better to have a separate pod in the extended trunk. You could fit a pod the size of the cygnus standard PCM, only slightly shorter and wider. I.e. up to around 20m2 (edit: but even 10m2 would be really useful). This would operate the same way as for the Bigelow BEAM payload on SpX-8, except it is returned to the trunk afterwards (edit: and not inflated of course). Or in some respects more like the MPLM or the proposed ATK liberty cargo pod.

Both Dragon itself and the pod will be available for unloading+loading simultaneously. edit: this would be especielly neat for a docking crew/cargo dragon.

It would also fit on any flight without other external payloads. It would be no more tricky that any other external payload except for being bulkier and possibly heavier.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/24/2014 07:39 pm
CST-100 would have down-mass capabilities. They may bid on CRS-2. But Dragon obviously is far ahead in this regard, since, um, they've already flown to ISS 4 times doing cargo up and down.

Obviously, both of the existing CRS providers have an advantage since they already have cargo vehicles developed and already have some sort of operational flow going with regards to unmanned cargo flights. Everyone else would need to fund the development of a cargo version of their vehicle in-house.

It would be interesting if Orbital decided to add some optional downmass or unpressurized cargo capability to the existing Cygnus in the future. With the current production flow for Antares / Cygnus, I think they could handle the LON capability today. SpaceX would need to somehow throttle back their manifest, so that they could keep an extra Dragon and F9 in storage someplace near, but not necessarily at the launch pad.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2014 09:03 pm
Cygnus has a ballute recovery concept that would allow down mass using the Cygnus spacecraft. Don't know how far the idea is.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 02/24/2014 09:22 pm
I'd love to see Biglow offering their space tug concept for affordable space access.

Off topic.

The Bigelow space tug is an inspace only vehicle.  It has neither the high thrust engines nor the thermal protection system (heat shield) needed to operate in an atmosphere.  It may however end up being a second customer for the CRS2 launch vehicles.
Sorry A_M, I dont get your point.
Of course a space tug has to be complementry to a LV. The launch vehicle takes the cargo module out of the atmosphere and the tug takes it from there. Then the tug returns the used cargo module to a decay orbit, and comes back to park at iss or waits on orbit. Once being launched, the tug does not need to enter the atmosphere, and you dont get to burn a $50mil bus on every flight.

Earlier on the thread I got a good reason why it wont be possible at crs2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1163268#msg1163268
I think that not developing a space tug earlier shows lack of insight by nasa, as it could have saved money while advancing science. Therefore I said Id love to see it happen now
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 02/25/2014 12:39 am
Cygnus has a ballute recovery concept that would allow down mass using the Cygnus spacecraft. Don't know how far the idea is.
Or something like the VBK-Raduga.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Comga on 02/25/2014 05:27 am
SpaceX may try and go for it all. A pressurized version of the extended trunk could carry about 30 m^3 of cargo, so 4 flights per year (2 with a pressurized trunk) would give 100 m^3 of pressurized up-volume and 28 m^3 of unpressurized up-volume. By using the unpressurized trunk flights to carry denser cargo I reckon about 16 tonnes of pressurized cargo and up to 4 tonnes of unpressurized cargo can be carried.

Alternatively they could do it with 8 flights/year of F9R + reused Dragons at about $70M/flight. NASA would have to change the requirements before the RFP for this to be possible .

Alternatively a large Dragon (5-5.5m diameter) could probably meet the requirements - but this is probably only worth doing for SpaceX if they had another customer.

The cost to SpaceX is roughly the same for each of these options, possibly  in the order of $400M.

We have seen a drawing from SpaceX of an extended, but still unpressurized trunk.
Do you have any reference to a SpaceX discussion of a pressurized trunk?  I don't think it exists.
It is even less likely that you have seen a SpaceX discussion of a larger Dragon.
I believe that others here might say that your pricing of F9R/Dragon flights is "Unsubstantiated".
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 02/25/2014 01:53 pm

I think that not developing a space tug earlier shows lack of insight by nasa, as it could have saved money while advancing science. Therefore I said Id love to see it happen now


Nonsense.  NASA as no need for such a device based on launch frequency.   Science missions don't need it and ISS is complete.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/25/2014 02:06 pm

I think that not developing a space tug earlier shows lack of insight by nasa, as it could have saved money while advancing science. Therefore I said Id love to see it happen now


Nonsense.  NASA as no need for such a device based on launch frequency.   Science missions don't need it and ISS is compete.

I agree that NASA has not needed space tugs yet, and the good news is that the basic technology for them has already been demonstrated by the ATV, HTV and Cygnus supply vehicles.  Cygnus especially has a Service Module that is already separate from it's Pressurized Cargo Module, and could act as a tug for other cargo quite easily.

We don't lack the ability to move dumb mass to specific points in LEO, and no doubt the same technology can be used if we need to move dumb mass to points beyond LEO.  All without the need of a new launcher.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 02/25/2014 02:08 pm

I agree that NASA has not needed space tugs yet, and the good news is that the basic technology for them has already been demonstrated by the ATV, HTV and Cygnus supply vehicles.  Cygnus especially has a Service Module that is already separate from it's Pressurized Cargo Module, and could act as a tug for other cargo quite easily.


And Orbital Express. 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: BrightLight on 02/25/2014 04:02 pm
All in all the CRS-2 contract is pretty good deal for the US taxpayer.  CRS 1 was about 88M per ton in 2008.  Taking inflation into account using standard CPI calculators, that $88M is equivalent to $95.61M in 2014 dollars.  CRS-2 has at the upper end about $100M per ton delivered and and about $66M at the lower end.
Also included is the returned down mass
"The following items are part of the total return capability required but require additional support from the service provider.
   Return of 24-30 powered lockers per year.  The same power and data services as described above are required for the return flight. 
   Return of 24-30 conditioned stowage bags per year. 
   Return of 20-25 CTBEs of passive cargo per year.  "
to me, this is clear progress towards a non-government operated LEO capability.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 02/25/2014 04:11 pm
Note that the number of cargo flights (4 or 5) to the ISS isn't set in stone. The RFI says the following on this topic (see the last sentence in bold):

Quote from: page 1 of the RFI
Funds Available to Procure the Service

NASA’s budget to procure this service is anticipated to be between $1.0B and $1.4B per year. If the described services cannot be provided as defined within this budget range, NASA requests feedback on options to procure the required upmass and downmass for the defined budget. Identify which services would need to be modified or removed to stay within the available budget. For example, propose a different number of flights per year that still meets the required upmass and downmass required.

This implies that a provider could offer in its proposal more or less than 4 or 5 flights per year provided that they stay within the budget.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 02/25/2014 09:15 pm
I think that not developing a space tug earlier shows lack of insight by nasa, as it could have saved money while advancing science. Therefore I said Id love to see it happen now
Nonsense.  NASA (h)as no need for such a device based on launch frequency.   Science missions don't need it and ISS is complete.
Evidently, your right. If we give nasa the credit for them probably have done all the checkups and came to your conclusion that it is not cost effective based on launch frequency.
But I cant find the way to get to this conclusion by myself.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 02/26/2014 07:24 pm
CST-100 would have down-mass capabilities. They may bid on CRS-2. But Dragon obviously is far ahead in this regard, since, um, they've already flown to ISS 4 times doing cargo up and down.

We'll see what the selection criteria are but I suspect that they will be similar to CCtCap. If that is the case, price will be very important (as it should be). I suspect that SpaceX will come out on top because of prices again. But after SpaceX, the competition is wide open. Isn't competition, great?

Competition, and more specifically, the ability of new entrants to freely enter the market (and of existing firms to exit the market when their offerings are no longer competitive, and when they do not choose to expend the development and operational resources to innovate and develop new technologies to remain competitive), is absolutely essential to bringing into being the sort of dynamic and innovative space future needed to get humanity into a new and vibrant space age version 2.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 02/26/2014 08:04 pm
The cost to SpaceX is roughly the same for each of these options, possibly  in the order of $400M.

NASA isn't providing any development funds for cargo - they already did that with the COTS program.

Unless there is some deficit that NASA currently sees that needs to be addressed with the current cargo providers, I'm sure they would quite happy if they continued to use the current Orbital Sciences and SpaceX cargo transportation systems.  Between the two of them they provide everything that the station needs, and if they need something else they can create a separate contract to handle that.

And I'll state again that from my perspective if we're not LOWERING the overall cost to support the ISS, then we don't yet know enough to expand humanity out into space.  And isn't that really the goal we all want?

Coastal, while I agree with your premise that many of "us" want that goal of lowering overall cost for space access, and substantially increasing the pace at which humanity expands into space, I can't quite follow your logic to your conclusion.

I think it is a mistake to conflate our interests with the interests of NASA and the Congress of the United States.  And likewise, a mistake to conflate our interests and the interests of any particular low-cost provider of LEO-to-ISS space transport services.

It is not at all clear to me that "our" interests of lowering costs of space access will result in a lowering of price per unit mass for NASA/governmental access to the ISS, under some particular set of "rules of the game," for accessing the international multi-gabillion dollar "family jewels" of a space station, on the 2017-2024 CRS-2 contract.

The prices that are quoted to NASA for such a service contract (by any would-be service provider) are very likely to be impacted to a greater extent by the competitive offerings of the various US competitors who have something to offer, in that particular time frame. (I'm assuming here that no additional NASA $$$ for development expenses are forthcoming via CRS-2.)

To the extent only one of those competitors has a particular cost advantage in the launch service technology available in that time frame, there is no compelling reason for that provider to offer its services particularly near their costs, rather than nearer their expectation of their competitor's quoted price.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/28/2014 03:01 am
This was posted yesterday:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=69a031426e30bea06b33fb6c1e34cffb&tab=core&_cview=0

See also this CRS2 webpage for updates:
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AnalogMan on 04/10/2014 11:21 am
NASA is holding an Industry Day meeting later today to discuss CRS2 with interested firms.  The following presentation will be used:

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-001-001.ppt (http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-001-001.ppt)

I've attached a pdf version for those unable to read PowerPoint files.

There's little new that wasn't covered in the RFI document (linked in the opening post).  Some requests for ideas on ways to shape the contract, and a tentative schedule included.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lurker Steve on 04/10/2014 01:01 pm
Interesting that the contract is awarded in Feb 2015.

NASA would really be taking a risk (again) to award a contract to a vendor whose cargo ship hasn't flown yet.

Is there a Launch-On-Need clause in the current contract ?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 04/10/2014 03:00 pm
Slide 34 is interesting. It states the following:

Quote from: presentation
NASA prefers cargo vehicles to berth since some cargo items are larger than what can be accommodated through the docking adapter, for instance an M03 bag. If docking is proposed, the providers should consider methods of transferring cargo through the docking adapter.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 04/10/2014 03:05 pm
Interesting that the contract is awarded in Feb 2015.

NASA would really be taking a risk (again) to award a contract to a vendor whose cargo ship hasn't flown yet.

I agree that the award date is interesting. The FY2015 NASA Budget says that NASA is looking to extend CCiCap into FY2015. It could be that the Administration's intention is to extend CCiCap to February 2015 (by exercising some of the optional milestones). There would be some logic to award CCtCap and CRS2 at the same time in February 2015.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 04/15/2014 09:33 pm
Interested parties list has been posted:

Quote from: Interested parties list
Aerojet Rocketdyne
Aerospace
Arrow
Astrium
ATDL
ATK
Barrios
Blue Origin
Boeing
Draper Lab
Kistler SS
L-3 Cincinnati
Lockheed Martin
Orbital
Paragon Space Development Corporation
SAS
SNC
SpaceX
Teledyne Brown
United Launch Alliance
UTAS

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: chalz on 04/19/2014 03:22 am
Slide 34 is interesting. It states the following:

Quote from: presentation
NASA prefers cargo vehicles to berth since some cargo items are larger than what can be accommodated through the docking adapter, for instance an M03 bag. If docking is proposed, the providers should consider methods of transferring cargo through the docking adapter.

Cue hollywood movie about plucky removal men saving the world by trying to get stuff through a docking hatch.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 04/28/2014 06:22 pm
Interested parties list has been posted:

Quote from: Interested parties list
Aerojet Rocketdyne
Aerospace
Arrow
Astrium
ATDL
ATK
Barrios
Blue Origin
Boeing
Draper Lab
Kistler SS
L-3 Cincinnati
Lockheed Martin
Orbital
Paragon Space Development Corporation
SAS
SNC
SpaceX
Teledyne Brown
United Launch Alliance
UTAS

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/

NASA procurement has just today posted the "Industry Day Questions and Answers" to the same web site.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 04/28/2014 06:33 pm
There has been some concern from some of the interested parties;
but NASA sez:  "The CRS2 procurement is not targeted to incumbents."

Quote
6. Q:
What schedule extension is possible? The proposed schedule is such that only
incumbents can properly respond. Answering all the requirements and putting together
a response for a 9 year contract of a billion dollars or more takes more time. Is this
targeted to incumbents?
  A:
The schedule for the procurement is in work and will be maintained and updated
as required on the CRS2 website. The final schedule is being developed,
taking into account feedback received from industry during industry day.
NASA is conducting a full and open competition
and is seeking industry input to have the maximum participation
possible. The CRS2 procurement is not targeted to incumbents.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 04/28/2014 08:18 pm
The following were questions that I asked.

Quote
8. Q: Has consideration been given to awarding CRS2 at the same time as Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap)?

A: Yes, NASA has considered the schedules of both procurements and is actively working to ensure that the schedules for these two procurements are coordinated to allow the maximum participation from industry on both competitions. The schedule for the CRS2 procurement is in work and will be maintained and updated as required on the CRS2 website.

I am not sure what that means. Does that mean that they will delay CCtCap until February 2015?

Quote
13. Q: Has consideration been given in using the same companies for commercial crew and cargo?

A: The CRS2 competition will be a full and open competition and is independent of the commercial crew competition

I knew the answer to that question but I was hoping that they would provide the rational behind the decision to separate cargo and crew contracts.

Quote
20. Q: Will a company proposing a docking cargo system be disadvantaged compared to one that proposes a berthing cargo system? How much cargo going up would be limited for docking vs berthing?

A: As stated in the Request for Information (RFI), there is a preference for berthing due to the dimensional limitations of the International Docking Adapter (IDA). There are ISS cargo items that must be transferred through an ISS berthing port and, as such, vehicles using the ISS berthing ports will be an integral part of the CRS2 resupply strategy. However, both docking and berthing are acceptable approaches. The CRS2 RFP will define the cargo that is limited to transfer through a berthing port.

I asked the first part of the question but not the second part.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 04/28/2014 08:40 pm
Some of the more interesting questions.

Quote
16. Q: Is demonstration of ISS integration required before a proposer can be considered for award? What is needed for certification of new entrants?

A: No, demonstration of ISS integration is not required before award. An initial ISS integration certification must be completed before any initial flight to ISS and the CRS2 RFP will define the requirements to be met for any potential offeror selected for award. An initial flight to ISS may allow limitations on types of cargo and mass carried and may entail the demonstration and/or verification of capabilities prior to approaching the ISS.

Quote
22. Q: Is there a limitation on location of launch sites? United States (U.S.) only?

A: There is no statutory limitation on location of launch sites. However, payload processing facilities required must be available in close proximity to any launch site. Additional costs to NASA for processing payloads at various launch sites will be taken into account in the evaluation process. The CRS2 RFP will define the payload processing needs and evaluation approach.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/28/2014 10:28 pm
Some of the more interesting questions.

Quote
16. Q: Is demonstration of ISS integration required before a proposer can be considered for award? What is needed for certification of new entrants?

A: No, demonstration of ISS integration is not required before award. An initial ISS integration certification must be completed before any initial flight to ISS and the CRS2 RFP will define the requirements to be met for any potential offeror selected for award. An initial flight to ISS may allow limitations on types of cargo and mass carried and may entail the demonstration and/or verification of capabilities prior to approaching the ISS.

Blue Origin is bidding, so that could be their test flight.

Quote
Quote
22. Q: Is there a limitation on location of launch sites? United States (U.S.) only?

A: There is no statutory limitation on location of launch sites. However, payload processing facilities required must be available in close proximity to any launch site. Additional costs to NASA for processing payloads at various launch sites will be taken into account in the evaluation process. The CRS2 RFP will define the payload processing needs and evaluation approach.

Who has a launch site outside the USA?
Is one of the bidders planning on using a Japanese or European launch vehicle?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 04/28/2014 10:53 pm
NASA has provided the rationale for the larger per-launch upmass requirements for CRS2 relative to CRS1.  Since this could no doubt be a constraint on some potential CRS2 vehicles, this will no doubt be discussed later on this thread later on.

Quote
12.
Q:
For CRS2, why has NASA decided to create higher total upmass cargo delivery requirements, per launch, versus the original contracted delivery capabilities of the two incumbent launch service providers for CRS1? Seems like this could be viewed as limiting the possible launch vehicle systems to compete for CRS2.

A:
There have been three major changes in upmass needs since CRS1 was awarded. First, t he upmass requirements have increased for research and supporting a fourth crew member . Se cond, some of the upmass requirements provided as part of the contribution by our international partner vehicles have been met . N o additional vehicles are currently scheduled from these international partners . Third, the stockpile of supplies that were put on orbit before Shuttle retirement ha ve been consumed and the ISS program now has to fly all the supplies needed in a timely fashion. Therefore, in comparison to the CRS1 requirements, a higher total upmass delivery is required by the ISS program for the CRS2 procurement . The higher upmass per launch is necessary to insure that the additional required cargo can be brought to orbit on about the same number of cargo flights per year as the CRS1 contract requires. Each docking/berthing operation is a bi g impact to crew time and therefore research on ISS. Today, with crew flights and cargo flights necessary for both U . S . and Russian segment operations , an average of 14 flights come to the ISS each year. More than this will be a major impact to operations. The refore the desire to transport the identified upmass on no more than 5 cargo flights per year. NASA is conduct ing a full and open competition and is seeking 4 inputs from industry to determine the final requirements to enable the best value for the governme nt in meet ing the ISS resupply needs.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: deltaV on 04/29/2014 12:16 am
That RFI requests up to 16.8 tonnes of pressurized upmass yearly with a volume of up to 70 m^3. The maximum allowed number of flights is 5 yearly, so this works out to 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3 per flight.

A dragon has only 11 m^3 of pressurized volume (http://www.spacex.com/dragon), so a larger dragon is presumably required. I have no idea whether a F9 1.1 would be sufficient to haul an enlarged dragon to ISS.

Cygnus has plenty of available volume (27 m^3) but has a mass capacity of only 2.7 tonnes (http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSystems/Publications/Cygnus_factsheet.pdf), so it appears to need upgrading as well. I suspect that Antares would have trouble with the mass requirement, so Orbital may need to use e.g. Stratolaunch instead.

DreamChaser has enough volume (16 m^3) (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/drehaser.htm). Presumably Atlas could launch it full of cargo, possibly with a couple of extra solids.

I have no idea whether CST-100 would be big enough.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lars_J on 04/29/2014 12:26 am
I suspect that Antares would have trouble with the mass requirement, so Orbital may need to use e.g. Stratolaunch instead.

But Stratolaunch isn't even close to being ready anytime soon, right? Or have I missed something? It seems unlikely that there is time to introduce a new LV for use with CRS2. Antares, F9, Altas V or Delta IV seem like the only launch vehicle options that are realistic.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/29/2014 12:28 am
That RFI requests up to 16.8 tonnes of pressurized upmass yearly with a volume of up to 70 m^3. The maximum allowed number of flights is 5 yearly, so this works out to 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3 per flight. A dragon has only 11 m^3 of pressurized volume (http://www.spacex.com/dragon), so a larger dragon is presumably required. I have no idea whether a F9 1.1 would be sufficient to haul an enlarged dragon to ISS. Cygnus has plenty of available volume (27 m^3) but has a mass capacity of only 2.7 tonnes (http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSystems/Publications/Cygnus_factsheet.pdf), so it appears to need upgrading as well. I suspect that Antares would have trouble with the mass requirement, so Orbital may need to use e.g. Stratolaunch instead.
So would be able to have something in place in time? The limitation to 5 flights could be a real bummer. I think that SpaceX with reusable F9/Dragon could meet the goals with more flights. What exactly is NASA playing at here? I am sure they will have someone in mind.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: deltaV on 04/29/2014 12:31 am
But Stratolaunch isn't even close to being ready anytime soon, right? Or have I missed something? It seems unlikely that there is time to introduce a new LV for use with CRS2. Antares, F9, Altas V or Delta IV seem like the only launch vehicle options that are realistic.

You're right. Stratolaunch isn't expected to ready until 2018 and CRS2 starts in 2017.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 04/29/2014 12:43 am
But Stratolaunch isn't even close to being ready anytime soon, right? Or have I missed something? It seems unlikely that there is time to introduce a new LV for use with CRS2. Antares, F9, Altas V or Delta IV seem like the only launch vehicle options that are realistic.

You're right. Stratolaunch isn't expected to ready until 2018 and CRS2 starts in 2017.
I don't believe the competition precludes switching LV midway, if the contractor eats the cost. Specially if it improves the performance or is held on contingency on main LV unavailability.
In fact, I don't think NASA could have more than a veto. The contract is for payload delivered and LV is a contractor design. As long as is safe enough to trust their payloads, it should be ok.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: e of pi on 04/29/2014 12:44 am
That RFI requests up to 16.8 tonnes of pressurized upmass yearly with a volume of up to 70 m^3. The maximum allowed number of flights is 5 yearly, so this works out to 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3 per flight.

A dragon has only 11 m^3 of pressurized volume (http://www.spacex.com/dragon), so a larger dragon is presumably required. I have no idea whether a F9 1.1 would be sufficient to haul an enlarged dragon to ISS.
I'll just note that you quote "up to" 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3. If that's the language from the original, then that would simply to me imply an upper bound, or a rough ballpark they'd like. I think you could also mix-and-match payloads between operators: put denser payloads into Dragon, and save lighter, bulkier ones for Cygnus. (Just to pick a combination of the two existing vehicles.)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 04/29/2014 12:49 am
That RFI requests up to 16.8 tonnes of pressurized upmass yearly with a volume of up to 70 m^3. The maximum allowed number of flights is 5 yearly, so this works out to 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3 per flight.

A dragon has only 11 m^3 of pressurized volume (http://www.spacex.com/dragon), so a larger dragon is presumably required. I have no idea whether a F9 1.1 would be sufficient to haul an enlarged dragon to ISS.
I'll just note that you quote "up to" 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3. If that's the language from the original, then that would simply to me imply an upper bound, or a rough ballpark they'd like. I think you could also mix-and-match payloads between operators: put denser payloads into Dragon, and save lighter, bulkier ones for Cygnus. (Just to pick a combination of the two existing vehicles.)

The RFI says that it should generally represent 55 to 70 m^3. It doesn't seem to be a hard requirement. But SpaceX would meet it anyways. They should also meet the payload requirement 5 x 3 mt = 15mt.

Quote from: draft RFI
Delivery of 14,250 to 16,750 kilograms (kg) per year of pressurized cargo.
o The typical volume of the mass of cargo quoted above is 55 to 70 cubic meters (m3) which must be accommodated.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: deltaV on 04/29/2014 01:09 am
NASA is unlikely to be happy if they have 70 m^3 of cargo to transport some year and SpaceX can only transport 55 m^3. If I were bidding I would aim for the high end of the stated ranges, not the low end.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 04/29/2014 03:52 am
My guess, they will offer Dragon with docking and a secondary pressurized volume with berthing in the trunk. That will easily fulfill all requirements of volume, weight, cargo dimensions and downmass as well as require only one type of Dragon for cargo and freight crew. Falcon 9 has the lifting capacity even with reusable first stage.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 04/29/2014 05:04 am
Cygnus has plenty of available volume (27 m^3) but has a mass capacity of only 2.7 tonnes (http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSystems/Publications/Cygnus_factsheet.pdf), so it appears to need upgrading as well.

This seems somewhat relevant.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/03-Walz_Cygnus_Beyond_Low-Earth_Orbit.pdf

https://ac.arc.nasa.gov/p5uwr8gcebb/?archiveOffset=1620000
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 04/29/2014 01:32 pm
NASA stated they planned at least a couple of suppliers. NASA has that capability now with the Dragon/Cygnus combo. Specially with the Enhanced version flying on the Antares 130. So they have volumetric pressurized cargo going with Cygnus, heavy pressurized, unpressurized and down mass, with Dragon. If I had to make an assumption, Cygnus might be in the strongest position (save for the LV supply woes), since all the CCiCap participants will make bids very similar to the Dragon. Dragon has obviously some serious advantages: fully integrated and demonstrated, CBM and price.
The ATK proposal would have been great for a combined bid of crew and cargo. And my guess is that if their offer was more mature NASA would have allowed for a combined offering. But alas, it doesn't seems to be the case.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/29/2014 02:48 pm
The problem, I see with Cygnus is that it does not do downmass. It will be interesting if other parties can beat SpaceX and Dragon in fulfilling of the requirements and in price.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 04/29/2014 02:55 pm
NASA stated they planned at least a couple of suppliers. NASA has that capability now with the Dragon/Cygnus combo. Specially with the Enhanced version flying on the Antares 130. So they have volumetric pressurized cargo going with Cygnus, heavy pressurized, unpressurized and down mass, with Dragon. If I had to make an assumption, Cygnus might be in the strongest position (save for the LV supply woes), since all the CCiCap participants will make bids very similar to the Dragon. Dragon has obviously some serious advantages: fully integrated and demonstrated, CBM and price.
The ATK proposal would have been great for a combined bid of crew and cargo. And my guess is that if their offer was more mature NASA would have allowed for a combined offering. But alas, it doesn't seems to be the case.

NASA hasn't said that it wants two suppliers. The RFI only says one or more suppliers. Nevertheless, it seems likely that NASA will choose two suppliers. The requirements are such that Orbital and SpaceX have a better chance of being selected than others. Maybe that is why some have stated that the proposal seems to be targeted for incumbents.

As far as SpaceX is concerned, we have no clue what Dragon 2 will look like and be capable of. We know that it will be able to land propulsively on land. But that's about all that we know.   

I am hoping that NASA will choose three suppliers: two CCiCap companies plus Orbital. But I don't know how realistic that is.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/29/2014 03:05 pm
Hmm, I just realized that Dream Chaser theoretically has enough volume, but would it have enough upmass?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 04/29/2014 03:12 pm
It looks like Orbital will replace the AJ-26 with an ATK rocket engine. I am not sure how that will affect Orbital's chances for CRS2.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34580.msg1190335#msg1190335
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: docmordrid on 04/29/2014 04:07 pm
The Liberty first stage with Antares stickers?  A new solid, maybe based on their Stratolaunch effort?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 04/29/2014 04:34 pm
A new solid, maybe based on their Stratolaunch effort?

From what I recall, Stratolaunch had the rights to the rocket that would be built for them. So it would have to be a different rocket.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 04/29/2014 04:36 pm
NASA stated they planned at least a couple of suppliers. NASA has that capability now with the Dragon/Cygnus combo. Specially with the Enhanced version flying on the Antares 130. So they have volumetric pressurized cargo going with Cygnus, heavy pressurized, unpressurized and down mass, with Dragon. If I had to make an assumption, Cygnus might be in the strongest position (save for the LV supply woes), since all the CCiCap participants will make bids very similar to the Dragon. Dragon has obviously some serious advantages: fully integrated and demonstrated, CBM and price.
The ATK proposal would have been great for a combined bid of crew and cargo. And my guess is that if their offer was more mature NASA would have allowed for a combined offering. But alas, it doesn't seems to be the case.

NASA hasn't said that it wants two suppliers. The RFI only says one or more suppliers. Nevertheless, it seems likely that NASA will choose two suppliers. The requirements are such that Orbital and SpaceX have a better chance of being selected than others. Maybe that is why some have stated that the proposal seems to be targeted for incumbents.

As far as SpaceX is concerned, we have no clue what Dragon 2 will look like and be capable of. We know that it will be able to land propuslively on land. But that's about all that we know.   

I am hoping that NASA will choose three suppliers: two CCiCap companies plus Orbital. But I don't know how realistic that is.
Well, I had a special interpretation of this QA (my italics):

Quote
24. Q: Would NASA consider 1 award?
A: The Government intends to award one or more contracts as a result of the CRS2 RFP to ensure assured access for cargo to the ISS. A decision to award to a single source will not be able to be determined until all offers are evaluated.

I don't believe they can get assured access with a single supplier. Any stand down means no access. While they are not saying it, I'm assuming that's it will be extremely difficult to have assured access without two different systems.
May be, they could if they have different Cargo and Crew and the Crew can work as a robotic capsule in case of need. But I don't know if they can do that. Specially with the 60 days LON.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lars_J on 04/29/2014 04:52 pm
The Liberty first stage with Antares stickers?  A new solid, maybe based on their Stratolaunch effort?

I don't think either option will be available in time for the presumed start of the CRS2 contracts. But I could be wrong.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Prober on 04/29/2014 05:25 pm
It looks like Orbital will replace the AJ-26 with an ATK rocket engine. I am not sure how that will affect Orbital's chances for CRS2.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34580.msg1190335#msg1190335

nothing like that has been said
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: MP99 on 04/29/2014 05:41 pm
Some of the more interesting questions.

Quote
22. Q: Is there a limitation on location of launch sites? United States (U.S.) only?

A: There is no statutory limitation on location of launch sites. However, payload processing facilities required must be available in close proximity to any launch site. Additional costs to NASA for processing payloads at various launch sites will be taken into account in the evaluation process. The CRS2 RFP will define the payload processing needs and evaluation approach.

I see SpaceX are back to considering launching from Kwajalein, again.  ;)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 04/29/2014 11:17 pm
The problem, I see with Cygnus is that it does not do downmass. It will be interesting if other parties can beat SpaceX and Dragon in fulfilling of the requirements and in price.
There's been a number of proposals that would give Cygnus a downmass capability.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/30/2014 04:02 am
The problem, I see with Cygnus is that it does not do downmass. It will be interesting if other parties can beat SpaceX and Dragon in fulfilling of the requirements and in price.
There's been a number of proposals that would give Cygnus a downmass capability.
And how much payload and volume do these cost?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jarnis on 04/30/2014 06:01 am
The problem, I see with Cygnus is that it does not do downmass. It will be interesting if other parties can beat SpaceX and Dragon in fulfilling of the requirements and in price.
There's been a number of proposals that would give Cygnus a downmass capability.
And how much payload and volume do these cost?

My wild guess estimate: "A lot"
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: watermod on 04/30/2014 04:06 pm
For the non-recoverable down-mass (f.e. trash) has there ever been consideration of some sort of trash compactor and a means to launch compressed bricks or bundles of bricks to the earth? 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: bad_astra on 04/30/2014 06:05 pm
Strange to see Kistler's name back on the list.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: watermod on 04/30/2014 07:43 pm
Looking at the 5 rocket/year up-mass ISS delivery specification as an element in a shell game of requirements.   8)  If I was Musk & I am not. I would fly one payload a year on the Falcon Heavy with a 53 mt cylinder full of supplies and launch 4 Falcon 9 rockets empty to be filled up with return products. 8)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 04/30/2014 08:07 pm
Interested parties list has been posted:

Quote from: Interested parties list
Aerojet Rocketdyne
Aerospace
Arrow
Astrium
ATDL
ATK
Barrios
Blue Origin
Boeing
Draper Lab
Kistler SS
L-3 Cincinnati
Lockheed Martin
Orbital
Paragon Space Development Corporation
SAS
SNC
SpaceX
Teledyne Brown
United Launch Alliance
UTAS

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/

Stratolaunch couldn't be bothered to send someone?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 05/01/2014 01:48 am
The problem, I see with Cygnus is that it does not do downmass. It will be interesting if other parties can beat SpaceX and Dragon in fulfilling of the requirements and in price.
There's been a number of proposals that would give Cygnus a downmass capability.
And how much payload and volume do these cost?
I'm unsure. Orbital's early proposal would have involved replacing the entire PCM with a RCM. More recent proposals involve attaching an expandable heatshield between the PCM and the SM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcAT1BmUU9k
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lar on 05/01/2014 01:53 am
Looking at the 5 rocket/year up-mass ISS delivery specification as an element in a shell game of requirements.   8)  If I was Musk & I am not. I would fly one payload a year on the Falcon Heavy with a 53 mt cylinder full of supplies and launch 4 Falcon 9 rockets empty to be filled up with return products. 8)

Can the arm handle something that large and berth it successfully and safely?

Wish there was a use for large pressurized empty cylinders. So it would have to be deorbited? This is OT for the thread though.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2014 02:23 am
Looking at the 5 rocket/year up-mass ISS delivery specification as an element in a shell game of requirements.   8)  If I was Musk & I am not. I would fly one payload a year on the Falcon Heavy with a 53 mt cylinder full of supplies and launch 4 Falcon 9 rockets empty to be filled up with return products. 8)

NASA doesn't want that and would disqualify any proposal like that.
a.  They don't know the whole year's logistics requirements
b.  There are perishable items for the crew that needs to go up regularly
c.  There are experiments that needs regular trips
d. there are last minute additions.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 05/01/2014 03:01 am
Looking at the 5 rocket/year up-mass ISS delivery specification as an element in a shell game of requirements.   8)  If I was Musk & I am not. I would fly one payload a year on the Falcon Heavy with a 53 mt cylinder full of supplies and launch 4 Falcon 9 rockets empty to be filled up with return products. 8)

NASA doesn't want that and would disqualify any proposal like that.
a.  They don't know the whole year's logistics requirements
b.  There are perishable items for the crew that needs to go up regularly
c.  There are experiments that needs regular trips
d. there are last minute additions.

This is the same reason why the idea of continuing to fly shuttle to solve all the ISS's needs didn't actually make sense. While there are definitely some low value (Tang and TP) logistics requirements that might be forecastable in advance, most of the useful things happening on station are just not something you can fly in one big chunk. On the other hand, while it would be great to receive frequent smaller shipments, with the current way cargo handling is done, the overhead per delivery makes them want to go with a small but frequent number of deliveries.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 05/01/2014 03:03 am
The problem, I see with Cygnus is that it does not do downmass. It will be interesting if other parties can beat SpaceX and Dragon in fulfilling of the requirements and in price.
There's been a number of proposals that would give Cygnus a downmass capability.
And how much payload and volume do these cost?
I'm unsure. Orbital's early proposal would have involved replacing the entire PCM with a RCM. More recent proposals involve attaching an expandable heatshield between the PCM and the SM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcAT1BmUU9k

However the fact that Cygnus doesn't do downmass isn't necessarily a bad thing. There's plenty of trash that needs disposal, and it turns out there are plenty of interesting things you can do with a spacecraft like Cygnus that doesn't need to make it back down to Earth in a hurry after leaving ISS.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/01/2014 03:11 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcAT1BmUU9k
Hmm, this looks pretty awful.
Btw, maybe I saw that wrong, but this would use a Taurus2 not an Antares...
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: NovaSilisko on 05/01/2014 03:21 am
Hmm, this looks pretty awful.
Btw, maybe I saw that wrong, but this would use a Taurus2 not an Antares...

Antares was known during development as Taurus II.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/01/2014 03:22 am
Hmm, this looks pretty awful.
Btw, maybe I saw that wrong, but this would use a Taurus2 not an Antares...

Antares was known during development as Taurus II.
Ahh, I started to suspect something like that, but was not sure. Thanks for clarification.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2014 06:06 am
On the other hand, while it would be great to receive frequent smaller shipments, with the current way cargo handling is done, the overhead per delivery makes them want to go with a small but frequent number of deliveries.

~Jon

But not too frequent as to interrupt the crew schedule and microgravity qualitiy
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 05/01/2014 06:29 am

On the other hand, while it would be great to receive frequent smaller shipments, with the current way cargo handling is done, the overhead per delivery makes them want to go with a small but frequent number of deliveries.

~Jon

But not too frequent as to interrupt the crew schedule and microgravity qualitiy
I thought that berthing VV had no influence in microgravity quality.
On a different not, aren't was to automatize and simplify VV berthing so it doesn't requires so many crew hours? I assumed that whatever the next station is, a lot of thought have to go on logistics. Berthing should be a strictly a robotic operation. This way of doing things is simply too expensive.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 05/01/2014 07:46 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcAT1BmUU9k
Hmm, this looks pretty awful.
Can you elaborate?


On the other hand, while it would be great to receive frequent smaller shipments, with the current way cargo handling is done, the overhead per delivery makes them want to go with a small but frequent number of deliveries.

~Jon

But not too frequent as to interrupt the crew schedule and microgravity qualitiy
Berthing should be a strictly a robotic operation.
I've thought the same thing many times. Apparently from a hardware standpoint the arm isn't capable of autonomously grappling free-flying payloads (or at least that is what I believe Jim has said in the past). It would be interesting to see if NASA could launch a modified end effector that would add that capability.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 05/01/2014 01:36 pm
On the other hand, while it would be great to receive frequent smaller shipments, with the current way cargo handling is done, the overhead per delivery makes them want to go with a small but frequent number of deliveries.

~Jon

But not too frequent as to interrupt the crew schedule and microgravity quality

That's what I was trying to get at with the second part of my run-on sentence. It's a trade-off with the desire for faster logistics reaction time pushing towards more flights, and the desire to minimize the cargo logistics impact on crew time and microgravity pushing to fewer, bigger flights.

Is that run-on any better?

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 05/01/2014 01:44 pm

On the other hand, while it would be great to receive frequent smaller shipments, with the current way cargo handling is done, the overhead per delivery makes them want to go with a small but frequent number of deliveries.

~Jon

But not too frequent as to interrupt the crew schedule and microgravity qualitiy
I thought that berthing VV had no influence in microgravity quality.
On a different not, aren't was to automatize and simplify VV berthing so it doesn't requires so many crew hours? I assumed that whatever the next station is, a lot of thought have to go on logistics. Berthing should be a strictly a robotic operation. This way of doing things is simply too expensive.

Microgravity degradation is due at least to the initial berthing maneuver (there's a bump involved, though not as big a one as for docking), and also possibly due to the bumps from crew unloading and securing the cargo. The crew time hit is more for cargo unloading and trash reloading than it is for just the berthing operations itself, though those are also crew-time consuming.

Could there be ways of dealing at least with the crew time burdens? I'm pretty sure there are. We've proposed some telerobotic options to NASA for reducing crew time burdens due to cargo logistics, but haven't had much luck. And some of the worst of the microgravity issues could be dealt with by using man-tended free flyers for the most sensitive experiments. There are ways of solving these problems, but they require significant changes to how NASA does things currently, and while NASA does seem able to adapt, patience is necessary (though you do sometimes get surprised when they get you a good answer in three months when you had been expecting six).

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 05/01/2014 01:50 pm

I thought that berthing VV had no influence in microgravity quality.
On a different not, aren't was to automatize and simplify VV berthing so it doesn't requires so many crew hours? I assumed that whatever the next station is, a lot of thought have to go on logistics. Berthing should be a strictly a robotic operation. This way of doing things is simply too expensive.

I believe the  ISS has to maintain specific attitudes for rendezvous and berthing
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 05/01/2014 06:49 pm
I concur that a free flyer would seem a very interesting solution to the microgravity problem. Specially when you already have Cygnus. I'm pretty sure that a 4.2m Cygnus wouldn't be very expensive, since Thales had to reduce the pressurized module from that size. And I thought that the station had multiple attitude changes, for example to minimize the solar panels drag. And they have the reboosts and DAM that are much worse.
Does the crew movement for loading and unloading really affect to much? Moving a few tens of kilos in a 400 tonnes station shouldn't have such an impact. I would guess that the gravity gradient and attitude control per orbit would be much worse offenders.
I have to admit, that I'm still pondering what should be the lessons for the next space laboratory. I believe the fully autonomous rendezvous, capture and berthing should be a must. Or at the very least handled by the ground crew. I love the idea of a free flyer. Not only for the microgravity reasons but for the potential for dangerous experiments that would be unacceptable on a crewed situation. If I had to work on space I would like to develop the business and technical plan for a commercial continuation of the ISS.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/01/2014 07:13 pm
Hmm, this looks pretty awful.
Can you elaborate?
Well unless I misunderstood, this is meant as a means to return pressurized cargo to earth. The thing is quite fast when it hits the ocean. There are no parachutes to further brake the fall. It just does not look very nice.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 05/01/2014 08:17 pm
Hmm, this looks pretty awful.
Can you elaborate?
Well unless I misunderstood, this is meant as a means to return pressurized cargo to earth. The thing is quite fast when it hits the ocean. There are no parachutes to further brake the fall. It just does not look very nice.


My understanding is HEART is a tech demo for inflatable heatshields (Mars landing), not a model for an operational cargo return system.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/02/2014 05:33 pm
My understanding is HEART is a tech demo for inflatable heatshields (Mars landing), not a model for an operational cargo return system.
Then why is it attached to a Cygnus returning from the ISS?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 05/02/2014 06:03 pm
My understanding is HEART is a tech demo for inflatable heatshields (Mars landing), not a model for an operational cargo return system.
Then why is it attached to a Cygnus returning from the ISS?

It could be developed into a cargo return system, in which case it would have parachutes, etc. But the video is just showing a proposed tech demo mission with no intention of recovering the cargo.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/626775main_November_2011_Cheatwood.pdf

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/02/2014 06:09 pm
My understanding is HEART is a tech demo for inflatable heatshields (Mars landing), not a model for an operational cargo return system.
Then why is it attached to a Cygnus returning from the ISS?

It could be developed into a cargo return system, in which case it would have parachutes, etc. But the video is just showing a proposed tech demo mission with no intention of recovering the cargo.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/626775main_November_2011_Cheatwood.pdf
Ahh, that makes more sense! thanks!
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 05/02/2014 09:35 pm
Cygnus is currently the platform for destructive experiments, like the on used for flame propagation studies, for example. After the deorbit burn, they will basically set a section on fire and record the flame behavior. ATV and HTV were use to record fragment atmospheric behavior, too. A heat shield, is just too risky to test in another heat shield. But attach it to a disposable craft and you have the perfect study platform. You might eve take advantage of its bus and power for most requirements.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Prober on 05/05/2014 12:54 pm
My understanding is HEART is a tech demo for inflatable heatshields (Mars landing), not a model for an operational cargo return system.
Then why is it attached to a Cygnus returning from the ISS?
Another contender from the Orbital ATK merger:   The lightweight composite Orion. It would be like a super sized Dragon return.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: woods170 on 05/06/2014 06:36 am
My understanding is HEART is a tech demo for inflatable heatshields (Mars landing), not a model for an operational cargo return system.
Then why is it attached to a Cygnus returning from the ISS?
Another contender from the Orbital ATK merger:   The lightweight composite Orion. It would be like a super sized Dragon return.
That thing is only a composite pressure shell. None of all the other stuff required to turn it into a functional space ship is with ATK (or Orbital for that matter). The so-called composite Orion is even more powerpoint then the Liberty launch vehicle is.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 05/24/2014 06:02 pm
Due date for CRS2 proposals has been delayed to November 14th (it was previously in July):
Quote
Release Draft Request for Proposal    6/16/14   
Pre-Solicitation Conference              8/19/14   
Release Final Request for Proposal    10/01/14   
Proposals Due                               11/14/14

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Joffan on 06/03/2014 05:59 pm
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would it be possible - with millimetre-tolerance close-quarters manouevring - to have the visiting vehicle dock without arm assistance at what are currently regarded as berthing ports? Would there be any significant practical advantage to that? Would NASA see it as a desirable capability?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Space Pete on 06/03/2014 11:05 pm
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would it be possible - with millimetre-tolerance close-quarters manouevring - to have the visiting vehicle dock without arm assistance at what are currently regarded as berthing ports? Would there be any significant practical advantage to that? Would NASA see it as a desirable capability?

No, absolutely not - CBMs are not designed to take the impacts that docking would impart. There is no capture ring to take the loads, and so the seals of the CBMs themselves would be damaged.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 06/04/2014 03:44 am

Due date for CRS2 proposals has been delayed to November 14th (it was previously in July):
Quote
Release Draft Request for Proposal 6/16/14
Pre-Solicitation Conference           8/19/14
Release Final Request for Proposal 10/01/14
Proposals Due                            11/14/14

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp
I wonder if they found out that they had to specify more than they expected. A very important consideration for further commercial procurement.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/04/2014 08:11 am
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would it be possible - with millimetre-tolerance close-quarters manouevring - to have the visiting vehicle dock without arm assistance at what are currently regarded as berthing ports? Would there be any significant practical advantage to that? Would NASA see it as a desirable capability?

No, absolutely not - CBMs are not designed to take the impacts that docking would impart. There is no capture ring to take the loads, and so the seals of the CBMs themselves would be damaged.

I think the point of the phrase "millimetre-tolerance close-quarters maneuvering" is that we're assuming a future vehicle that can mimic the movements it would be given by the station's arm with its own thrusters.  Obviously, if the vehicle's thruster control is fine enough, it can do anything the arm could do with it and the loads would be exactly those from berthing with the arm.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/04/2014 03:17 pm
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would it be possible - with millimetre-tolerance close-quarters manouevring - to have the visiting vehicle dock without arm assistance at what are currently regarded as berthing ports? Would there be any significant practical advantage to that? Would NASA see it as a desirable capability?

No, absolutely not - CBMs are not designed to take the impacts that docking would impart. There is no capture ring to take the loads, and so the seals of the CBMs themselves would be damaged.

I think the point of the phrase "millimetre-tolerance close-quarters maneuvering" is that we're assuming a future vehicle that can mimic the movements it would be given by the station's arm with its own thrusters.  Obviously, if the vehicle's thruster control is fine enough, it can do anything the arm could do with it and the loads would be exactly those from berthing with the arm.


The spacecraft does not have to manoeuvre that accurately, just the connector.  Elevators have few problems aligning floors to a fraction of a millimetre.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Joffan on 06/04/2014 04:55 pm
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would it be possible - with millimetre-tolerance close-quarters manouevring - to have the visiting vehicle dock without arm assistance at what are currently regarded as berthing ports? Would there be any significant practical advantage to that? Would NASA see it as a desirable capability?

No, absolutely not - CBMs are not designed to take the impacts that docking would impart. There is no capture ring to take the loads, and so the seals of the CBMs themselves would be damaged.

I think the point of the phrase "millimetre-tolerance close-quarters maneuvering" is that we're assuming a future vehicle that can mimic the movements it would be given by the station's arm with its own thrusters.  Obviously, if the vehicle's thruster control is fine enough, it can do anything the arm could do with it and the loads would be exactly those from berthing with the arm.


The spacecraft does not have to manoeuvre that accurately, just the connector.  Elevators have few problems aligning floors to a fraction of a millimetre.

Well, I wasn't going to specify a particular mechanism, but yes, my idea was that the final mate-up would use an actively-positioned interface rather than trying to move the whole spacecraft by a millimetre or less. By contrast, though, the elevator analogy suggests it could actually be the whole vessel that is aligned.

So as I said, assuming that we have this capability, however achieved, would there be value in it for station operations?

(The reverse capability - departing the station without arm assistance - seems trivial, and I don't really understand why it isn't happening now.)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 06/04/2014 10:43 pm
Plume impingement is not trivial matter.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Will on 06/05/2014 01:35 am
It seems to me that a licensed HTV variant with enough domestic content to satisfy Congress, launched on an EELV, would have a pretty good chance of capturing half of the launches and most of the payload.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: JBF on 06/05/2014 02:21 am
It seems to me that a licensed HTV variant with enough domestic content to satisfy Congress, launched on an EELV, would have a pretty good chance of capturing half of the launches and most of the payload.
The problem with that is storage; unless you are willing to let the large cargo module stay berthed to the ISS for 4-6 months there is not enough room aboard to store everything. Heh 53t of supplies in one heavy launch.  Plus you want to rotate science experiments faster to get more through the pipeline.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 06/05/2014 12:19 pm
It wouldn't be difficult for Orbital to offer a bigger Cygnus. The Super long Cygnus only need 6.5tonnes to LEO and has something like 20% on both volume and weight. I don't believe anybody else has such a mature and scalable solution for cargo right now.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Joffan on 06/05/2014 06:05 pm
Plume impingement is not trivial matter.

OK, perhaps "trivial" was over-reaching. But plume impingement has certainly been controlled satisfactorily by departing docked vehicles. Why not vehicles using the ports currently restricted to berthing?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 06/14/2014 01:16 am
Here is an article on CRS2:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40903iss-cargo-shippers-face-competition-from-space-taxis
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 06/14/2014 01:19 am
Another series of questions and answers on CRS2 has been posted:
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-004-001.pdf
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 06/14/2014 01:48 am
Another series of questions and answers on CRS2 has been posted:
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-004-001.pdf

Quote
39.
Q: In our research, there are many communities that would like to see a requirement for low-g (2 g or less) return upon landing. Will NASA consider a requirement for this type of payload return similar to the timing of cargo access following landing (6 hours or less as currently stated)?

A: NASA will evaluate the suggestion and will consider potentially implementing this suggestion when developing the draft RFP.

40.
Q: The RFI states that critical cargo should be turned over within 6 hours of landing. In our discussions with the user community many of them would like a capability of 1 hour or less (near-immediate) access. What is the driver for the 6 hours and if a capability to provide critical cargo turnover within 1 hour will that receive special consideration? Will NASA also consider more immediate access, as it seems consistent with CASIS demands as well?

A: NASA’s 6 hour capability is driven by certain science payloads that are affected once the vehicle has come back into the gravity field. Evaluation criteria will be defined in the draft RFP regarding critical cargo access.

Who might have asked those two questions...?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: QuantumG on 06/14/2014 01:49 am
Who might have asked those two questions...?

SNC.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 06/14/2014 02:32 am

Who might have asked those two questions...?

SNC.
Funny, I thought it was a rhetorical question.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 06/14/2014 11:32 pm
Here is an article on CRS2:
ISS Cargo Shippers Face Competition from Space Taxis
 (http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40903iss-cargo-shippers-face-competition-from-space-taxis)

Lovely.  What a novel idea!   ::)

 ==>  Market competition from companies who are independently designing their own alternatives for meeting a set of requirements published by the government, and paid only for services rather than government ownership of the vehicles and technology. 

May a thousand flowers bloom!  8)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: John Santos on 06/14/2014 11:57 pm
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would it be possible - with millimetre-tolerance close-quarters manouevring - to have the visiting vehicle dock without arm assistance at what are currently regarded as berthing ports? Would there be any significant practical advantage to that? Would NASA see it as a desirable capability?

No, absolutely not - CBMs are not designed to take the impacts that docking would impart. There is no capture ring to take the loads, and so the seals of the CBMs themselves would be damaged.

You would have to have some way to slowly and precisely position the VV against the CBM, then activate the capture bolts (which are on the active, i.e. ISS side).  To do this it might be helpful to have a mechanism to grab onto the ISS near the CBM at some convenient hard point, and a method to then precisely move the VV's CBM into position against the ISS's CBM.  Oh, I got it!   :)  Put an arm with a grappling fixture on the visiting vehicle (controlled from the VV), grapple one of the FRGF or PDGF's near the CBM, and berth.  This would solve one of the issues with "Why must a visiting crewed vehicle dock with the ISS instead of berth with it?"  This is how the shuttle berthed new modules (though not itself) with the station before the station got its own Canadarm and a crew to operate it.

There still remain at least two technical problems that I know of, 1) the hatches on the ISS side of the CBMs can only be opened or closed from the inside (I'm pretty sure this was one of Jim's points), and the deberthing process is too slow for an emergency evacuation.  Plus a serious cost problem: unless you have some way to stow the arm inside the VV (like the shuttle did), you need a new one for each flight, and I'm sure they are very expensive.

I don't understand why people seem so dead set on being able to berth crewed visiting vehicles.  It would take several years at least to add an arm to Dragon, Dreamchaser or CST-100 (if you could find room for it), train the crews to use it, and so forth, when it would probably take less time to use the already planned docking mechanism.  I don't think this would speed up commercial crew, just slow it down.

EDIT: Or maybe I misunderstood.  Are you just proposing this as a method of attaching uncrewed VVs that wouldn't require so much crew time?  If so, my two technical objections wouldn't apply.  But if it were possible to remotely operate the VV's arm to do a berthing, it should be equally possible to remotely operate the station's arm.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AnalogMan on 06/16/2014 10:03 pm
NASA has just posted the Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for CRS2.
https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NASA/JSC/OPDC20220/NNJ14507542R/listing.html

Pre-solicitation Conference to be held August 7, 2014.  Comments and inquiries on dRFP due on or before July 18, 2014 for inclusion in conference.

Couple of quick notes:

Pricing to be based on missions instead of kilograms delivered or returned.

NASA Docking System (NDS) build-to-print data will be available for CRS2.  Final determination has not been made on if the NDS will be available as Government Furnished Property.

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-DRAFT-001-003.docx (https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-DRAFT-001-003.docx) (265 pages)
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-DRAFT-001-001.pdf (https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-DRAFT-001-001.pdf) (covering letter)

Copy of Draft RFP in pdf format also attached.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 06/17/2014 01:31 am
Pages 3 and 4 of the document (pages 7 and 8 of the PDF) provides a good overview of the requirements.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 08/25/2014 02:15 am
Contract award date for CRS2 has been added:

Quote
Release Final Request for Proposal 09/30/14   
Proposals Due 11/14/14   
Contract Award 04/28/15

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 08/25/2014 02:16 am
August 7 pre-proposal conference presentation:
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-OTHER-001-001.ppt
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 08/25/2014 02:37 am
Q&A on the draft RFP (post #1):
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-OTHER-002-001.pdf
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 08/25/2014 03:23 am
August 7 pre-proposal conference presentation:
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-OTHER-001-001.ppt

Price is the most important selection criteria (see slide 41):

Quote from: slide 41
Relative Order of Importance

Price is approximately equal to the combination of Mission Suitability and Past Performance. 
Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance. 
Price is more important than Mission Suitability. 
Price is more important than Past Performance. 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/25/2014 05:35 am
Here is an article on CRS2:
ISS Cargo Shippers Face Competition from Space Taxis
 (http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40903iss-cargo-shippers-face-competition-from-space-taxis)

Lovely.  What a novel idea!   ::)

 ==>  Market competition from companies who are independently designing their own alternatives for meeting a set of requirements published by the government, and paid only for services rather than government ownership of the vehicles and technology. 

May a thousand flowers bloom!  8)

In that article it has a quote from Boeing about the CST-100:

"With no crew, the capsule will be able to carry more than 1,100 kilograms of cargo"

Not sure I've seen that figure before, and it's interesting.  Dragon can carry about 3,310 kg of pressurized cargo to the ISS and return the same, and the Cygnus can carry 1,800 kg to the ISS.

So if price is the primary consideration the CST-100 will be challenged, since it would require 18 flights to deliver 20mt of supplies to the ISS vs 12 flights for Cygnus.  However CST-100 can return mass safely to Earth so that might be a consideration.

More food for thought until the CCtCap contract winners are announced, which should provide some insight into who the CRS2 competitors will be.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: QuantumG on 08/25/2014 05:41 am
"With no crew, the capsule will be able to carry more than 1,100 kilograms of cargo"

Not sure I've seen that figure before, and it's interesting.  Dragon can carry about 3,310 kg of pressurized cargo to the ISS and return the same, and the Cygnus can carry 1,800 kg to the ISS.

Maybe Boeing and Cygnus are using a sensible means of calculating up mass. SpaceX hasn't flown a single Dragon flight with up mass even close to their claims.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Borklund on 08/25/2014 09:14 am
"With no crew, the capsule will be able to carry more than 1,100 kilograms of cargo"

Not sure I've seen that figure before, and it's interesting.  Dragon can carry about 3,310 kg of pressurized cargo to the ISS and return the same, and the Cygnus can carry 1,800 kg to the ISS.

Maybe Boeing and Cygnus are using a sensible means of calculating up mass. SpaceX hasn't flown a single Dragon flight with up mass even close to their claims.
Because NASA hasn't manifested that much cargo on any single flight. Doesn't mean it's not true. SpaceX can't just put random stuff in there to demonstrate capability, in order to satisfy obsessive forum dwellers.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 08/25/2014 09:31 am
"With no crew, the capsule will be able to carry more than 1,100 kilograms of cargo"

Not sure I've seen that figure before, and it's interesting.  Dragon can carry about 3,310 kg of pressurized cargo to the ISS and return the same, and the Cygnus can carry 1,800 kg to the ISS.

Maybe Boeing and Cygnus are using a sensible means of calculating up mass. SpaceX hasn't flown a single Dragon flight with up mass even close to their claims.

This is insulting SpaceX. They have stated a capability and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt it. It is just that there is another capability, the well known volume and shape of the Dragon capsule.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: docmordrid on 08/25/2014 11:42 am
"With no crew, the capsule will be able to carry more than 1,100 kilograms of cargo"

Not sure I've seen that figure before, and it's interesting.  Dragon can carry about 3,310 kg of pressurized cargo to the ISS and return the same, and the Cygnus can carry 1,800 kg to the ISS.

Maybe Boeing and Cygnus are using a sensible means of calculating up mass. SpaceX hasn't flown a single Dragon flight with up mass even close to their claims.
Do you always fill the back of your vehicle to the max? Neither does NASA. ISTM they ship what's needed and ready. Ship more and the ISS crew may not have room to stow it and the trash  they've generated.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: QuantumG on 08/25/2014 12:10 pm
All I'm saying is that maybe Boeing and Orbital Sciences are estimating their payload capability in a way that is actually relevant to how NASA is going to use it. SpaceX didn't. There's no reason to get all defensive about it.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 08/25/2014 02:24 pm
Cargo CST-100 could launch on an 431, which might mean that they have more than enough margin to fill those 12m3.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Nomadd on 08/25/2014 02:38 pm
 It seems off that deleting 7 crew with all the associated hardware would only give you 1100 kg cargo capability. I wonder if that number might be for a lifeboat capable capsule with everything needed for a six month stay and a trip home with crew.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Garrett on 08/25/2014 02:40 pm
"With no crew, the capsule will be able to carry more than 1,100 kilograms of cargo"

Not sure I've seen that figure before, and it's interesting.  Dragon can carry about 3,310 kg of pressurized cargo to the ISS and return the same, and the Cygnus can carry 1,800 kg to the ISS.

Maybe Boeing and Cygnus are using a sensible means of calculating up mass. SpaceX hasn't flown a single Dragon flight with up mass even close to their claims.
Do you always fill the back of your vehicle to the max? Neither does NASA. ISTM they ship what's needed and ready. Ship more and the ISS crew may not have room to stow it and the trash  they've generated.
I don't think it's a question of not being able to stow stuff. The ATV and HTV bring up heavier loads as far as I can recall.

The Spx-4 mission is set to bring about 2300 kg (see this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35385.msg1242549#msg1242549)), which is quite substantial.

Given the type of cargo being transported, I believe Dragon will always be volume limited so that we'll never see 3300 kg of payload during the current CRS contract. I think there's a quote out there to support that.

Also, it's likely that SpaceX designed Dragon with more mass carrying ability than was necessary for CRS as their Chief Designer is believed to have big ambitions ...
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 08/25/2014 06:31 pm
All I'm saying is that maybe Boeing and Orbital Sciences are estimating their payload capability in a way that is actually relevant to how NASA is going to use it. SpaceX didn't. There's no reason to get all defensive about it.

According to the Cygnus fact sheet http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSystems/Publications/Cygnus_factsheet.pdf Cygnus can take 2000kg (current version) or 2700kg (enhanced version, to debut Orb CRS 4.  The enhanced Cygnus requires the Antares 130 which is supposed to debut in the next mission).  Missions so far have delivered less mass than the 2000kg max of the current version; 700kg, 1261kg, 1494kg for an average of 1152kg per flight.  Excluding the demo mission it's still only 1377kg per flight, which extended out over the full flight manifest would result in just over 54% of the total upmass they are supposedly contracted to take to the station.  Even if all future flights take full upmass (2000kg for the next flight, 2700kg for the last five flights) and including the demo flight they still fall short of 20,000kg by over 1000 kg.  And we've seen nothing to date to suggest that any, let alone all future flights, will maximize the capacity of Cygnus.

Doesn't seem all that different from SpaceX to me.

[EDIT] I take that back, after running the numbers for Dragon this seems worse.
[EDIT2] Some small fixes to numbers, no real effect though.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 08/25/2014 06:49 pm
"With no crew, the capsule will be able to carry more than 1,100 kilograms of cargo"

Not sure I've seen that figure before, and it's interesting.  Dragon can carry about 3,310 kg of pressurized cargo to the ISS and return the same, and the Cygnus can carry 1,800 kg to the ISS.

Maybe Boeing and Cygnus are using a sensible means of calculating up mass. SpaceX hasn't flown a single Dragon flight with up mass even close to their claims.

Part of the challenge is that pressurized upmass tends to be very low density. They've typically filled Dragon flights up as much as they could volume-wise and had tons (literally) of excess mass performance left over. I believe the term of art is "voluming-out".

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 08/25/2014 06:53 pm
For those keeping score at home, comparing Cygnus and Dragon deliveries:

Orbital D1: 700
Orbital CRS1: 1,261
Orbital CRS2: 1,494

SpaceX C2+: 525
SpaceX CRS1: 905
SpaceX CRS2: 881
SpaceX CRS3: 2,268

Upcoming:
SpaceX CRS4: 2,272
Cygnus CRS3: ?

Assuming SpX-4 goes off without a hitch, that leaves 13,149kg left over eight flights, which means an average of 1644kg flight, which seems pretty conservative given the manifest for CRS3 and CRS4.

Note: sourcing this data has been painful, and I've already found some mistakes myself, so please correct me with sources if some of these are in error.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 08/25/2014 07:50 pm

For those keeping score at home, comparing Cygnus and Dragon deliveries:

Orbital D1: 700
Orbital CRS1: 1,261
Orbital CRS2: 1,494

SpaceX C2+: 525
SpaceX CRS1: 905
SpaceX CRS2: 881
SpaceX CRS3: 2,268

Upcoming:
SpaceX CRS4: 2,272
Cygnus CRS3: ?

Assuming SpX-4 goes off without a hitch, that leaves 13,149kg left over eight flights, which means an average of 1644kg flight, which seems pretty conservative given the manifest for CRS3 and CRS4.

Note: sourcing this data has been painful, and I've already found some mistakes myself, so please correct me with sources if some of these are in error.
Are you counting Dragon's unpressurized mass? Btw, Spx contract is 20tonnes upmass and 3 tonnes downmass. But tonnes can be exchanged one for the other. Which means that it's quite possible that Spx will end up with some extra money.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 08/25/2014 08:00 pm
Are you counting Dragon's unpressurized mass? Btw, Spx contract is 20tonnes upmass and 3 tonnes downmass. But tonnes can be exchanged one for the other. Which means that it's quite possible that Spx will end up with some extra money.

Yes, these figures include unpressurized mass and packaging (as best I can tell).  I don't believe anything in the NASA contract stipulates how much mass should be pressurized vs unpressurized, or any indication that NASA has a valuation for one over the other, or that they don't consider their packaging to be part of delivery mass, so it didn't seem correct to exclude them.

I wanted to limit the comparison to upmass only, to make this as apples-to-apples as possible.  But for downmass figures:

SpaceX C2+: 665kg
SpaceX CRS1: 905kg
SpaceX CRS2: 1,370kg
SpaceX CRS3: 1,600kg

If it is only 3,000kg they are contracted to bring down then they've already passed that mark and are going to blow that out of the water over the life of the contract.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AnalogMan on 08/25/2014 08:00 pm
For those keeping score at home, comparing Cygnus and Dragon deliveries:

Orbital D1: 700
Orbital CRS1: 1,261
Orbital CRS2: 1,494

SpaceX C2+: 525
SpaceX CRS1: 905
SpaceX CRS2: 881
SpaceX CRS3: 2,268

Upcoming:
SpaceX CRS4: 2,272
Cygnus CRS3: ?

Assuming SpX-4 goes off without a hitch, that leaves 13,149kg left over eight flights, which means an average of 1644kg flight, which seems pretty conservative given the manifest for CRS3 and CRS4.

Note: sourcing this data has been painful, and I've already found some mistakes myself, so please correct me with sources if some of these are in error.

As of July 28, 2014

Orbital-3 Mission:

• 2290 kg upmass
• 1714 kg disposal

SpaceX-5 Mission:

• 2073 kg upmass
• 1580 kg return mass
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Garrett on 08/25/2014 08:01 pm
For those keeping score at home, comparing Cygnus and Dragon deliveries:

Orbital D1: 700
Orbital CRS1: 1,261
Orbital CRS2: 1,494

SpaceX C2+: 525
SpaceX CRS1: 905
SpaceX CRS2: 881
SpaceX CRS3: 2,268

Upcoming:
SpaceX CRS4: 2,272
Cygnus CRS3: ?

Assuming SpX-4 goes off without a hitch, that leaves 13,149kg left over eight flights, which means an average of 1644kg flight, which seems pretty conservative given the manifest for CRS3 and CRS4.

Note: sourcing this data has been painful, and I've already found some mistakes myself, so please correct me with sources if some of these are in error.

Thank you for that work! I was thinking about doing the same thing but quickly realised that it would take quite a lot of time. Any chance you kept notes of where your sourced those figures?

I started a table for SpaceX figures on the Wikipedia talk page for CRS back in January, but unfortunately it didn't get updated. Maybe you can add your figures (with sources?) there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Commercial_Resupply_Services

I didn't add the the SpaceX C2+ figures because I'm not sure if that counts as part of the CRS contract?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: sdsds on 08/25/2014 08:27 pm
Part of the challenge is that pressurized upmass tends to be very low density.

The CRS2 Draft RFP provides a hint at the expected density:
Quote
2.1.1 A minimum usable pressurized cargo volume of 74 Cargo Transfer Bag Equivalents
(CTBE) per 1000 kg of pressurized cargo shall be used.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 08/25/2014 08:28 pm

Are you counting Dragon's unpressurized mass? Btw, Spx contract is 20tonnes upmass and 3 tonnes downmass. But tonnes can be exchanged one for the other. Which means that it's quite possible that Spx will end up with some extra money.

Yes, these figures include unpressurized mass and packaging (as best I can tell).  I don't believe anything in the NASA contract stipulates how much mass should be pressurized vs unpressurized, or any indication that NASA has a valuation for one over the other, or that they don't consider their packaging to be part of delivery mass, so it didn't seem correct to exclude them.

I wanted to limit the comparison to upmass only, to make this as apples-to-apples as possible.  But for downmass figures:

SpaceX C2+: 665kg
SpaceX CRS1: 905kg
SpaceX CRS2: 1,370kg
SpaceX CRS3: 1,600kg

If it is only 3,000kg they are contracted to bring down then they've already passed that mark and are going to blow that out of the water over the life of the contract.
From what I remember they said that it was basically a 23 tonne contract and all mass had the same basic price. So everything should, AIUI, got to the same pool. Mrs Shotwell stated that they were quite confident on covering the quota.
Orbital, unless disposal mass is considered, will have a harder time. But I believe that there is a clause about volume limited flights counting as one flight.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 08/25/2014 09:05 pm
Thank you for that work! I was thinking about doing the same thing but quickly realised that it would take quite a lot of time. Any chance you kept notes of where your sourced those figures?

I started a table for SpaceX figures on the Wikipedia talk page for CRS back in January, but unfortunately it didn't get updated. Maybe you can add your figures (with sources?) there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Commercial_Resupply_Services

I didn't add the the SpaceX C2+ figures because I'm not sure if that counts as part of the CRS contract?

No problem, it did take longer than I expected :(.  I ended up sourcing my data from Wikipedia because it seemed to have the most consistent figures.  Each flight has a link with a section detailing upmass and downmass.  Maybe disposal mass (Cygnus) too but I had to actually stop and do my job ;).  A table would be nice but I am not sure I have time or energy to do something like that right now.  That said since it is all Wikipedia cited that might make it easier.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 08/25/2014 09:08 pm
As of July 28, 2014

Orbital-3 Mission:

• 2290 kg upmass
• 1714 kg disposal

SpaceX-5 Mission:

• 2073 kg upmass
• 1580 kg return mass

Interesting, thanks for the data.  One thing that surprises me, is the quoted 2290kg upmass listed for Cygnus.  According to their fact sheet the regular Cygnus is limited to 2000kg upmass, and Orb-3 is supposed to use the regular (not enhanced Cygnus).  Any idea what gives there?  Is it because of the Antares 130 being used on this flight?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: MTom on 08/25/2014 09:43 pm
Is it meaningless that ESA finished with their ATV-launches with 7 tonnes / year?
Somehow this amount of cargo on top has to be transported to ISS.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 08/25/2014 09:56 pm
As of July 28, 2014

Orbital-3 Mission:

• 2290 kg upmass
• 1714 kg disposal

SpaceX-5 Mission:

• 2073 kg upmass
• 1580 kg return mass

Interesting, thanks for the data.  One thing that surprises me, is the quoted 2290kg upmass listed for Cygnus.  According to their fact sheet the regular Cygnus is limited to 2000kg upmass, and Orb-3 is supposed to use the regular (not enhanced Cygnus).  Any idea what gives there?  Is it because of the Antares 130 being used on this flight?
Correct.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 08/26/2014 12:50 am
I've just realized that with all that extra margin on F9 v1.1, what if Cargo Dragon replaces the thunk with a mini-MLPM? Something that's 3.6m wide would not change a thing, and could multiply the volume significantly. What's more, it would serve for disposal, too. Only problem is that it would need two CBM ports and detachment+berthing and unberthing+reattachment.
But if it is an optional (say, in 30% of the missions), they could cover it all: pressurized up/down, pressurized disposal, unpressurized up/disposal. If F9 v1.1 can do 14tonnes (NLS says 15 to 56.1 x 350km), then, assuming that the normal stack is 8 tonnes, plus say 2 tonnes for the mini-MLPM, they could carry an additional 4 tonnes, for a total of 7 tonnes of cargo (probably more, since I doubt insertion orbit is 350km circular). They could be taking 20 tonnes per year in just three launches! Seems a very interesting possibility.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 09/02/2014 06:11 am
It seems to me that a licensed HTV variant with enough domestic content to satisfy Congress, launched on an EELV, would have a pretty good chance of capturing half of the launches and most of the payload.
The problem with that is storage; unless you are willing to let the large cargo module stay berthed to the ISS for 4-6 months there is not enough room aboard to store everything. Heh 53t of supplies in one heavy launch.  Plus you want to rotate science experiments faster to get more through the pipeline.

Boeing proposed something like this back in the COTS era, buying ATV/HTV and launching on DIV-H.

ATV is out of production, and might need pretty serious mods to work in this case anyway. I'm guessing they would switch over to dock/berth at US segment for example. Would have to fly on DIV-H

HTV can almost fly on AV551. Maybe with bulky cargo they could fill the PLC and be light enough. They already have a foreign content problem, and flying on Atlas doesn't help.

HTV variant with a big US made PLC on DIV-H could be interesting. I estimate they would need to be delivering 8000+ kg. to keep the costs in the neighborhood of current CRS prices. If they could max the launch vehicle it would look cheap.

The idea is NASA basically stays with the current providers, but also adds a ULA launched HTV every 12-18 months to help keep the station topped up. Might help convince JAXA to extend their HTV commitment as well.

NASA wants more cargo, low/no development costs, "made in USA (mostly)", and fewer flights. Something needs to give.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 09/02/2014 07:03 am
I've just realized that with all that extra margin on F9 v1.1, what if Cargo Dragon replaces the thunk with a mini-MLPM? Something that's 3.6m wide would not change a thing, and could multiply the volume significantly. What's more, it would serve for disposal, too. Only problem is that it would need two CBM ports and detachment+berthing and unberthing+reattachment.
But if it is an optional (say, in 30% of the missions), they could cover it all: pressurized up/down, pressurized disposal, unpressurized up/disposal. If F9 v1.1 can do 14tonnes (NLS says 15 to 56.1 x 350km), then, assuming that the normal stack is 8 tonnes, plus say 2 tonnes for the mini-MLPM, they could carry an additional 4 tonnes, for a total of 7 tonnes of cargo (probably more, since I doubt insertion orbit is 350km circular). They could be taking 20 tonnes per year in just three launches! Seems a very interesting possibility.
This was sugested earlier in this thread with the refernce of the liberty spacecraft
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/17/2014 06:13 am
Contract award date for CRS2 has been added:

Quote
Release Final Request for Proposal 09/30/14   
Proposals Due 11/14/14   
Contract Award 04/28/15

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp

Next big award is CRS2 on April 28th 2015.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/17/2014 06:29 am
I've just realized that with all that extra margin on F9 v1.1, what if Cargo Dragon replaces the thunk with a mini-MLPM? Something that's 3.6m wide would not change a thing, and could multiply the volume significantly. What's more, it would serve for disposal, too. Only problem is that it would need two CBM ports and detachment+berthing and unberthing+reattachment.
But if it is an optional (say, in 30% of the missions), they could cover it all: pressurized up/down, pressurized disposal, unpressurized up/disposal. If F9 v1.1 can do 14tonnes (NLS says 15 to 56.1 x 350km), then, assuming that the normal stack is 8 tonnes, plus say 2 tonnes for the mini-MLPM, they could carry an additional 4 tonnes, for a total of 7 tonnes of cargo (probably more, since I doubt insertion orbit is 350km circular). They could be taking 20 tonnes per year in just three launches! Seems a very interesting possibility.
I believe the original MPLM on the Orbital CRS1 & CRS2 will fitted inside an extended Dragon trunk from discussions on various Inspiration Mars threads. Think an extended trunk is faster & cheper to developed for the Dragon to carry additional pressurized cargo than a new mini-MPLM.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 09/17/2014 07:39 am
I believe the original MPLM on the Orbital CRS1 & CRS2 will fitted inside an extended Dragon trunk from discussions on various Inspiration Mars threads. Think an extended trunk is faster & cheper to developed for the Dragon to carry additional pressurized cargo than a new mini-MPLM.

I think it will need to be a separate unit transported inside the trunk. That way it can be taken out by a robot arm and attached to a separate berthing port. It would solve another problem too. A mostly unmodified Dragon 2 can be used for cargo with the docking adapter. Bulky goods can go into the mini MPLM.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 09/17/2014 04:36 pm
I've just realized that with all that extra margin on F9 v1.1, what if Cargo Dragon replaces the thunk with a mini-MLPM? Something that's 3.6m wide would not change a thing, and could multiply the volume significantly. What's more, it would serve for disposal, too. Only problem is that it would need two CBM ports and detachment+berthing and unberthing+reattachment.
But if it is an optional (say, in 30% of the missions), they could cover it all: pressurized up/down, pressurized disposal, unpressurized up/disposal. If F9 v1.1 can do 14tonnes (NLS says 15 to 56.1 x 350km), then, assuming that the normal stack is 8 tonnes, plus say 2 tonnes for the mini-MLPM, they could carry an additional 4 tonnes, for a total of 7 tonnes of cargo (probably more, since I doubt insertion orbit is 350km circular). They could be taking 20 tonnes per year in just three launches! Seems a very interesting possibility.
I believe the original MPLM on the Orbital CRS1 & CRS2 will fitted inside an extended Dragon trunk from discussions on various Inspiration Mars threads. Think an extended trunk is faster & cheper to developed for the Dragon to carry additional pressurized cargo than a new mini-MPLM.

Dragon v1 and v2 are volume limited on F9v1.1. They need more volume to achieve the cargo requirement of CRS-2 within the requested number of missions. CRS-2 calls for 14 to 17tonnes and 55m³ to 70m³ per year with a desired cap of five missions. Stock Dragon has just 10m³, so they couldn't even fit the lower bound of volume. And they haven't shipped more than 1.5tonnes in a single trip. So they need the extra volume. The F9v1.1 can do 16 tonnes to the ISS insertion orbit, and current Dragons are weighting around 6 tonnes with cargo. Thus, they are "wasting" upto 10 tonnes of performance.
The amount of flights per year is a microgravity and crew availability requirement, so I don't see as easily solved. Let's remember that CRS-1 benefited from the stock up did during Shuttle final missions and ATV's huge payload, but all that margin will be long gone by CRS-2.
The original MPLM was a Shuttle design, and was 4.6m x 6.6m of pressurized volume. You might be confused by the OSC Cygnus pressurized module, which is manufactured by the same factory that MPLM (Thales Aliena of Turin, Italy), but are significantly smaller, at just 3m wide and 4.3m long (in the new extended version).
The Dragon's trunk is an unpressurized frame, with an OD of 3.7m, which also works as radiator and has the solar cells. But that's it. The need for pressurized cargo would require a new pressurized module, since the Dragon pressurized vessel can't be significantly increase without ending with a whole new vehicle. And NASA won't want a huge penetration on the heat shield to connect to a pressurized module.
I'm proposing that they develop a pressurized module of similar dimensions to an extended trunk, to replace it on certain missions. A 3.7m x 4m module would supply an ample 32m³ of volume. It would require an additional 1.2m upper stage adapter (the unpressurized trunk also works as the adapter).
But then you could use a stock Dragon v2, that could dock at the NDS. And then the arm would take the pressurized module and berth it to the CBM. Since they could still use the stock trunk for unpressurized cargo, I'm assuming two unpressurized and two pressurized missions per year.
That would get them 100m³ of pressurized volume, 15tonnes of pressurized cargo (at current 150km/m³ density, MPLM was more like 250kg/m³) and almost 70m³ of unpressurized cargo (if using the extended trunk) in just four missions per year.
They could cover the whole CRS-2 needs with a single craft design, with very little incremental development, and just a little bit of extra risk (detaching and re attaching the pressurized module). All in all, a very strong proposal with minimum impact on logistics.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Pollagee on 09/17/2014 06:54 pm
I hear alot about our paying the Russians $71M per seat to fly to the ISS, but I can't find information on what the estimated cost will be per seat on the CST 100 and manned Dragon. Is this information published any where?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/17/2014 07:05 pm
I've just realized that with all that extra margin on F9 v1.1, what if Cargo Dragon replaces the thunk with a mini-MLPM? Something that's 3.6m wide would not change a thing, and could multiply the volume significantly. What's more, it would serve for disposal, too. Only problem is that it would need two CBM ports and detachment+berthing and unberthing+reattachment.
But if it is an optional (say, in 30% of the missions), they could cover it all: pressurized up/down, pressurized disposal, unpressurized up/disposal. If F9 v1.1 can do 14tonnes (NLS says 15 to 56.1 x 350km), then, assuming that the normal stack is 8 tonnes, plus say 2 tonnes for the mini-MLPM, they could carry an additional 4 tonnes, for a total of 7 tonnes of cargo (probably more, since I doubt insertion orbit is 350km circular). They could be taking 20 tonnes per year in just three launches! Seems a very interesting possibility.
I believe the original MPLM on the Orbital CRS1 & CRS2 will fitted inside an extended Dragon trunk from discussions on various Inspiration Mars threads. Think an extended trunk is faster & cheper to developed for the Dragon to carry additional pressurized cargo than a new mini-MPLM.

Dragon v1 and v2 are volume limited on F9v1.1. They need more volume to achieve the cargo requirement of CRS-2 within the requested number of missions. CRS-2 calls for 14 to 17tonnes and 55m³ to 70m³ per year with a desired cap of five missions. Stock Dragon has just 10m³, so they couldn't even fit the lower bound of volume. And they haven't shipped more than 1.5tonnes in a single trip. So they need the extra volume. The F9v1.1 can do 16 tonnes to the ISS insertion orbit, and current Dragons are weighting around 6 tonnes with cargo. Thus, they are "wasting" upto 10 tonnes of performance.
The amount of flights per year is a microgravity and crew availability requirement, so I don't see as easily solved. Let's remember that CRS-1 benefited from the stock up did during Shuttle final missions and ATV's huge payload, but all that margin will be long gone by CRS-2.
The original MPLM was a Shuttle design, and was 4.6m x 6.6m of pressurized volume. You might be confused by the OSC Cygnus pressurized module, which is manufactured by the same factory that MPLM (Thales Aliena of Turin, Italy), but are significantly smaller, at just 3m wide and 4.3m long (in the new extended version).
The Dragon's trunk is an unpressurized frame, with an OD of 3.7m, which also works as radiator and has the solar cells. But that's it. The need for pressurized cargo would require a new pressurized module, since the Dragon pressurized vessel can't be significantly increase without ending with a whole new vehicle. And NASA won't want a huge penetration on the heat shield to connect to a pressurized module.
I'm proposing that they develop a pressurized module of similar dimensions to an extended trunk, to replace it on certain missions. A 3.7m x 4m module would supply an ample 32m³ of volume. It would require an additional 1.2m upper stage adapter (the unpressurized trunk also works as the adapter).
But then you could use a stock Dragon v2, that could dock at the NDS. And then the arm would take the pressurized module and berth it to the CBM. Since they could still use the stock trunk for unpressurized cargo, I'm assuming two unpressurized and two pressurized missions per year.
That would get them 100m³ of pressurized volume, 15tonnes of pressurized cargo (at current 150km/m³ density, MPLM was more like 250kg/m³) and almost 70m³ of unpressurized cargo (if using the extended trunk) in just four missions per year.
They could cover the whole CRS-2 needs with a single craft design, with very little incremental development, and just a little bit of extra risk (detaching and re attaching the pressurized module). All in all, a very strong proposal with minimum impact on logistics.
I am referring to the pressurized module on the first 2 Cygnus CRS missions which are shorter than the current ones on the Cygnus.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 09/17/2014 07:19 pm
And they [SpaceX] haven't shipped more than 1.5tonnes in a single trip.

Yes they have, see the previous page.

Quote from: baldusi
I'm proposing that they develop a pressurized module of similar dimensions to an extended trunk, to replace it on certain missions.

I like this idea a lot!
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 09/17/2014 07:25 pm
I hear alot about our paying the Russians $71M per seat to fly to the ISS, but I can't find information on what the estimated cost will be per seat on the CST 100 and manned Dragon. Is this information published any where?

It's apparently up to over $80 million now, by the way http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-spacex-to-team-with-nasa-on-space-taxi/.  Although I have to say I am a little dubious about that claim, I had a hard time trying to find it amid lots of reports that it is over $70.

We don't have an estimated price per seat if you are excluding development costs.  I don't know that anyone has done an estimated price per seat including CCiCAP and CCtCAP but it would obviously be far  higher than anything the Russians have charged us.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 09/17/2014 07:57 pm
And they [SpaceX] haven't shipped more than 1.5tonnes in a single trip.

Yes they have, see the previous page.
That includes the unpressurized. I was talking about pressurized cargo. They have still to ship the 3,000kg that they were supposed to. And looking at MPLM numbers, I seriously doubt that they'll be able to improve much more. They would have to achieve 300kg/m³, when they haven't done better than 150. And I still don't see the MPLM actual volume, as 31m³. I calculated that they had an actual volume of 80m³, which would have implied a maximum density of 150kg/m³.
In other words, average ISS density seems to be 100kg/m³ to 150kg/m³. Planning for higher density is pie in the sky. BTW, look at Cygnus and its payload capabilities are around 100kg/m³. So SpaceX would have to realistically achieve that to offer a complete solution.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 09/17/2014 08:29 pm
I've just realized that with all that extra margin on F9 v1.1, what if Cargo Dragon replaces the thunk with a mini-MLPM? Something that's 3.6m wide would not change a thing, and could multiply the volume significantly. What's more, it would serve for disposal, too. Only problem is that it would need two CBM ports and detachment+berthing and unberthing+reattachment.
But if it is an optional (say, in 30% of the missions), they could cover it all: pressurized up/down, pressurized disposal, unpressurized up/disposal. If F9 v1.1 can do 14tonnes (NLS says 15 to 56.1 x 350km), then, assuming that the normal stack is 8 tonnes, plus say 2 tonnes for the mini-MLPM, they could carry an additional 4 tonnes, for a total of 7 tonnes of cargo (probably more, since I doubt insertion orbit is 350km circular). They could be taking 20 tonnes per year in just three launches! Seems a very interesting possibility.
I believe the original MPLM(PCM) on the Orbital CRS1 & CRS2 will fitted inside an extended Dragon trunk from discussions on various Inspiration Mars threads. Think an extended trunk is faster & cheper to developed for the Dragon to carry additional pressurized cargo than a new mini-MPLM.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 09/17/2014 08:51 pm
Elon Musk has said that a flight of Dragon V2 will cost about 140 Million $. That translates to 20 Million/seat with seven passengers or 35 Million with 4 passengers. However with 4 passengers there will be capacity for cargo so the seat price is lower than 35 Million $.

@baldusi

I don't understand your argument about payload. It is not the shipper that achieves the packing density. It is NASA that decides on the cargo and the packing and so determins the density.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 09/17/2014 09:02 pm
I hear alot about our paying the Russians $71M per seat to fly to the ISS, but I can't find information on what the estimated cost will be per seat on the CST 100 and manned Dragon. Is this information published any where?

It's apparently up to over $80 million now, by the way http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-spacex-to-team-with-nasa-on-space-taxi/.  Although I have to say I am a little dubious about that claim, I had a hard time trying to find it amid lots of reports that it is over $70.

We don't have an estimated price per seat if you are excluding development costs.  I don't know that anyone has done an estimated price per seat including CCiCAP and CCtCAP but it would obviously be far  higher than anything the Russians have charged us.
Let's try.
For SpaceX Total $2.6B
(1)Excluding development (as 60%) including 6 flight of 7 seats: ~$25M
(2)Excluding development (as 60%) including 6 flight of 4 seats: ~$43M
(3)including development and 6 flights of 7 seats: ~$61M per seat
(4)Including development and 6 flights of 4 seats: ~$108M per seat

For Boeing its about 60% up.

I favor (3) for this contract and (1) for subsequent flights. NASA is paying for 7 seats and will use as many as needed.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 09/17/2014 09:22 pm
NASA is paying for 7 seats and will use as many as needed.

No, NASA is not paying for 7 seats. NASA is paying for a flight and they utilize up to 4 seats and use the space where 3 more seats could go for cargo. The contractual requirement is for 4 seats.



Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/17/2014 09:23 pm
The price per seat discussion doesn't belong in this thread. This thread is about cargo only (CRS2).

To discuss the price per seat, please use this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28699.msg1257651#msg1257651
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 09/17/2014 09:39 pm
@baldusi

I don't understand your argument about payload. It is not the shipper that achieves the packing density. It is NASA that decides on the cargo and the packing and so determins the density.
That was how CRS-1 works. But for CRS-2 they have made some very specific request wrt volume, payload and total missions. With CRS-1 they could under deliver since they had Shuttle margin plus ATV. For CRS-2, the whole ISS will depend on them (luckily the Japanese appear to have commited to HTV-8/9).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 09/18/2014 08:06 pm
Inspector General report on ISS extension. Has a fair amount to say about ORUs and resupply.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=43979

Quote
In our judgment, it is unlikely NASA will obtain the increased capacity sought in the CRS2 request for a price similar to what it paid under the original CRS contract. Orbital’s cargo vessel does not meet the payload weight requirement and therefore would require additional development work. Moreover, given the tendency to exhaust available space on past cargo missions before reaching the maximum weight capacity of the vehicles, even SpaceX would likely have to redesign its vehicle to meet these requirements. Unless a new commercial cargo transportation company emerges to satisfy the requirements of the CRS2 request or SpaceX and Orbital redesign their capsules, NASA will need to procure more than the four to five missions contemplated in the request, which would increase costs to the Agency.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/18/2014 08:19 pm
Does extended trunk and F9H alter that?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: docmordrid on 09/18/2014 08:33 pm
ISTM, not for pressurized cargo.  That said, aren't the major drivers in Cygnus expansion how many segments are in the pressure vessel and perhaps an increased prop margin? Doesn't sound that difficult.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 09/18/2014 09:34 pm
ISTM, not for pressurized cargo.  That said, aren't the major drivers in Cygnus expansion how many segments are in the pressure vessel and perhaps an increased prop margin? Doesn't sound that difficult.
There's a presentation of a super Cygnus with an extra pressurized ring (four total) that has a mass capability of 3,400kg and 33m³. But it would require something like 5,500kg to 300km x 51.6deg from the Antares. The 131 can do 5,260kg and it would also require an extra fairing extension. If the new re-engined Antares can get the extra performance, the total cost to OSC of this development will be quite low.
I believe that the SpaceX solution that I propose is also relatively cheap. But in general it's quite clear that SNC, Boeing, SpaceX and OrbitalATK will need some investments for CRS-2 and thus I expect a pretty leveled field.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Patchouli on 09/18/2014 10:10 pm
I wonder if SNC will try to compete for CRS2 since their vehicle can be flown uncrewed?

It does have more pressurized cargo capacity then both Dragon and the CST-100 plus it's interior volume is cylindrical which is more easily utilized.

For uncrewed cargo missions they could fly with an interim propulsion system using off the shelf parts if the hybrid motors are not ready.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: robertross on 09/18/2014 11:47 pm
Inspector General report on ISS extension. Has a fair amount to say about ORUs and resupply.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=43979

Quote
In our judgment, it is unlikely NASA will obtain the increased capacity sought in the CRS2 request for a price similar to what it paid under the original CRS contract. Orbital’s cargo vessel does not meet the payload weight requirement and therefore would require additional development work. Moreover, given the tendency to exhaust available space on past cargo missions before reaching the maximum weight capacity of the vehicles, even SpaceX would likely have to redesign its vehicle to meet these requirements. Unless a new commercial cargo transportation company emerges to satisfy the requirements of the CRS2 request or SpaceX and Orbital redesign their capsules, NASA will need to procure more than the four to five missions contemplated in the request, which would increase costs to the Agency.


Thanks
IG report linked on the article
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 09/19/2014 07:17 am
ISTM, not for pressurized cargo.  That said, aren't the major drivers in Cygnus expansion how many segments are in the pressure vessel and perhaps an increased prop margin? Doesn't sound that difficult.
There's a presentation of a super Cygnus with an extra pressurized ring (four total) that has a mass capability of 3,400kg and 33m³. But it would require something like 5,500kg to 300km x 51.6deg from the Antares. The 131 can do 5,260kg and it would also require an extra fairing extension. If the new re-engined Antares can get the extra performance, the total cost to OSC of this development will be quite low.
I believe that the SpaceX solution that I propose is also relatively cheap. But in general it's quite clear that SNC, Boeing, SpaceX and OrbitalATK will need some investments for CRS-2 and thus I expect a pretty leveled field.
What are the chances for us to see an "extra large cygnus" on Falcon9 ?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 09/19/2014 02:19 pm
ISTM, not for pressurized cargo.  That said, aren't the major drivers in Cygnus expansion how many segments are in the pressure vessel and perhaps an increased prop margin? Doesn't sound that difficult.
There's a presentation of a super Cygnus with an extra pressurized ring (four total) that has a mass capability of 3,400kg and 33m³. But it would require something like 5,500kg to 300km x 51.6deg from the Antares. The 131 can do 5,260kg and it would also require an extra fairing extension. If the new re-engined Antares can get the extra performance, the total cost to OSC of this development will be quite low.
I believe that the SpaceX solution that I propose is also relatively cheap. But in general it's quite clear that SNC, Boeing, SpaceX and OrbitalATK will need some investments for CRS-2 and thus I expect a pretty leveled field.
What are the chances for us to see an "extra large cygnus" on Falcon9 ?
I don't see it. Specially after OSC and ATK merge. They need just an extra 5% performance out of the Antares, and adding a single extra ring to the pressure vessel. They could do a Castor30XLB, increase the propellant load of the Cygnus or something. Overall, they might even fly like that and do five missions instead of four. But they have barely enough AJ-26 to transition to a new engine by 2017/18. A dual RD-193 Anatares would have just enough performance and might cover the quota with just four launches (which, if NASA keeps dual suppliers might mean two missions per year).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/19/2014 02:53 pm
Inspector General report on ISS extension. Has a fair amount to say about ORUs and resupply.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=43979

Quote
In our judgment, it is unlikely NASA will obtain the increased capacity sought in the CRS2 request for a price similar to what it paid under the original CRS contract. Orbital’s cargo vessel does not meet the payload weight requirement and therefore would require additional development work. Moreover, given the tendency to exhaust available space on past cargo missions before reaching the maximum weight capacity of the vehicles, even SpaceX would likely have to redesign its vehicle to meet these requirements. Unless a new commercial cargo transportation company emerges to satisfy the requirements of the CRS2 request or SpaceX and Orbital redesign their capsules, NASA will need to procure more than the four to five missions contemplated in the request, which would increase costs to the Agency.


Thanks
IG report linked on the article

The observations on CRS2 are on page 26 of the report.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/19/2014 02:59 pm
ISTM, not for pressurized cargo.  That said, aren't the major drivers in Cygnus expansion how many segments are in the pressure vessel and perhaps an increased prop margin? Doesn't sound that difficult.
There's a presentation of a super Cygnus with an extra pressurized ring (four total) that has a mass capability of 3,400kg and 33m³. But it would require something like 5,500kg to 300km x 51.6deg from the Antares. The 131 can do 5,260kg and it would also require an extra fairing extension. If the new re-engined Antares can get the extra performance, the total cost to OSC of this development will be quite low.
I believe that the SpaceX solution that I propose is also relatively cheap. But in general it's quite clear that SNC, Boeing, SpaceX and OrbitalATK will need some investments for CRS-2 and thus I expect a pretty leveled field.

Why would SpaceX need to make investments for CRS2? Can't they just offer Dragon V1 and V2? There was talk of an extended trunk. But I don't think SpaceX has other plans for improving Dragon.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 09/19/2014 03:07 pm
Why would SpaceX need to make investments for CRS2? Can't they just offer Dragon V1 and V2? There was talk of an extended trunk. But I don't think SpaceX has other plans for improving Dragon.

SpaceX has also talked (vaguely) about transitioning to V2 only at some point.  As others have noted Dragon V2 itself has several drawbacks from a cargo perspective.  An optional extended trunk with a removable pressurized cargo module (and CBM interface) could be a relatively cost effective way to achieve cargo and crew with the same system.  Maybe even simultaneously, as in the old Liberty proposal (the best feature of that proposal, in my opinion).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: kevinof on 09/19/2014 03:10 pm
Does the F9 have the lift capability to do a crew and cargo at the same time?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 09/19/2014 03:22 pm
Does the F9 have the lift capability to do a crew and cargo at the same time?

That is probably unclear until we know the actual Dragon V2 and trunk mass, but I would say tentatively "yes", by some amount.  Not as confident that it would end up being enough to make it worthwhile.  However, it is possible with some small incremental improvements to F9 that SpaceX has mentioned (propellant densification, increased Merlin thrust) that they could squeeze out enough improvement in LEO capacity of F9 to eat the difference in the mass penalty of the extended trunk and pressurized module at some point in the CRS2 contract timeline.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 09/19/2014 04:05 pm

ISTM, not for pressurized cargo.  That said, aren't the major drivers in Cygnus expansion how many segments are in the pressure vessel and perhaps an increased prop margin? Doesn't sound that difficult.
There's a presentation of a super Cygnus with an extra pressurized ring (four total) that has a mass capability of 3,400kg and 33m³. But it would require something like 5,500kg to 300km x 51.6deg from the Antares. The 131 can do 5,260kg and it would also require an extra fairing extension. If the new re-engined Antares can get the extra performance, the total cost to OSC of this development will be quite low.
I believe that the SpaceX solution that I propose is also relatively cheap. But in general it's quite clear that SNC, Boeing, SpaceX and OrbitalATK will need some investments for CRS-2 and thus I expect a pretty leveled field.

Why would SpaceX need to make investments for CRS2? Can't they just offer Dragon V1 and V2? There was talk of an extended trunk. But I don't think SpaceX has other plans for improving Dragon.
The request is for 15 to 17 tonnes of pressurized cargo, 55m3 to 70m3 of volume and no more than 5 launches (everything per year). Since dragon v1 has just 10m3 of pressurized , and at an average density of 150kg/m3 they simply can't quite cover the volume, nor mass within the missions limits. And Dragon v2 parachute position appears to prevent the use of a CBM. I ignore if the v2 pressure vessel has an extra m3 of volume available, and if they can simply use the v1 parachute system for the v2 Cargo version.
But the pressing issue is the cargo density.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: rpapo on 09/19/2014 04:26 pm
I ignore...
I don't know...

Tenga cuidado con las palabras que se parecen entre el inglés y el español...
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 09/19/2014 05:09 pm
But the pressing issue is the cargo density.

Yes. Maybe NASA should rethink their packing methods. With todays packing materials it should be possible to pack denser without sacrificing safety.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Kryten on 09/19/2014 05:18 pm
 What kind of volume and mass does dreamchaser carry? Could it fill the requirements?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/19/2014 05:22 pm
The IG says that SpaceX would meet the requirements for CRS2 (see table 4 on page 26 of the report). That is also my understanding. The number of flights (5) isn't a hard requirement either. See below.


That RFI requests up to 16.8 tonnes of pressurized upmass yearly with a volume of up to 70 m^3. The maximum allowed number of flights is 5 yearly, so this works out to 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3 per flight.

A dragon has only 11 m^3 of pressurized volume (http://www.spacex.com/dragon), so a larger dragon is presumably required. I have no idea whether a F9 1.1 would be sufficient to haul an enlarged dragon to ISS.
I'll just note that you quote "up to" 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3. If that's the language from the original, then that would simply to me imply an upper bound, or a rough ballpark they'd like. I think you could also mix-and-match payloads between operators: put denser payloads into Dragon, and save lighter, bulkier ones for Cygnus. (Just to pick a combination of the two existing vehicles.)

The RFI says that it should generally represent 55 to 70 m^3. It doesn't seem to be a hard requirement. But SpaceX would meet it anyways. They should also meet the payload requirement 5 x 3 mt = 15mt.

Quote from: draft RFI
Delivery of 14,250 to 16,750 kilograms (kg) per year of pressurized cargo.
o The typical volume of the mass of cargo quoted above is 55 to 70 cubic meters (m3) which must be accommodated.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 09/20/2014 12:12 am
The IG says that SpaceX would meet the requirements for CRS2 (see table 4 on page 26 of the report). That is also my understanding. The number of flights (5) isn't a hard requirement either. See below.


That RFI requests up to 16.8 tonnes of pressurized upmass yearly with a volume of up to 70 m^3. The maximum allowed number of flights is 5 yearly, so this works out to 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3 per flight.

A dragon has only 11 m^3 of pressurized volume (http://www.spacex.com/dragon), so a larger dragon is presumably required. I have no idea whether a F9 1.1 would be sufficient to haul an enlarged dragon to ISS.
I'll just note that you quote "up to" 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3. If that's the language from the original, then that would simply to me imply an upper bound, or a rough ballpark they'd like. I think you could also mix-and-match payloads between operators: put denser payloads into Dragon, and save lighter, bulkier ones for Cygnus. (Just to pick a combination of the two existing vehicles.)

The RFI says that it should generally represent 55 to 70 m^3. It doesn't seem to be a hard requirement. But SpaceX would meet it anyways. They should also meet the payload requirement 5 x 3 mt = 15mt.

Quote from: draft RFI
Delivery of 14,250 to 16,750 kilograms (kg) per year of pressurized cargo.
o The typical volume of the mass of cargo quoted above is 55 to 70 cubic meters (m3) which must be accommodated.
I've been reading the report. And they use the nominal Dragon and Cygnus numbers, not actual achieved. And they don't post the volume. They barely say that the density limitation might mean that they can't even achieve the nominal numbers. The nice part is that they would still be under budget, since both current prices are significantly under their expected cap.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/20/2014 01:39 am
I thought that the actual numbers acheived were less because of volume constraints not because of capability issues.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 09/20/2014 02:42 am

I thought that the actual numbers acheived were less because of volume constraints not because of capability issues.
I never implied anything but density limitations for Dragon (Cygnus is performance limited, for now).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/20/2014 03:49 am

I thought that the actual numbers acheived were less because of volume constraints not because of capability issues.
I never implied anything but density limitations for Dragon (Cygnus is performance limited, for now).

OK. But I am just wondering if the 15mt per year upmass requirement is a performance limit or is it what NASA needs to bring up to the ISS each year. I am still not clear on that.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/20/2014 08:17 am

SpaceX has also talked (vaguely) about transitioning to V2 only at some point.  As others have noted Dragon V2 itself has several drawbacks from a cargo perspective.  An optional extended trunk with a removable pressurized cargo module (and CBM interface) could be a relatively cost effective way to achieve cargo and crew with the same system.  Maybe even simultaneously, as in the old Liberty proposal (the best feature of that proposal, in my opinion).

Would this arrangement allow Dragon to lift something large like a new solar array or radiator?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: clongton on 09/20/2014 01:33 pm
Does the F9 have the lift capability to do a crew and cargo at the same time?
One of the major findings of the CAIB which lead directly to the cancellation of Shuttle as soon after RTF as possible, was that mixing crew and cargo within the confines of the same spacecraft was a definitive contributing factor to the loss of the Columbia crew. The recommendation was for NASA to use separate spacecraft for cargo so that crew would not be placed at risk for the sake of cargo delivery.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: GreenShrike on 09/20/2014 01:58 pm
One of the major findings of the CAIB which lead directly to the cancellation of Shuttle as soon after RTF as possible, was that mixing crew and cargo within the confines of the same spacecraft was a definitive contributing factor to the loss of the Columbia crew. The recommendation was for NASA to use separate spacecraft for cargo so that crew would not be placed at risk for the sake of cargo delivery.

Doesn't fly. Crewed Dragons are going up regardless, so the flights are for the sake of ISS crew replacement, not cargo delivery. Adding cargo to a DragonRider flight doesn't change the necessity of risking crew on an orbital launch.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/20/2014 11:42 pm
One of the major findings of the CAIB which lead directly to the cancellation of Shuttle as soon after RTF as possible, was that mixing crew and cargo within the confines of the same spacecraft was a definitive contributing factor to the loss of the Columbia crew. The recommendation was for NASA to use separate spacecraft for cargo so that crew would not be placed at risk for the sake of cargo delivery.

Doesn't fly. Crewed Dragons are going up regardless, so the flights are for the sake of ISS crew replacement, not cargo delivery. Adding cargo to a DragonRider flight doesn't change the necessity of risking crew on an orbital launch.

But adding additional modules increases complexity, and that might lead to unanticipated increases in risk.

If the crew vehicle has seats that aren't being used anyway, throwing in some cargo instead of passengers seems fine to me.  Adding big new trunks and/or pressurized modules crosses the line for me to adding that risk the CAIB warned about.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: robertross on 09/20/2014 11:55 pm
One of the major findings of the CAIB which lead directly to the cancellation of Shuttle as soon after RTF as possible, was that mixing crew and cargo within the confines of the same spacecraft was a definitive contributing factor to the loss of the Columbia crew. The recommendation was for NASA to use separate spacecraft for cargo so that crew would not be placed at risk for the sake of cargo delivery.

Doesn't fly. Crewed Dragons are going up regardless, so the flights are for the sake of ISS crew replacement, not cargo delivery. Adding cargo to a DragonRider flight doesn't change the necessity of risking crew on an orbital launch.

But adding additional modules increases complexity, and that might lead to unanticipated increases in risk.

If the crew vehicle has seats that aren't being used anyway, throwing in some cargo instead of passengers seems fine to me.  Adding big new trunks and/or pressurized modules crosses the line for me to adding that risk the CAIB warned about.


That would be NASA's (and the astronaut office's) call though.
That's why there is a resupply vehicle (and cargo return with Dragon).
But obviously Soyuz has that flexibility, so again, we'll have to wait and see.

I'd love to see the science brought back (the whole purpose of the ISS), but I would never think of adding increased risk to the crew to see it through (but that's just me)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: gongora on 09/21/2014 03:14 am
I'm sure it would be a lot more complex and costly than putting a pressurized container in the trunk, but would it be feasible to make a cargo Dragon in a Soyuz-like configuration with a second pressurized module on top?  Seems like it would be much easier to actually use at the ISS.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: darkenfast on 09/21/2014 03:25 am
I'm sure it would be a lot more complex and costly than putting a pressurized container in the trunk, but would it be feasible to make a cargo Dragon in a Soyuz-like configuration with a second pressurized module on top?  Seems like it would be much easier to actually use at the ISS.

First, it would make the whole abort system MUCH more difficult.  Second, that module would probably weigh several thousand pounds.  Third, it would mean throwing away a pressurized module, its hatch(es), and the docking mechanism, all of which would run counter to the direction SpaceX is moving in.  I'm just guessing, but I think Spacex will stick with the limitations of Dragon for the near future, at least. 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Patchouli on 09/21/2014 03:43 am
What kind of volume and mass does dreamchaser carry? Could it fill the requirements?

I read some where it has 16m3 of volume and probably has more down mass then any of the other vehicles.

So going for cargo could be a good option for SNC since their vehicle has an advantage over both Dragon and the CST-100 in pressurized volume.

The stretched Cygnus beats it in up cargo volume but SNC is using the more powerful Atlas V rocket so mass is less limited on DC.

Since cargo missions do not need abort engines if they are uncrewed I wonder could they replace the hybrid propulsion system with a couple of low thrust propellant engines such as the TR-308.

Maybe they could even add some sorta module to the back that adds more volume and a CBM hatch sorta like what was on the back of the old Hermes concept.
Then launch it on one of the more powerful Atlas variants or even Ariane 5.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/21/2014 04:26 am
What kind of volume and mass does dreamchaser carry? Could it fill the requirements?

I read some where it has 16m3 of volume and probably has more down mass then any of the other vehicles.

So going for cargo could be a good option for SNC since their vehicle has an advantage over both Dragon and the CST-100 in pressurized volume.

The stretched Cygnus beats it in up cargo volume but SNC is using the more powerful Atlas V rocket so mass is less limited on DC.

Since cargo missions do not need abort engines if they are uncrewed I wonder could they replace the hybrid propulsion system with a couple of low thrust propellant engines such as the TR-308.

Possible they could add some sorta carrier to the pack that adds more volume and a CBM sorta like what was on the back of the old Hermes concept.

Dream Chaser is a much bigger vehicle than Dragon -- it is significantly longer, wider, and more massive.  Its launch vehicle is much more expensive than that of Dragon or Cygnus.  Even if Dragon has less capacity per flight, by spreading the load over more flights you're likely to get the same cargo to the station and the same cargo back down to Earth, much more cheaply with Dragon.  Plus, of course, Dragon can also carry a bunch of unpressurized cargo at the same time.  Even if all the development costs of a cargo Dream Chaser were already spent, the operational costs of the Dream Chaser would likely make it more expensive than either Dragon or Cygnus.  I think even if it were fully developed and tested and ready to go today it would most likely lose out to Dragon and Cygnus.

But Dream Chaser isn't ready.  It's far from it.  It's doubtful it could even finish development and testing in time to qualify for CRS2.  If Sierra Nevada did bit Dream Chaser on CRS2, NASA would have to take into account the development schedule risk and funding risk of Dream Chaser compared with Cygnus and Dragon, both of which are already developed, tested, and in service.

I just have a hard time seeing Dream Chaser for CRS2.

The only way Dream Chaser could have a chance to deliver cargo for NASA would be if Sierra Nevada put up hundreds of millions of its own money with little prospect of getting that money back, completed development of cargo Dream Chaser, and then waited for CRS3 in 2024.  That's a long wait, and by then SpaceX could have reusable Falcon 9 and Dragon making its bids much, much cheaper.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: gongora on 09/25/2014 10:52 pm
RFP posted online today http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/ (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: sghill on 09/26/2014 03:00 pm
RFP posted online today http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/ (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/)

Attached is the RFP.

Here are some tidbits:
REQUIRED CAPABILITY: Pressurized Delivery Upmass (kg) per flight range: 2500-5000 kg
REQUIRED CAPABILITY: Pressurized Downmass (kg) consisting of either Return or Disposal Capability or both 2500-5000 kg
OPTIONAL CAPABILITY: Accelerated Pressurized Return Downmass (kg) Consisting of the same requirements as Pressurized Downmass with the following modifications:
Double powered lockers with R+6 hour in lieu of R+24 hour hand over (# lockers) To be proposed
Conditioned stowage with R+6 hour in lieu of R+24 hour hand over (# bags) To be proposed
Passive CTBEs with R+6 hour in lieu of R+24 hour hand over (# CTBEs) To be proposed
Single powered lockers with R+3 hour in lieu of R+6 hour hand over (# lockers) To be proposed
REQUIRED CAPABILITY: Unpressurized Upmass and Disposal (kg) Consisting of: Unpressurized upmass items (1-3 items)
DEFINE: Operational Capabilities       
Docking or Berthing   D or B   To be proposed
Mated Duration (days)   45-To be proposed


Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: tobi453 on 09/26/2014 03:16 pm
Quote
Question. 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.

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

So which company did ask this question? ;)

I guess the answer is good news.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: sghill on 09/26/2014 03:28 pm
Quote
Question. 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.

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

So which company did ask this question? ;)

I guess the answer is good news.

It's amazing we're now in a world where the question was even posed! 

This: "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" is an amazing statement IMHO.  It opens the possibility for uber cheap access to space for the remaining payload capacity- even if it's just along for the ride and not stopping at some other platform.

And then I reached here in the RFP: "In the event that NASA does not utilize the entire capability of the service mission, the Contractor may request to use the service mission to meet Contractor objectives or fly non-NASA cargo per the requirements below.  NASA may require a price adjustment or other consideration."

So much for that thought, but I wonder what their formula shall be for determining the price break on a launch that includes some commercial cargo in the unused space.  It's a firm fixed-price contract after all, so the cost of  consumables (such as propellant) is already going to be calculated at maximum payload values.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 09/26/2014 04:11 pm
Quote
Question. 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.

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

So which company did ask this question? ;)

I guess the answer is good news.
I guess jongoff forwarded a question Orbital. Or he might have asked it himself. It was the only question that that included an "I wonder".  :P
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: nadreck on 09/26/2014 05:39 pm
In looking at the language of this, it seems possible that it gets awarded to SpaceX and someone else, but I am not sure if there is any possibility of it going just to operators who can't support return cargo.  Could NASA forgo returning cargo under this RFP?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 09/26/2014 05:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 09/26/2014 05:58 pm
In looking at the language of this, it seems possible that it gets awarded to SpaceX and someone else, but I am not sure if there is any possibility of it going just to operators who can't support return cargo.  Could NASA forgo returning cargo under this RFP?

Pressurized downmass includes disposal as an option, so no problem for Orbital (or anyone else) there.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: nadreck on 09/26/2014 06:03 pm
In looking at the language of this, it seems possible that it gets awarded to SpaceX and someone else, but I am not sure if there is any possibility of it going just to operators who can't support return cargo.  Could NASA forgo returning cargo under this RFP?

Pressurized downmass includes disposal as an option, so no problem for Orbital (or anyone else) there.

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?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: sghill on 09/26/2014 06:57 pm
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?

On what page of the RFP did you see the above bolded requirement?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: nadreck on 09/26/2014 07:17 pm
In http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-SOL-001-003.docx (http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-SOL-001-003.docx) top of page 4 by there numbering but the 8th page in the document. This is for 24 hour return. Then lower on that page is the section that is labelled "Optional capability" that asks about 6 hour return time.

Given that the 2nd one is optional, I infer, but it I can't seem to find it in the document anywhere, that returning cargo is not an optional requirement.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/26/2014 07:20 pm
In looking at the language of this, it seems possible that it gets awarded to SpaceX and someone else, but I am not sure if there is any possibility of it going just to operators who can't support return cargo.  Could NASA forgo returning cargo under this RFP?

Pressurized downmass includes disposal as an option, so no problem for Orbital (or anyone else) there.

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?

The RFP is exactly what you would expect if NASA were planning to continue its current policy of having one provider do downmass and the other not do downmass.

There's virtually no chance NASA will go only with providers with no downmass capability.  NASA seems to really like having this capability.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: nadreck on 09/26/2014 07:23 pm
In looking at the language of this, it seems possible that it gets awarded to SpaceX and someone else, but I am not sure if there is any possibility of it going just to operators who can't support return cargo.  Could NASA forgo returning cargo under this RFP?

Pressurized downmass includes disposal as an option, so no problem for Orbital (or anyone else) there.

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?

The RFP is exactly what you would expect if NASA were planning to continue its current policy of having one provider do downmass and the other not do downmass.

There's virtually no chance NASA will go only with providers with no downmass capability.  NASA seems to really like having this capability.
I don't disagree with you, but I don't find wording that proves that, it seems vague and slightly contradictory to me.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: FinalFrontier on 09/26/2014 07:29 pm
RFP requirment is tied at the hip to the national lab designation and expected (or hoped for) expansions in funding (and ISS utilization after us crew flights are resumed).

I am quite sure Boeing could easily produce a cargo version of CST 100 if NASA wants more than just SpaceX for CRS2.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 09/26/2014 07:41 pm
I found the following bullets extracted from the Pre-Proposal Conference Presentation powerpoint very interesting:

1) NASA may elect to award multiple contracts. -->Does NOT limit to only 2

2) The guaranteed minimum value for any awarded contract is six (6) cargo resupply service missions -->Guessing there will be a need in excess of 18 missions (6 missions * 3 providers)

3) 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. -->This is a lot of money even relative to the recently awarded CCtCap which was $6.8 billion for 14 missions ((1 certification mission + 6 post certification missions) * 2 providers)

Based on this information, I would suggest that NASA is not limited to choosing only 2 providers to deliver services under CRS2. Perhaps 3 is possible. And NASA does explicitly request that non-recurring costs, such as development costs, be itemized separately from the recurring costs of each service mission. I hold out the possibility that Dream Chaser could continue its development under CRS2 along side both the continued service of both SpaceX and Orbital. One could hope  ;)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/26/2014 07:53 pm
Based on this information, I would suggest that NASA is not limited to choosing only 2 providers to deliver services under CRS2. Perhaps 3 is possible. And NASA does explicitly request that non-recurring costs, such as development costs, be itemized separately from the recurring costs of each service mission. I hold out the possibility that Dream Chaser could continue its development under CRS2 along side both the continued service of both SpaceX and Orbital. One could hope  ;)

I hope not.

The most important thing CRS2 can do for us long term is lower costs for access to orbit.  That both frees up NASA to spend more money on other things and makes non-NASA use of space more likely.

The way to best do that is to have more scale for fewer providers, not spread the limited flights among more companies.  Three is too many providers for CRS2.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 09/26/2014 08:17 pm
Now that we know that cst100 is being developed through cctap, what do we know about cst100 for crs2?
Will it be ready in time?
Is it possible cost wise?
Cst100 on a different LV?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/26/2014 08:25 pm
I'll be amazed if anything other than SpaceX and Orbital getting one contract each happens. Not that other companies can't do these services or even do it cheaper.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 09/26/2014 08:34 pm
I found the following bullets extracted from the Pre-Proposal Conference Presentation powerpoint very interesting:

1) NASA may elect to award multiple contracts. -->Does NOT limit to only 2

2) The guaranteed minimum value for any awarded contract is six (6) cargo resupply service missions -->Guessing there will be a need in excess of 18 missions (6 missions * 3 providers)

3) 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. -->This is a lot of money even relative to the recently awarded CCtCap which was $6.8 billion for 14 missions ((1 certification mission + 6 post certification missions) * 2 providers)

Based on this information, I would suggest that NASA is not limited to choosing only 2 providers to deliver services under CRS2. Perhaps 3 is possible. And NASA does explicitly request that non-recurring costs, such as development costs, be itemized separately from the recurring costs of each service mission. I hold out the possibility that Dream Chaser could continue its development under CRS2 along side both the continued service of both SpaceX and Orbital. One could hope  ;)
That's 7 years of service (2018 to 2024). Or 2B per year. At five missions/year that would be 400M per year. Unless they expect to need more missions per year. Cygnus and Dragon currently do 5 missions per year together. And supposedly the logistic needs will be higher since the Shuttle cache is depleted and the 7th crew will increase nearly double the science output.
Let's do the numbers the other way around. Let's say 300M per mission (which is about the current Cygnus contract adjusted by inflation to 2024). That should allow for 7 missions/year. Or they might lower costs. So there is a lot of budget margin for two and even three contractors. There's also margin for paying some setup and certifications cost for somebody (like SNC Cargo Dream Chaser).
I still believe that Dragon an Super Cygnus are the best possible combo. But we'll know in six months or so.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: gongora on 09/26/2014 09:04 pm
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).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 09/27/2014 05:20 am
Quote
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lars-J on 09/27/2014 05:22 am
Quote
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 09/27/2014 05:31 am
Of course you are right. Not sure what I was thinking. (Maybe of Orion?)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: gongora on 09/28/2014 01:53 am
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).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 09/29/2014 08:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: deltaV on 09/30/2014 05:43 am
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 09/30/2014 03:04 pm
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).  :)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 09/30/2014 03:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: RonM on 09/30/2014 03:25 pm
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?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 09/30/2014 03:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 09/30/2014 04:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/30/2014 05:14 pm
A few interesting questions in the most recent Q&A:

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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 09/30/2014 05:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/30/2014 06:24 pm
RFP posted online today http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/ (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/)

Attached is the RFP.


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

Quote from: Pages 80 and 81 of the RFP
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.

Quote from: Page 81 of the RFP
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.

Quote from: Page 83 of the RFP
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.

Quote from: Page 84 of the RFP
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.

Quote from: Page 84 of the RFP
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. 

Quote from: Pages 85 and 86 of the RFP
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 09/30/2014 06:37 pm

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

Quote from: Pages 80 and 81 of the RFP
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?

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 09/30/2014 06:41 pm
So the initially quoted option of docking is not in the RFP?

Docking is still an option.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/30/2014 06:54 pm
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:

Quote from: Page 1 of the RFP
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.

Quote from: pages 21 and 22 of the RFP
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 09/30/2014 07:07 pm
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).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: gongora on 09/30/2014 07:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 09/30/2014 07:24 pm
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.

Not really.  Not all spacecraft will be reusable and still it is a good idea to use reusable space craft for thrash
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/30/2014 07:33 pm
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).

One of the question is on that issue. They ask what will happen if not all criteria are met. Will the proposal be rejected outright or will it still be evaluated? NASA answered that the proposal would still be evaluated.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/30/2014 07:49 pm
Furthermore, NASA mentions that there is a minimum of four flights per year but they don't specify the maximum number of flights per year. However, the lesser number of flights per year, the better the proposal will be evaluated:

Quote from: Page 79 of the RFP
NASA requires the service to provide the annual upmass required of the ISS in no fewer than four (4) flights per year with the cargo somewhat evenly distributed throughout the year.  Cargo includes both NASA cargo and NASA-sponsored cargo (hereinafter referred to as “cargo” or “NASA cargo”). Contractor provided non-NASA cargo may also be included per Clause II.A.5, Contractor Objectives on ISS Resupply Service Missions. Cargo includes both pressurized and unpressurized cargo.  Contracts may include 1) pressurized upmass, 2) pressurized return or pressurized disposal or both, 3) unpressurized upmass and disposal.  Contractors have the option to provide accelerated pressurized return as part of any standard mission(s).  Contractors can meet the required and optional capabilities by mixing them in any manner they choose within their 4 standard missions.

Quote from: page 248 of the RFP
NASA will evaluate the following:
(a)   Capabilities
The Offeror’s capabilities to meet NASA’s requirements as described in the SOW and per flight ranges as defined in Table I.A.3-1, Mission capabilities for the Standard Resupply Services Missions A-D.  The Offeror’s ability to provide a more comprehensive complement of capabilities will be evaluated; such as the ability to meet the annual ISS resupply need in four (4) flights per year, the ability to provide a Launch On Need (LON) capability, the ability to provide more types of capabilities (pressurized delivery, pressurized return or disposal, unpressurized delivery and disposal, accelerated pressurized return) within a standard mission, the ability to provide higher quantities of the capabilities within the per-flight ranges defined in Table I.A.3-1, the ability to provide flexibility for cargo integration and processing, especially being able to accommodate late cargo changes (e.g. substituting bag types or powered lockers late in the manifest process or accommodating irregular, non-rectangular bags, or exchanging unpressurized cargo elements), and the ability to meet the needs of the research community (e.g. a service that provides accelerated pressurized return is favored over pressurized return, with R+3 handover favored over R+6 handover, or provides for a longer mated duration to ISS).  NASA will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for development of Flight Support Equipment.  NASA will evaluate the ground infrastructure that will be used to provide the service, including launch site and launch site cargo processing capabilities and facilities, landing site and landing site cargo capabilities and facilities and control center infrastructure.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: sghill on 09/30/2014 08:13 pm

Quote from: Pages 85 and 86 of the RFP
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.

(C) in bold above is interesting.  I think they may have gotten a bit lazy in the language there, we'll see what comes back in the questions from respondents. 

Think about that requirement for a minute.  Two things jump out at me: 

First, the winners are going to have VERY similar payload capacities to meet requirement (C).  If respondent "O" proposes to deliver 5000 kg to orbit, vendor "X" proposed to deliver 4000 kg, and vendor "B" proposes to deliver 6000 kg, if NASA picks vendor B as a supplier, the other two vendors can't meet the requirement (assuming of course the whole 6000 was going to be utilized on the next flight).

Second, does anyone else read the word "return" in (C) to potentially mean all kinds of things (like safe return to surface versus just deorbit from the station)?  Maybe the word was a holdover from STS era when thinking about return meant all the way back to Earth (not as ashes).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 09/30/2014 08:18 pm
One of the question is on that issue. They ask what will happen if not all criteria are met. Will the proposal be rejected outright or will it still be evaluated? NASA answered that the proposal would still be evaluated.

An unqualified propsal may be evaluated; OTOH it may also go in the garbage.  NASA is  providing a very limited opening for unqaulified proposals to make their case.  In any case, that may not result in an award under the current solicitation, and may require allowing all proposers to resubmit under new revised requirements.  Specifically:

Quote from: CRS2 RFP NNJ14507542R
4. Deviations and/or Exceptions (Mission Suitability Proposal)

... Such proposals shall clearly identify why the acceptance of the proposal would be advantageous to the Government.  Any deviations from the terms and conditions of the solicitation, as well as the comparative advantage to the Government, shall be clearly identified and explicitly defined.  The Government reserves the right to amend the solicitation to allow all Offerors an opportunity to submit revised proposals based on the revised requirements.  A deviation to or exception to a material requirement, provision, or terms and conditions of the contract may be determined as unacceptable, making the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract. 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 09/30/2014 08:22 pm
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.

The contract may not start for three years but proposals are due this November.  There was alread a request to delay CRS-2 proposal due date, based on there not being enough time to revise CRS-2 proposals due to delays in the CCtCap award announcements.  The request was denied.

This is as much a "multi-stage" process as anything that combines DDT&E and acquisition, which is why there are different CLIN's (as with CCtCap).  Any new development and qualification will be performed under CLIN-002 (or outside the contract).

None of which changes the fact that based on the capabilities available today, SpaceX is only  provider which could submit a qualifying proposal.  Which, if you read the fine print in the solicitation, may be one reason why NASA may allow evaluation of unqualified proposals, and may allow resubmission of proposals based on revised requirements (see previous post)--that is an unusual allowance.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 09/30/2014 08:35 pm
... Think about that requirement for a minute.  Two things jump out at me ...

All of those are prefaced or qualified by "should", not "must" or "shall"; translation: "NASA wants and nice to have but don't know if we can afford."
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: gongora on 09/30/2014 09:11 pm
None of which changes the fact that based on the capabilities available today, SpaceX is only  provider which could submit a qualifying proposal.  Which, if you read the fine print in the solicitation, may be one reason why NASA may allow evaluation of unqualified proposals, and may allow resubmission of proposals based on revised requirements (see previous post)--that is an unusual allowance.

Where in the RFP does it say the proposed solution has to be working at the time the proposal is submitted?  This is nonsense.  They are required to have their system ready by 2018.  I'm a big SpaceX fan, but I find it really weird to be using their current capabilities in this argument.  They were still working on Falcon 1 when the first commercial cargo awards were decided.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 09/30/2014 09:53 pm
Where in the RFP does it say the proposed solution has to be working at the time the proposal is submitted? 
The RFP does not state that.  I did not state that.  I have no idea how you arrived at that interpretation.  I pointed out an interesting and relatively unique aspect of this solicitation and potential implications and knock-on effects.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 09/30/2014 10:07 pm
One of the question is on that issue. They ask what will happen if not all criteria are met. Will the proposal be rejected outright or will it still be evaluated? NASA answered that the proposal would still be evaluated.

An unqualified propsal may be evaluated; OTOH it may also go in the garbage.  NASA is  providing a very limited opening for unqaulified proposals to make their case.  In any case, that may not result in an award under the current solicitation, and may require allowing all proposers to resubmit under new revised requirements.  Specifically:

Quote from: CRS2 RFP NNJ14507542R
4. Deviations and/or Exceptions (Mission Suitability Proposal)

... Such proposals shall clearly identify why the acceptance of the proposal would be advantageous to the Government.  Any deviations from the terms and conditions of the solicitation, as well as the comparative advantage to the Government, shall be clearly identified and explicitly defined.  The Government reserves the right to amend the solicitation to allow all Offerors an opportunity to submit revised proposals based on the revised requirements.  A deviation to or exception to a material requirement, provision, or terms and conditions of the contract may be determined as unacceptable, making the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract. 

As I posted above, 4 flights per year is a minimum but it isn't a requirement. But they specifically say that the number of flights that is required will have an impact on the evaluation. See this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264588#msg1264588

See also question 37:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264512#msg1264512
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 09/30/2014 11:50 pm
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.

Exactly. Also, some of the trash has liquid in it, and depressurizing it could cause leaks (which would then boil off and potentially redeposit stuff on the outside of the ISS). This is part of why our notional HatchBasket design is intended to maintain internal pressure inside Cygnus post departure--fluid leaking/boiloff might not turn out to be a real concern, but everyone we spoke with about it was relieved that they wouldn't even after to see if it was an issue.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 10/01/2014 01:11 am
As I posted above, 4 flights per year is a minimum but it isn't a requirement. But they specifically say that the number of flights that is required will have an impact on the evaluation. See this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264588#msg1264588

Not sure what you are getting at here.  I was not referring to nor did I mention number of flights, only capabilities; specifically, those capabilities which are required for "standard missions".

In any case, a proposal which provides for less than four flights/yr would be considered non-compliant.  A proposal which requires more than four flights/yr for the standard missions would be compliant but--all other things equal--would be evaluated less satisfactory than a proposal which provides the same with four flights/yr.

Quote
See also question 37:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264512#msg1264512

The answer to Q37 does not address whether the proposal will be excluded from evaluation based on meeting "required" capabilities, only "requested" capabilities.  An optimistic interpretation is that non-compliant proposals will still be considered.  However, that is a bit vague and easily misinterpreted.

The contract section I quoted in the previous post directly and clearly addresses whether non-compliant proposals (those that do not meet minimum requirements) may still be considered for evaluation, and what non-compliant proposals must provide to get past the front door to in order to make it to the evaluation stage.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 10/01/2014 04:38 am
As I posted above, 4 flights per year is a minimum but it isn't a requirement. But they specifically say that the number of flights that is required will have an impact on the evaluation. See this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264588#msg1264588

Not sure what you are getting at here.  I was not referring to nor did I mention number of flights, only capabilities; specifically, those capabilities which are required for "standard missions".

In any case, a proposal which provides for less than four flights/yr would be considered non-compliant.  A proposal which requires more than four flights/yr for the standard missions would be compliant but--all other things equal--would be evaluated less satisfactory than a proposal which provides the same with four flights/yr.

Yes I know that you didn't. But I was thinking that perhaps an offeror that doesn't meet the requirements for four flights for mass and volume could meet them by adding a fifth flight. But that point isn't very clear.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 10/01/2014 04:43 am
Quote
See also question 37:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264512#msg1264512

The answer to Q37 does not address whether the proposal will be excluded from evaluation based on meeting "required" capabilities, only "requested" capabilities.  An optimistic interpretation is that non-compliant proposals will still be considered.  However, that is a bit vague and easily misinterpreted.

The contract section I quoted in the previous post directly and clearly addresses whether non-compliant proposals (those that do not meet minimum requirements) may still be considered for evaluation, and what non-compliant proposals must provide to get past the front door to in order to make it to the evaluation stage.

Although that is generally true, in the context of question 37, NASA seems to be using request and requirements as if had the same meaning.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: watermod on 10/01/2014 11:04 am
For more mass from SpaceX.   First what can the arm dock?  NASA ISS info says:
Quote
The entire 55-foot robot arm assembly is capable of lifting 220,000 pounds, which is the weight of a space shuttle orbiter.
So it can dock anything a Falcon Heavy can launch.

Next question can one flight a year be a different configuration?    If so then options with a FH are possible.   A minimal solution would be a pressurized tube with solar cells on the sides and thrusters to enable destructive re-entry. 

Now to make it interesting, if return mass is also desired, have another docking adapter at the end of the tube with a Dragon already attached.   This way the Dragon can be filled ASAP with return packages and sent on it's way.   The mass in the tube can slowly be unloaded and replaced with trash.   When done it can be destructively de-orbited.

This leaves 53 tons for a Dragon, a tube and cargo.   

The only major question left out is the reach of the arm.   Can it reach a Dragon or other capsule on the end of the tube?   If it can other ships could dock after the initial Dragon left and before the tube is full of trash.  Of course all of this negates Musk's philosophy of maximal reuse but if NASA wanted such a disposable option it appears do-able. 
 

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 10/03/2014 06:32 pm
Next question can one flight a year be a different configuration?    If so then options with a FH are possible.  ...

Yes.  Up to four different "standard mission" configurations are allowed, and may be used in any mix as long as they satisfy NASA's requirements.  The fewer the number of different configurations the better.

A minimum of four missions/yr is required.  More than four missions/yr is allowed, but the fewer the better.  All other things equal, NASA's ideal would be to meet all required and optional capabilities with four missions/yr (presumably excluding launch on need missions).

Less frequent but larger/heavier cargo missions using FH (or whatever) may be feasible, but may run afoul of the need for timeliness.  I don't know what time constraints there are on typical consumable up-mass or disposal down-mass or what percentage of cargo that represents, but that may be a limiting factor.

Some percentage of consumables will have a shelf life.  I would also guess there are limits on how long some waste may be stored awaiting disposal due to environmental and hygiene concerns.


edit: p.s. Also, available berthing/docking ports are limited, and having one in use for an extended period may be a problem. 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/03/2014 07:39 pm
Can the F9 deliver 2 dragons at once i.e stacked on top of each other. Once in orbit the dragons would fly separately.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: RanulfC on 10/03/2014 08:02 pm
Can the F9 deliver 2 dragons at once i.e stacked on top of each other. Once in orbit the dragons would fly separately.

Even in expendable mode I don't think an F9 has the capability of lofting more than one Dragon at a time.

Randy
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: docmordrid on 10/03/2014 10:14 pm
Can the F9 deliver 2 dragons at once i.e stacked on top of each other. Once in orbit the dragons would fly separately.

Even in expendable mode I don't think an F9 has the capability of lofting more than one Dragon at a time.

Randy
ISTM;

as a full expendable the NASA NLS II calculator shows F9 maxed out at 16.6+ tonnes. You'd also need some sort of interstage, with the lower Dragon bearing much of the load. Real thin, if any, margins.

And the length of the stack with 2 Dragons + Trunks + interstage makes a skinny stack even skinnier, causing possibly troublesome bending loads.

No, not gonna happen.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/03/2014 10:22 pm
Can the F9 deliver 2 dragons at once i.e stacked on top of each other. Once in orbit the dragons would fly separately.

I doubt Dragon V2 has been designed to carry a payload on top of itself (i.e. another Dragon).  That's a lot of load, and no obvious ways to elegantly (i.e. without a lot of extra weight) stack two inline.  Even if you used Falcon Heavy I'm not sure why this would be a good idea...
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 10/04/2014 12:17 am
Can the F9 deliver 2 dragons at once i.e stacked on top of each other. Once in orbit the dragons would fly separately.
I doubt Dragon V2 has been designed to carry a payload on top of itself (i.e. another Dragon).  That's a lot of load, and no obvious ways to elegantly (i.e. without a lot of extra weight) stack two inline.  Even if you used Falcon Heavy I'm not sure why this would be a good idea...

Agree.  Seems a simpler way for SpaceX to provide additional pressurized up volume and also allow for pressurized disposal would be a pressurized module in the Dragon trunk.  If I read the dimensions right, something similar in size to standard Cygnus PCM (~2.6x3.1m) would fit inside the extended trunk (~3.1x3.6m), give or take a bit.  Presumably similar could be done with CST-100 if they get rid of the LAS hardware for cargo flights, altho not sure of the resulting dimensions of such a CST-100 trunk.  That might also provide additional freedom of design and operation by allowing a mix of docking/NDS and berthing/CBM for both Dragon and CST-100.  Edit: Although of course such "dual pressurized" missions would also require the simultaneous use of two ports, which may be an issue.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/04/2014 01:54 am
The lack of ports may not be a problem as 2nd dragon with non-perishable supplies can stay in orbit free flying for a few weeks until the first dragon leaves. Unfortunately stacking 2 dragons on top of each doesn't' look feasible.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 10/04/2014 02:59 am
The lack of ports may not be a problem as 2nd dragon with non-perishable supplies can stay in orbit free flying for a few weeks until the first dragon leaves. Unfortunately stacking 2 dragons on top of each doesn't' look feasible.

However, even if feasible, that would not necessarily satisfy NASA's objective of minimizing the number of cargo missions/yr--with a minimum of four--where "missions" equates to "number of ISS cargo vehicle visits per year" (not the number of launches).

NASA wants to minimize visiting vehicle traffic operations overhead, which currently consumes about 27% of available crew time (including both crew and cargo operations), and which detracts from other crew time (e.g., time available for utilization and research, which NASA wants to maximize).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/04/2014 03:15 am
...
Agree.  Seems a simpler way for SpaceX to provide additional pressurized up volume and also allow for pressurized disposal would be a pressurized module in the Dragon trunk.  If I read the dimensions right, something similar in size to standard Cygnus PCM (~2.6x3.1m) would fit inside the extended trunk (~3.1x3.6m), give or take a bit.  Presumably similar could be done with CST-100 if they get rid of the LAS hardware for cargo flights, altho not sure of the resulting dimensions of such a CST-100 trunk.  That might also provide additional freedom of design and operation by allowing a mix of docking/NDS and berthing/CBM for both Dragon and CST-100.  Edit: Although of course such "dual pressurized" missions would also require the simultaneous use of two ports, which may be an issue.
Do we have any info on the interior dimensions of the Dragon V2 trunk?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: nadreck on 10/04/2014 03:19 am
Besides consuming manhours the docking ports are only rated for a relatively small number of cycles and they want to extend the station life. Presumably without bringing up more ports.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 10/04/2014 03:49 am
Do we have any info on the interior dimensions of the Dragon V2 trunk?

No idea, although I assume it might be similar to Dragon V1 with the possible exception of additional space for batteries.  In any case, possible, but not a given, that SpaceX will propose Dragon V2 with NDS for CRS-2.  More likely IMHO is if they propose Dragon V2 with NDS that will be accompanied by a PCM with CBM.  Or simply a Dragon V2 with a CBM.  Or something like that?

Besides consuming manhours the docking ports are only rated for a relatively small number of cycles and they want to extend the station life. Presumably without bringing up more ports.

IIRC the minimum NDS design cycle count is ~50, but I can't find a reference.  Do you have a reference?  If ~50 is the right number, and assuming all cargo and crew missions use NDS (unlikely IMHO), then at 6/yr (4 cargo + 2 crew), that would be > 8 years--assuming they all use the same port (extremely unlikely)--or by the time CCtCap and CRS-2 are in effect, around 2026 before the nominal life of a single port is exhausted.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/05/2014 03:12 am
The lack of ports may not be a problem as 2nd dragon with non-perishable supplies can stay in orbit free flying for a few weeks until the first dragon leaves. Unfortunately stacking 2 dragons on top of each doesn't' look feasible.

However, even if feasible, that would not necessarily satisfy NASA's objective of minimizing the number of cargo missions/yr--with a minimum of four--where "missions" equates to "number of ISS cargo vehicle visits per year" (not the number of launches).

NASA wants to minimize visiting vehicle traffic operations overhead, which currently consumes about 27% of available crew time (including both crew and cargo operations), and which detracts from other crew time (e.g., time available for utilization and research, which NASA wants to maximize).
Situations Vacant:
Store person. Required to live on site for six months at a time. All accommodation, meals and transport provide. Must not mind heights,  enclosed environments and micro gravity.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 10/05/2014 04:27 am
Besides consuming manhours the docking ports are only rated for a relatively small number of cycles and they want to extend the station life. Presumably without bringing up more ports.

What's wrong with more ports once their life cycle (of 50?) is reached? They will be brought up next year, why not exchange them after 6 or 8 years of use?

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: nadreck on 10/05/2014 05:05 pm


IIRC the minimum NDS design cycle count is ~50, but I can't find a reference.  Do you have a reference?  If ~50 is the right number, and assuming all cargo and crew missions use NDS (unlikely IMHO), then at 6/yr (4 cargo + 2 crew), that would be > 8 years--assuming they all use the same port (extremely unlikely)--or by the time CCtCap and CRS-2 are in effect, around 2026 before the nominal life of a single port is exhausted.

Found the reference I remembered (30) - it had come up sometime in the past on a discussion somewhere: http://wsn.spaceflight.esa.int/docs/Factsheets/27%20IBDM.pdf (http://wsn.spaceflight.esa.int/docs/Factsheets/27%20IBDM.pdf)  however in looking for that, I found a specification for the actuators and bolts that operate the berthing mechanism and they are rated for 400 full cycles: http://archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19920015843/19920015843_djvu.txt (http://archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19920015843/19920015843_djvu.txt)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 10/27/2014 01:21 pm
One thing that was mentioned during the Orbital CRS-3 pre-launch conference is that Orbital intends to increase its payload capacity in the future (in addition to the improvements over the next two launches). This likely means that the next version of Antares will be able to meet NASA's payload requirement for CRS2.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35548.msg1276943#msg1276943
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 10/29/2014 02:15 pm
The due date for the proposals for CRS2 has been pushed back to December 2nd (it was previously November 14th). This was announced yesterday. I don't know if this is related to yesterday's accident on Orbital's CRS-3 flight.

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AnalogMan on 10/29/2014 03:03 pm
The due date for the proposals for CRS2 has been pushed back to December 2nd (it was previously November 14th). This was announced yesterday. I don't know if this is related to yesterday's accident on Orbital's CRS-3 flight.

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/

I saw the date change before Antares was due to launch, so unrelated to the accident.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/29/2014 05:39 pm
Orbital noted that their CRS2 proposal had Antares with its new engine (Rd180, I believe), so if NK-33 is implicated, it may not affect their CRS2 bid as much as you might think.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 10/29/2014 05:53 pm
Orbital noted that their CRS2 proposal had Antares with its new engine (Rd180, I believe), so if NK-33 is implicated, it may not affect their CRS2 bid as much as you might think.

I agree but what could affect their bid is whether they come to an agreement with ULA over the RD-180. They need an agreement before CRS2 is awarded on April 28th 2015 (ideally sooner than that).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: docmordrid on 10/29/2014 07:17 pm
If there's a court fight with ULA over RD-180 availability could they effectively compete?

Quote
@pbdes
Orbital Sciences: If our negs w/ ULA for access to Russian RD-180 engine fail, we can refile our antitrust lawsuit against ULA.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/29/2014 07:26 pm
The replacement engine is likely to be an RD181 not ULA's RD180. Almost same engine as far I know. There was a Russian website article (early this year) stated they will be supplying RD181s to Orbital in 2016.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 10/29/2014 10:48 pm
The replacement engine is likely to be an RD181 not ULA's RD180. Almost same engine as far I know. There was a Russian website article (early this year) stated they will be supplying RD181s to Orbital in 2016.
Please go to the 3D Model section of NPO Energomash (http://www.npoenergomash.ru/dejatelnost/engines/models/). You can clearly see that the RD-181 is a single nozzle engine. So it would be a new engine. But more importantly, the RD-180 does has an export license from the Russian government. Any other engine (no matter if existing or custom built), would need to go through the process of acquiring an export license. While designing and qualifying a rocket engine is probably one of the most demanding engineering activities, getting the export license through the Russian version of ITAR, and in this international environment, might make the technical part look like the easy part. And definitely will not be a fast process.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/29/2014 11:46 pm
Plus, no CCiCap competitor offered more than 16m³ of volume. Enhanced Cygnus (the 3-segment pressurized module version that would fly from CRS-4 onwards), is 26m³, and the proposed "SuperCygnus" version (with 4 segment pressurized module) would have 33.5m³. Of course either Atlas V 501, Delta IV M+(5,2) or even Falcon 9 v1.1 could fit within existing fairing and with a lot of mass margin. They could take up to 4 tonnes of cargo per trip with that configuration. With that they could cover their CRS1 contract in just five launches. The nice thing of flying Cygnus on Atlas V is that ISS would be fully redundant on crew and cargo but still get a nice level of orders for each system. I guess it would require 3 Cargo Dragon, 1 Crew Dragon, 2 Cygnus and 1 CST-100. That's 4 x Falcon 9 per year and 3 x Atlas V. They could get a nice discount on that. Specially since its contracted through commercial means and thus SpaceX, Orbital and Boeing will fight for the best price.

I copied the above from CiCAP thread, this a better thread for it.

If Orbital do use RD180 equivalent engine for the Antares then they should be able to fly the Enhanced and most likely the Super Cygnus.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 10/30/2014 01:14 am
It is just my opinion but I think people need to remember that rockets are not legos.  You change the engine on Antares and now you have a new rocket.  We are not to the point, yet, where you can plug and play engines with core stages.  You have all sorts of things to account for. 

If it is indeed the motor that is the cause then OSC has a lot of engineering to do quick. 

I believe in OSC and I think they WILL recover from this.  Cygnus is a good vehicle.  OSC can compete for CRS #2.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/30/2014 01:53 am
TPiS, you do realize that Orbital bid an alternative engine for Antares (RD180/181 most likely) on CRS2, right? Their idea, not ours.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/30/2014 08:27 am
Here is link to Russian article on supplying RD181 to Orbital.

http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/731768

Tried to Google for information on this engine specifications with no luck. Closes I've come is that is based on RD193 which has similar performance to RD191(2200kg) but is 300kg lighter.
2 x RD181 (2x 1900kg?)will have similar performance to RD180 (5500kg) but considerably lighter.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: GClark on 10/30/2014 09:00 am
AFAICT they are using the -18x designation to indicate engines for foreign (obviously US) use and the -19x designation for engines for their own use.

Angara - RD-190/191
Soyuz 2-1V - RD-193

Atlas V - RD-180
Antares - RD-181

ISTR reading somewhere (A thread here? I can't find it - my Google-fu is weak) that Energomash was offering RD-183 for Antares.  YMMV.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lars-J on 10/30/2014 04:50 pm
According to this tweet, it looks like RD-193: https://twitter.com/Berger_SN/status/527846276629811200

Quote
Brian Berger @Berger_SN
Russia’s Izvestia newspaper reports @OrbitalSciences picked Energomash’s RD-193 engine as replacement for Antares’ AJ-26.

That would make more sense. Apparently the RD-193 (a lower thrust version of the RD-191 that powers Angara?) is the closest thing to a drop-in replacement for the NK-33.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 10/30/2014 05:01 pm
According to this tweet, it looks like RD-193: https://twitter.com/Berger_SN/status/527846276629811200

Quote
Brian Berger @Berger_SN
Russia’s Izvestia newspaper reports @OrbitalSciences picked Energomash’s RD-193 engine as replacement for Antares’ AJ-26.

That would make more sense. Apparently the RD-193 (a lower thrust version of the RD-191 that powers Angara?) is the closest thing to a drop-in replacement for the NK-33.

At this point we have a media quote confirming every possible Energomash product.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: GClark on 11/01/2014 08:48 am
ISTR reading somewhere (A thread here? I can't find it - my Google-fu is weak) that Energomash was offering RD-183 for Antares.

I'll correct myself.  As of Dec '12, Energomash was pushing RD-181 for Antares.

See this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29810.msg972847#msg972847
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AncientU on 11/01/2014 11:36 pm
Am I alone in thinking it is a sorry state of affairs in US spaceflight that the only three engines in consideration are all Russian? And this while the USA has supposedly tough economic sanctions on Russia?

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: robertross on 11/01/2014 11:42 pm
Am I along in thinking it is a sorry state of affairs in US spaceflight that the only three engines in consideration are all Russian? And this while the USA has supposedly tough economic sanctions on Russia?

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.


Which is why there is SpaceX, with their Merlins and Dracos  ;)
Another way to mitigate 'risk'
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: RonM on 11/01/2014 11:53 pm
Am I along in thinking it is a sorry state of affairs in US spaceflight that the only three engines in consideration are all Russian? And this while the USA has supposedly tough economic sanctions on Russia?

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.


Which is why there is SpaceX, with their Merlins and Dracos  ;)
Another way to mitigate 'risk'

Don't forget Blue Origin BE-4 and ULA.

I know that's a few years down the road, but this is the CRS2 thread.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 11/02/2014 10:20 am

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.


What does NASA have to do with it?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AncientU on 11/02/2014 12:38 pm

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.


What does NASA have to do with it?
Nothing substantial, which is the problem.

I thought NASA was who we were paying to develop spaceflight technology (which includes propulsion, I think).  Clearly, we are not debating which of the three engines that NASA has on the shelf will be used... 

As NASA admits, their technology bucket is empty.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 11/02/2014 03:04 pm

Nothing substantial, which is the problem.

I thought NASA was who we were paying to develop spaceflight technology (which includes propulsion, I think).  Clearly, we are not debating which of the three engines that NASA has on the shelf will be used... 

As NASA admits, their technology bucket is empty.

Wrong.  Just another case of unwarranted NASA bashing.  NASA doesn't and shouldn't have any engines on the shelf, just like it doesn't have jet engines on the shelf.     NASA isn't a component supplier.  This isn't an technology that needs to be developed.  It exists.  BTDT.  This is a market issue.  Its in industry's hands to take the technology to market and make a business case for the technology.  The failure is in Aerojet/Rocketdyne/P&W for not doing the work.   Spacex did it, Blue Origin is doing it. 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/02/2014 05:43 pm
You can add ULA and XCOR partnership to list or companies doing the work.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AncientU on 11/02/2014 10:35 pm

Nothing substantial, which is the problem.

I thought NASA was who we were paying to develop spaceflight technology (which includes propulsion, I think).  Clearly, we are not debating which of the three engines that NASA has on the shelf will be used... 

As NASA admits, their technology bucket is empty.

Wrong.  Just another case of unwarranted NASA bashing.  NASA doesn't and shouldn't have any engines on the shelf, just like it doesn't have jet engines on the shelf.     NASA isn't a component supplier.  This isn't an technology that needs to be developed.  It exists.  BTDT.  This is a market issue.  Its in industry's hands to take the technology to market and make a business case for the technology.  The failure is in Aerojet/Rocketdyne/P&W for not doing the work.   Spacex did it, Blue Origin is doing it.

The TR-106/7 and RS-83/4 development projects were finished and successful, and then industry dropped the ball... is that what you are saying?  (That's not how I've heard it, but I'm certainly not the spaceflight historian that you are.)  I'm not expecting NASA to supply components... finishing a development program would be nice, though.  But there's always next time -- FY2015 in fact.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 11/02/2014 11:08 pm

The TR-106/7 and RS-83/4 development projects were finished and successful, and then industry dropped the ball... is that what you are saying?  (That's not how I've heard it, but I'm certainly not the spaceflight historian that you are.)  I'm not expecting NASA to supply components... finishing a development program would be nice, though.  But there's always next time -- FY2015 in fact.

NASA doesn't need to do any more development programs on engines, industry can it themselves.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 11/02/2014 11:43 pm
Totally agree with Jim....
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AncientU on 11/03/2014 12:25 am
So do I, now that he is referring to the future.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: bad_astra on 11/07/2014 05:22 pm
The know-how to produce RS-27a is not lost, even if the tooling had to be recreated. America can build good good kerolox engines. It's only blind greed and poor decision making that prevents it.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 11/07/2014 06:36 pm
Am I alone in thinking it is a sorry state of affairs in US spaceflight that the only three engines in consideration are all Russian? And this while the USA has supposedly tough economic sanctions on Russia?

NASA and the so-called US aerospace 'industry' should be ashamed. If they are not, then it is time they are replaced.

New rocket engines are built for customers in markets.  And the market for spaceflight has been anything but a free, open, or normal market.

Sadly, the history of the first fifty years of spaceflight has been substantially one of a monopsony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony) (single buyer) within the polity of any particular nation state.  The commsat market and limited commercial Earth-sensing satellite markets appear to have been happy to purchase services on top of military- or government-paid and developed launch vehicles; they have contributed some demand for launch services, but little in direct influence on the sorts of launch vehicles or rocket engines developed for commercial service. This is the familiar "crowding out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowding_out_%28economics%29)" effect in markets that often happens when the government gets too deeply involved in economic exchange relations.

This is beginning to change, at least in the US.  There has been in the past decade or so the start of private launch vehicle development, built to private designs with private operating specifications.  Even if space transport services are sold to the US government (military or civilian sides), or if limited development funding is provided for specific capabilities to be developed, these private launch vehicles have begun the process of putting into the mix a limited amount of real free market demand into the market for rocket engines.

Government-purchased CRS services have begun to benefit from these new, lower-cost launch service offerings.  But the problem that this market is not responding in a normal way was not created overnight, and it surely will not get fixed overnight.

We'll see where this goes in the future.  But the history what has been considered the "US rocket engine industry" cannot really be separated from the monopsony that was created in that industry from the start, with countries and their military arms driving all demand, initially, and most demand later on, and those government entities specifying the detailed requirements of all launch vehicles and rocket engines for decades.


Edit:  Fixed broken link
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 11/07/2014 06:48 pm
You need to do a little research on history.  Your "free market" has been in place for much longer. 


This is beginning to change, at least in the US.  There has been in the past decade or so the start of private launch vehicle development, built to private designs with private operating specifications. 


It changed long ago in the 90's.  Look at Atlas I/II/III.  These were "private launch vehicle development, built to private designs with private operating specifications"   There were 60 commercial launches compared to 20 gov't.

Anyways, Falcon 9 was designed with gov't operating specifications in mind vs " private operating specifications"

and those government entities specifying the detailed requirements of all launch vehicles and rocket engines for decades.

That hasn't been done since the Titan 34D program in the late 70's.  Procurements since then have specified only performance and interface requirements and not "detailed requirements of all launch vehicles and rocket engines"


The "free market" is what drove some LV developers to use Russian engines.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 11/07/2014 08:16 pm
You need to do a little research on history.  Your "free market" has been in place for much longer. 


This is beginning to change, at least in the US.  There has been in the past decade or so the start of private launch vehicle development, built to private designs with private operating specifications. 


It changed long ago in the 90's.  Look at Atlas I/II/III.  These were "private launch vehicle development, built to private designs with private operating specifications"   There were 60 commercial launches compared to 20 gov't.

Anyways, Falcon 9 was designed with gov't operating specifications in mind vs " private operating specifications"


Hi Jim.  I thought you'd have something to say on this.   ;)

I said "in the past decade or so" -- that could probably include the two decades you are claiming.  Although many on these forums, and most economists, would argue with your view that the military procurement cycles that led to the 90s era launch vehicles for US government use were "free market" arrangements. 

Moreover, I don't think that what exists today in the launch vehicle or rocket engine "market" is any kind of totally free market: I said it is "beginning to change, at least in the US."  In no way is the market we see now some kind of a free market dream.

The monopsonistic market created by the government in the 1950s/60s, is not something that can just be turned off on a whim.  The ridiculously high cost structure built into products provided to the space industrial complex cannot be, and will not be, quickly eliminated just because the USG says it wants some "commercial" bids. 

This is what SpaceX found to be true, and why they chose to vertically integrate so much of their manufacturing in-house.  It is further illustrated, with respect to rocket engines specifically (which was question of the post I was replying to by AncientU), with the whole government/Congressional response to the Russian RD-180 geopolitical mess last spring (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34595.0).  Whatever you might say, that high cost structure in the traditional industry, and the tendency of the government to come in and say "THIS is the engine we shall have!" (as illustrated by the thread linked in the previous sentence), is not going away anytime soon--although change is coming, as competition and competitive offerings drive an entrepreneurial structural shift in an otherwise moribund industry.

And all of this reality, and the economic and political history that led to it, is a part of the answer to why no commercial engines are available in the ordinary market sense to deal with the recent problems with the Russian engines.  And that is the question that AncientU had asked about potential US engines for CRS launch vehicles.



Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/07/2014 11:53 pm
...The failure is in Aerojet/Rocketdyne/P&W for not doing the work.   Spacex did it, Blue Origin is doing it.
This. PWR merely laughed off SpaceX. Now, they ended up getting bought out by Aerojet. Blue Origin, on the other hand, is actually doing development.

It's no longer enough to sit on your laurels in this industry. Which is a very, very good thing.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 12/02/2014 02:51 pm
The deadline for submitting proposals for CRS2 is today (December 2).
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/02/2014 05:30 pm
The deadline for submitting proposals for CRS2 is today (December 2).
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp
Oh man, I haven't even started on mine, yet! ;)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 12/05/2014 04:36 am
Contract award date has been pushed from April 28th to June 10th 2015:

Quote
Contract Award  06/10/15
   
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/06/2014 08:59 pm
Contract award date has been pushed from April 28th to June 10th 2015:

Quote
Contract Award  06/10/15
   
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp

Anything going on in May that is forcing the slip?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 12/07/2014 03:39 pm
Contract award date has been pushed from April 28th to June 10th 2015:

Quote
Contract Award  06/10/15
   
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp

Anything going on in May that is forcing the slip?

The date for submitting proposals had been pushed from November 14 to December 2nd. So it was to be expected that the award date would also be pushed out by a few weeks.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/07/2014 05:33 pm
I concur that a free flyer would seem a very interesting solution to the microgravity problem. Specially when you already have Cygnus. I'm pretty sure that a 4.2m Cygnus wouldn't be very expensive, since Thales had to reduce the pressurized module from that size. And I thought that the station had multiple attitude changes, for example to minimize the solar panels drag. And they have the reboosts and DAM that are much worse.
Does the crew movement for loading and unloading really affect to much? Moving a few tens of kilos in a 400 tonnes station shouldn't have such an impact. I would guess that the gravity gradient and attitude control per orbit would be much worse offenders.
I have to admit, that I'm still pondering what should be the lessons for the next space laboratory. I believe the fully autonomous rendezvous, capture and berthing should be a must. Or at the very least handled by the ground crew. I love the idea of a free flyer. Not only for the microgravity reasons but for the potential for dangerous experiments that would be unacceptable on a crewed situation. If I had to work on space I would like to develop the business and technical plan for a commercial continuation of the ISS.

Does Orbital offer a free flyer if NASA wanted one?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/07/2014 05:36 pm
Why did NASA not include in the specifications for "autonomous rendezvous, capture and berthing" in CRS-2 or at least have it handled by ground control?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 12/07/2014 08:56 pm
Why did NASA not include in the specifications for "autonomous rendezvous, capture and berthing" in CRS-2 or at least have it handled by ground control?
At least according Jim, Canadarm2 doesn't have that capability. I'm not sure what it would take to add it.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 12/07/2014 09:08 pm
Do we know who submitted bids?  Who do we expect to get contracts?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/08/2014 12:55 am
Why did NASA not include in the specifications for "autonomous rendezvous, capture and berthing" in CRS-2 or at least have it handled by ground control?
At least according Jim, Canadarm2 doesn't have that capability. I'm not sure what it would take to add it.
From what I'be read unloading and loading supply vehicles takes a lot of crew time. Couldn't NASA use a robot under earth control to do a lot of this storeman's work.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: obi-wan on 12/08/2014 01:31 am
Why did NASA not include in the specifications for "autonomous rendezvous, capture and berthing" in CRS-2 or at least have it handled by ground control?
At least according Jim, Canadarm2 doesn't have that capability. I'm not sure what it would take to add it.
From what I'be read unloading and loading supply vehicles takes a lot of crew time. Couldn't NASA use a robot under earth control to do a lot of this storeman's work.
Even a state-of-the-art dexterous robot like Robonaut 2 is many times slower than a human doing any given task. In addition, the packing system in resupply vehicles involves a lot of straps, nets, and cloth CTBs (cargo transfer bags) that are particularly difficult for a robot to handle. You would have to keep a resupply vehicle on station for many months to empty it robotically - and some of the contents are time sensitive.

For that matter, more than 75% of crew activities on ISS are working on ISS, anyway, not doing science or other "payload" tasks. Unpacking resupply vehicles is a task the crew likes - it means fresh food, mail from home, and clean underwear!
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: nimbostratus on 12/08/2014 03:19 am
Why did NASA not include in the specifications for "autonomous rendezvous, capture and berthing" in CRS-2 or at least have it handled by ground control?

Why is such a specification needed?

I think guys on the ISS is pleased to do the capturing job.

And do you know how Mir SS was forced to be retired?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: nimbostratus on 12/08/2014 03:22 am
Do we know who submitted bids?  Who do we expect to get contracts?

I think most guys are expecting black horses.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: aga on 12/08/2014 08:06 am
And do you know how Mir SS was forced to be retired?

if you are talking about progress hitting the station... then it is exactly an argument to support the autonomous docking... not against the autonomous docking
because... progress hit the station with manual docking performed by the station crew... not with the autonomous one
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 12/08/2014 03:26 pm
Do we know who submitted bids?  Who do we expect to get contracts?
SpaceX and Orbital did said they were submitting bids, Boeing (CST-100) and Sierra Nevada (Dream Chaser) have said they wanted to compete. So I would expect at least those four. The other two that could are Blue Origin (their capsule is advancing, but I don't believe they could do it by 2018 without some serious extra money, which this time simply won't be there. And ATK/Liberty could have made a bid, but the merger process might have prevented it. I believe that they might have negotiated an "optional" upgrade.
Say, while Antares 200 core will be a RP-1/LOX stage with Russian engines, they might have left the door open for a 300 core with a solid first (and may be even second) stage. Or they might even have left the door open for the Stratolauncher. Whoever launches on Atlas V (CST-100, Dream Chaser and Blue Origin if they actually bid), will have to have a transition strategy.
Since this time there's no time nor schedule for a long development process, only those that have a significantly developed system can realistically bid. And let me make some educated guesses.
Nobody save Cygnus has a disposable system to start with. And thus the rest are usually volume limited. Thus, I expect a Cygnus Enhanced (or even a Super 33m³) to be one of the chosen providers.
Then, you will realistically have a single slot for returnable cargo competed among Dragon 2, CST-100, DreamChaser and Blue Origin Crew Capsule. LM is prevented from competing because of the Orion contract, so you don't really have anybody else with actual chances to compete.
I believe that NASA would love to have DreamChaser, for many reasons. But I seriously doubt that anybody will be able to compete with SpaceX's price. And they will obviously fit the requirements. So I would expect both current suppliers to get a renewal.
Now, if ISS get's extended beyond 2024, things might change, but as of right now, I see the SpaceX and Orbital as the safest choices.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 12/08/2014 03:52 pm
Do we know who submitted bids?  Who do we expect to get contracts?

We don't know who submitted bids unless the company decides to disclose that information.

My guess is that SpaceX and Orbital will win again. NASA could decide to have a third commercial cargo provider. But unless Boeing and SNC are price competitive with Orbital and SpaceX, I don't see that happening.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: terryy on 12/16/2014 11:15 pm
Looks like we have confirmation that Boeing and SNC both put in bids on the CRS2 contract.

http://spacenews.com/boeing-offers-cst-100-for-iss-cargo-contract/
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 12/16/2014 11:38 pm
Looks like we have confirmation that Boeing and SNC both put in bids on the CRS2 contract.

http://spacenews.com/boeing-offers-cst-100-for-iss-cargo-contract/

The article also says that Orbital submitted a CRS2 bid. SpaceX declined to comment.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: DGH on 12/23/2014 11:53 am
Looks like we have confirmation that Boeing and SNC both put in bids on the CRS2 contract.

http://spacenews.com/boeing-offers-cst-100-for-iss-cargo-contract/

Very useful article, I am surprised there have not been more comments.
This article confirms cargo version of CST-100 is in excess of 2500 kg.
Previously they kept saying in excess of 1100 kg which was strangely similar to an early number of 1067 kg and 7 crew.
It looks like Boeing has been underplaying CST-100’s capabilities to the media.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: fast on 12/23/2014 12:32 pm
If there will be booster to take it up.
Atlas future in few years is unclear, new ULA booster availability even more unclear. Delta 4 too expensive. F9 is a competitor, but actually possible option...
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 12/23/2014 01:49 pm
Looks like we have confirmation that Boeing and SNC both put in bids on the CRS2 contract.

http://spacenews.com/boeing-offers-cst-100-for-iss-cargo-contract/

Very useful article, I am surprised there have not been more comments.
This article confirms cargo version of CST-100 is in excess of 2500 kg.
Previously they kept saying in excess of 1100 kg which was strangely similar to an early number of 1067 kg and 7 crew.
It looks like Boeing has been underplaying CST-100’s capabilities to the media.


It's been talked about a bit in the CST-100 thread
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/23/2014 03:43 pm
If there will be booster to take it up.
Atlas future in few years is unclear, new ULA booster availability even more unclear. Delta 4 too expensive. F9 is a competitor, but actually possible option...
The ban on using RD180 after 2019 only affects DOD missions, it doesn't apply to ISS missions using Atlas (RD180).
ULA will keep flying Atlas until they are confident with NLV.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jimmy Murdok on 03/04/2015 10:12 pm
Any topic or public info on CRS 2 SpaceX vehicle?
My conservative logic gives me a simplified Dragon 2 with the big berthing port. But Orbital will offer almost 3 times it's pressurized volume, so 2018 might be time to make a bigger pressure vessel for an enhanced cargo Dragon  ::), something around 20-25m3 that in the future could be used for an upgraded BEO crewed Dragon.
I have no insight, but I'm not sure how big of an issue the difference in volume is between Cygnus and Dragon 1 as they have complementary capabilities.  NASA needs something that can return cargo to Earth and Cygnus can't do that.  So the potential competitors to SpaceX are CST-100, Liberty, Dream Chaser and whoever else offering to return cargo to Earth.
Sure, Dragon 1 could offer a great price and is doing what NASA needs, they present the same product and get the contract.
But it is also true that the other contenders except Orbital need to develop their vehicles, so SpaceX have some margins to request some extra money to improve their vehicle and offer a bigger and upgraded product keeping the same shape and in the limits of F9 with SD for landing. Further speculating, future upgrades of crewed Dragon could use this experience for a bigger pressure vessel that could really handle 7PAX for tourism in decent conditions. This would avoid the need of attached Beam module style solutions to increase the habitability.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Blackstar on 03/05/2015 05:27 pm
There will be a very interesting announcement about this very soon.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Malderi on 03/05/2015 05:36 pm
There will be a very interesting announcement about this very soon.

I assume that means you have information that the CRS2 contract will not be awarded to SpaceX/Orbital, and that either one of those lost out or there's a third awardee. Thanks for being cryptic. :-)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/05/2015 05:48 pm
There will be a very interesting announcement about this very soon.

Friday at 5:00? Or today, during a DC blizzard?

Contract award isn't scheduled for 3 more months. When was the last time anything got done 3 months early?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: woods170 on 03/05/2015 06:00 pm
There will be a very interesting announcement about this very soon.
Any announcement about CRS-2 will be (very) interesting.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Blackstar on 03/05/2015 06:01 pm
A week from today.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/05/2015 06:13 pm
There will be a very interesting announcement about this very soon.

An announcement by NASA or by a company?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Blackstar on 03/05/2015 06:18 pm
Lockheed Martin.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/05/2015 06:22 pm
Lockheed Martin.

That is interesting!  I hope that means LM put in an unexpected bid for CRS2.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 03/05/2015 06:39 pm
Lockheed/Boeing wars???!!

This should be something intriguing right here... It'll be quite the thing in the long run if Lockheed starts throwing up cargo services.

I expect them to be canny about this one - thanks for the tease, Blackstar - you've given me something to sink my jaws into.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/05/2015 08:56 pm
It just so happens that LM build DC for SNC.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/06/2015 01:35 am
It just so happens that LM build DC for SNC.

LM is not the lead on the SNC proposal. It's just a contractor. But it's possible that LM has submitted its own bid. Perhaps, a cargo Orion?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/06/2015 02:32 am
Yeah, I was thinking Orion. If true, it probably has been in the works for quite a while... And perhaps even the criteria favored such a selection?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/06/2015 02:37 am
Yeah, I was thinking Orion. If true, it probably has been in the works for quite a while... And perhaps even the criteria favored such a selection?

Return of Planetspace OTV
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/06/2015 04:22 am
Lockheed Martin.

That is interesting!  I hope that means LM put in an unexpected bid for CRS2.

I had heard from a few non-LM sources that they had put in a CRS-2 bid. I've even heard some speculation on their approach. It would be cool to hear a formal confirmation and more details if that's what the announcement is. So no, I at least don't find this unexpected at all.

Now with that out of the way here's a few speculations on my part about what they're doing (assuming they're going to announce their concept, which Blackstar hasn't actually stated yet):

1- A CRS-2 bid means they're going to have to cover the development cost themselves, and try to recoup it during the CRS-2 process while competing with SpaceX and OSC that have already had their development paid for. This suggests something very simple, flying on a vehicle that's already operational (Atlas V, IMO).
2- My best guess would be an LM-flavored Cygnus equivalent. Centaur tank derived pressure structure (like what ARCTUS proposed but likely bigger), bus derived from one of their existing buses (either a commercial one, a DoD one, or a NASA one), and prox ops based on what they've proven out for Orion.
3- I think they'll shoot for bigger payloads with fewer flights per year than Cygnus.
4- Unclear on if they would try for something recoverable or not, though my guess based on #1 is that they'd go for disposable like Cygnus.

Anyhow, speculation aside, it'll be interesting to see what the actual announcement is.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2015 05:55 am
It just so happens that LM build DC for SNC.

I didn't quite understand that post. We seem to moving from 4 letter acronyms to 2 letters.  Perhaps in the future, we can economize further by using just one letter for everything.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Star One on 03/06/2015 06:34 am
Interesting I wonder what decided LM that they wanted a piece of that pie. Being a legacy supplier in this area of all types of vehicles will probably give them something of an advantage when it comes to the choice.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/06/2015 06:39 am
Now with that out of the way here's a few speculations on my part about what they're doing (assuming they're going to announce their concept, which Blackstar hasn't actually stated yet):...

Sounds completely logical and doable.  Would be interesting if they propose it as you have outlined it.

However what would really be neat is if they decided that the Dream Chaser was worth the risk, and assuming they see a future in Commercial Crew that it would also allow them to muscle into that too, even if it's only for non-NASA flights.  Maybe do some sort of win-win joint venture with Sierra Nevada.

I can wish...   ;)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/06/2015 06:48 am
Now with that out of the way here's a few speculations on my part about what they're doing (assuming they're going to announce their concept, which Blackstar hasn't actually stated yet):

1- A CRS-2 bid means they're going to have to cover the development cost themselves, and try to recoup it during the CRS-2 process while competing with SpaceX and OSC that have already had their development paid for. This suggests something very simple, flying on a vehicle that's already operational (Atlas V, IMO).
2- My best guess would be an LM-flavored Cygnus equivalent. Centaur tank derived pressure structure (like what ARCTUS proposed but likely bigger), bus derived from one of their existing buses (either a commercial one, a DoD one, or a NASA one), and prox ops based on what they've proven out for Orion.
3- I think they'll shoot for bigger payloads with fewer flights per year than Cygnus.
4- Unclear on if they would try for something recoverable or not, though my guess based on #1 is that they'd go for disposable like Cygnus.

Those sound like excellent guesses to me.  Going for Cygnus's niche makes a lot more sense than going for Dragon's niche.  For CRS-1, Cygnus gets a lot more money per flight than SpaceX does per flight, so it's easier for them to make a profit using Atlas V at the Cygnus pricepoint -- and even easier if they go for more cargo per flight, as suggested here.  And having to develop a re-entry vehicle would be a lot more expensive.  Cygnus was basically put together from existing parts, and there's not much reason LM couldn't follow suit.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/06/2015 07:04 am
However what would really be neat is if they decided that the Dream Chaser was worth the risk, and assuming they see a future in Commercial Crew that it would also allow them to muscle into that too, even if it's only for non-NASA flights.  Maybe do some sort of win-win joint venture with Sierra Nevada.

I can wish...   ;)

You can wish, but it seems extremely unlikely to me.  LM is oriented around going after known government contracts in ways that make them the most money.  I can't see them going after non-NASA crew flights when that market is currently zero and very iffy for the future.  Even where there is a civilian market, such as commercial aircraft, LM doesn't seem interested in getting involved in it.  Government work is what they seem to like.  That leaves CRS-2, and Dream Chaser is too expensive for them to make money that way.  Which is why I think Jon's speculation of a Cygnus replacement is much more likely.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/06/2015 11:09 am
I like Jon's idea more than my Dream Chaser speculation. (just 4 u Danderman no acronyms)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: llanitedave on 03/06/2015 02:52 pm
Maybe it will be a vehicle powered by their compact fusion reactor!   8)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/06/2015 03:14 pm
Now with that out of the way here's a few speculations on my part about what they're doing (assuming they're going to announce their concept, which Blackstar hasn't actually stated yet):...

Sounds completely logical and doable.  Would be interesting if they propose it as you have outlined it.

However what would really be neat is if they decided that the Dream Chaser was worth the risk, and assuming they see a future in Commercial Crew that it would also allow them to muscle into that too, even if it's only for non-NASA flights.  Maybe do some sort of win-win joint venture with Sierra Nevada.

I can wish...   ;)

SNC also bid their Dream Chaser for CRS-2, so I kind of doubt that LM could've bid their own version of Dream Chaser.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: rcoppola on 03/06/2015 04:59 pm
Looks like CRS-2 is shaping up to be quite the party. A few thoughts:

SpaceX is certainly going to offer their extended trunk and possibly a D2 cargo variant. (D2 Variant probably not at the start of the contract but perhaps half-way through it while keeping the proven D1 humming along) Their prices will remain extremely competitive regardless.

SNC. I love that little shuttle but i have a difficult time seeing how they finish development with a contract that has no development funds in it and remain competitive. Even taking out Human systems, DC needs many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of dev & test. And since it hasn't actually flown yet, we don't know what the recert would entail enabling them to claw back initial dev costs with re-use.

Boeing has a real shot with CST cargo variant. Especially if they can find a way to include a reasonable recert process for re-use. But that again is a big unknown. I'm dubious they can displace Dragon, unless they plan to include capabilities that justifies increased cost and/or can make re-use viable allowing them to be competitive to Dragon costs. Land landings could potentially help it's chances. But D2-Cargo propulsive assist may not be far behind.

LM can't use Orion but I'm intrigued by a Cygnus competitor. Not sure about cost competitiveness but with their heritage and expertise, I'm keeping an open mind to the possibilities.

And Orbital still needs to prove out their Antares engine replacement program but the Cygnus itself is proven.

But I'm actually looking at this from a launcher perspective. Currently we have 2 primary launchers. F9 & AV.

Both are being used for Commercial crew with F9 doing double duty on Cargo and crew. Assuming Antares comes back strong, that's 3 launchers spread between Cargo & Crew. Cargo CST & anything LM comes up with will be slated for AV. (None of this takes into account the NextGen AV as that's not coming on-line for at least another 5 years.)

NASA will balance cost, capabilities and a diversified launcher profile. So either LM replaces Orbital or Boeing replaces SpaceX. And I'm just not seeing the CST as having such a huge capabilities advantage let alone cost advantage over Dragon for that to happen. So, in my mind, the most likely scenario is either status quo or LM takes it away from Orbital. (Because, IMO, you still want one system for disposal and one for return and I don't think there's enough money to have 3 contracts) *Unless you can use the Dragon's extended trunk for disposal then perhaps you can argue for 2 cargo returns, CST & Dragon. (Don't know what that would do to it's maneuverability) And consolidate savings on having SpaceX and Boeing handle all ISS cargo & crew ops.

Ah the unknown unknowns...

Certainly will be interesting and exactly what turning cargo over to commercial competition was intended to foster.

My Vote:

Regular operations:

SpaceX = Dragon Cargo & Crew
Boeing = CST Cargo & Crew

Limited operations x2 a year
LM or Orbital = Large Bulk shipments - disposals
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 03/06/2015 05:51 pm
It just so happens that LM build DC for SNC.

I didn't quite understand that post. We seem to moving from 4 letter acronyms to 2 letters.  Perhaps in the future, we can economize further by using just one letter for everything.

K.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/06/2015 06:17 pm
Lockheed Martin.

That is interesting!  I hope that means LM put in an unexpected bid for CRS2.

I had heard from a few non-LM sources that they had put in a CRS-2 bid. I've even heard some speculation on their approach. It would be cool to hear a formal confirmation and more details if that's what the announcement is. So no, I at least don't find this unexpected at all.

Now with that out of the way here's a few speculations on my part about what they're doing (assuming they're going to announce their concept, which Blackstar hasn't actually stated yet):

1- A CRS-2 bid means they're going to have to cover the development cost themselves, and try to recoup it during the CRS-2 process while competing with SpaceX and OSC that have already had their development paid for. This suggests something very simple, flying on a vehicle that's already operational (Atlas V, IMO).
2- My best guess would be an LM-flavored Cygnus equivalent. Centaur tank derived pressure structure (like what ARCTUS proposed but likely bigger), bus derived from one of their existing buses (either a commercial one, a DoD one, or a NASA one), and prox ops based on what they've proven out for Orion.
3- I think they'll shoot for bigger payloads with fewer flights per year than Cygnus.
4- Unclear on if they would try for something recoverable or not, though my guess based on #1 is that they'd go for disposable like Cygnus.

Anyhow, speculation aside, it'll be interesting to see what the actual announcement is.

~Jon

In the past I speculated that Boeing might do something like this. Either revive HTV on EELV (that they proposed a long time ago), or build their own Cygnus competitor sharing some processing/parts with CST.

I didn't think about LM doing the same thing but I don't see why not. Looking through some old Planetspace stuff, it looks like they had plans to operate on Atlas V, in addition to the proposed Athena III vehicle.

I'm going to double down on my earlier speculation and guess that:
1. It's big. Launched on one of the heavier Atlases or even DIV-H
2. Offering one to NASA every 12-18 months
3. Has either HTV or old Planetspace OTV heritage; looks more like HTV than Cygnus.
4. First flight NET 2018, more likely 2019.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Blackstar on 03/06/2015 06:25 pm
It just so happens that LM build DC for SNC.

I didn't quite understand that post. We seem to moving from 4 letter acronyms to 2 letters.  Perhaps in the future, we can economize further by using just one letter for everything.

E. I. E. I. OOOOOOOOOOOHHHH
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Star One on 03/06/2015 07:20 pm
Lockheed Martin.

That is interesting!  I hope that means LM put in an unexpected bid for CRS2.

I had heard from a few non-LM sources that they had put in a CRS-2 bid. I've even heard some speculation on their approach. It would be cool to hear a formal confirmation and more details if that's what the announcement is. So no, I at least don't find this unexpected at all.

Now with that out of the way here's a few speculations on my part about what they're doing (assuming they're going to announce their concept, which Blackstar hasn't actually stated yet):

1- A CRS-2 bid means they're going to have to cover the development cost themselves, and try to recoup it during the CRS-2 process while competing with SpaceX and OSC that have already had their development paid for. This suggests something very simple, flying on a vehicle that's already operational (Atlas V, IMO).
2- My best guess would be an LM-flavored Cygnus equivalent. Centaur tank derived pressure structure (like what ARCTUS proposed but likely bigger), bus derived from one of their existing buses (either a commercial one, a DoD one, or a NASA one), and prox ops based on what they've proven out for Orion.
3- I think they'll shoot for bigger payloads with fewer flights per year than Cygnus.
4- Unclear on if they would try for something recoverable or not, though my guess based on #1 is that they'd go for disposable like Cygnus.

Anyhow, speculation aside, it'll be interesting to see what the actual announcement is.

~Jon

In the past I speculated that Boeing might do something like this. Either revive HTV on EELV (that they proposed a long time ago), or build their own Cygnus competitor sharing some processing/parts with CST.

I didn't think about LM doing the same thing but I don't see why not. Looking through some old Planetspace stuff, it looks like they had plans to operate on Atlas V, in addition to the proposed Athena III vehicle.

I'm going to double down on my earlier speculation and guess that:
1. It's big. Launched on one of the heavier Atlases or even DIV-H
2. Offering one to NASA every 12-18 months
3. Has either HTV or old Planetspace OTV heritage; looks more like HTV than Cygnus.
4. First flight NET 2018, more likely 2019.

If it's going to big it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some DOD heritage in it. Perhaps it will be not dissimilar in function to the Soviet TKS craft.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/06/2015 07:43 pm
The CRS-2 specifications didn't wanted less than 3/yr. The station needs periodical missions to carry last minute cargo. May be they could use 5 Dragon + one big cargo. But I believe that for LEO, even an Atlas V 551 can only put 17tonnes to ISS orbit. And a spacecraft could hardly carry more than 50% of total LV payload in cargo. Thus, they can't really cover the minimum in a single launch.
Now, an AV431 can do 13tonnes to ISS, is quite cheaper, and they can put more than enough volume (say a 3.6m diameter PCM, which could have 45m³) to carry 6 tonnes per launch. They can easily cover their requirement in three launches and it would not be a vehicle much bigger than a Super Cygnus.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: woods170 on 03/06/2015 07:51 pm
It just so happens that LM build DC for SNC.

LM is not the lead on the SNC proposal. It's just a contractor. But it's possible that LM has submitted its own bid. Perhaps, a cargo Orion?
Crazy idea from a standpoint of cost-competitiveness.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/06/2015 07:53 pm
The CRS-2 specifications didn't wanted less than 3/yr. The station needs periodical missions to carry last minute cargo. May be they could use 5 Dragon + one big cargo. But I believe that for LEO, even an Atlas V 551 can only put 17tonnes to ISS orbit. And a spacecraft could hardly carry more than 50% of total LV payload in cargo. Thus, they can't really cover the minimum in a single launch.
Now, an AV431 can do 13tonnes to ISS, is quite cheaper, and they can put more than enough volume (say a 3.6m diameter PCM, which could have 45m³) to carry 6 tonnes per launch. They can easily cover their requirement in three launches and it would not be a vehicle much bigger than a Super Cygnus.

Yeah, I'm definitely a fan of frequent deliveries, for the reasons you suggested. If I were them, I'd try to come up with something with low empty mass that could launch on an Atlas V 401. But we don't even know for sure at this point if the announcement will be news on an LM CRS-2 bid, so we shall see.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/06/2015 08:03 pm
Those sound like excellent guesses to me.  Going for Cygnus's niche makes a lot more sense than going for Dragon's niche.  For CRS-1, Cygnus gets a lot more money per flight than SpaceX does per flight, so it's easier for them to make a profit using Atlas V at the Cygnus pricepoint...

Yes, my wish for LM and Dream Chaser is unlikely to happen...

But don't assume that just because Orbital Sciences was able to justify a significantly higher price for their CRS-1 service than SpaceX proposed that it somehow sets a price floor for CRS-2.  At that time NASA only had two viable competitors (or assumed to be viable), and the government is OK with paying significantly higher prices to ensure competition.

However for CRS-2 it looks like they will have a plenty of choices, so any LM proposal will have to compete on price against not only the new Orbital ATK, but Boeing, SNC and SpaceX.  And except for SNC, the other three will have the advantage of already certified vehicles that they can leverage.

Quote
Cygnus was basically put together from existing parts, and there's not much reason LM couldn't follow suit.

Sure, but Lockheed Martin does not get any better pricing on Atlas V or the NGLV than Boeing does, so their biggest competitor may be CST-100 and not Cygnus.  And competition drives down prices.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Blackstar on 03/06/2015 09:50 pm
1-Yeah, I'm definitely a fan of frequent deliveries, for the reasons you suggested.

2-But we don't even know for sure at this point if the announcement will be news on an LM CRS-2 bid, so we shall see.

1-Lots of flights really challenge ISS operations. They create a lot of work for the astronauts and scheduling is a real pain.

2-It will be.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/07/2015 12:07 am
The CRS-2 specifications didn't wanted less than 3/yr. The station needs periodical missions to carry last minute cargo. May be they could use 5 Dragon + one big cargo. But I believe that for LEO, even an Atlas V 551 can only put 17tonnes to ISS orbit. And a spacecraft could hardly carry more than 50% of total LV payload in cargo. Thus, they can't really cover the minimum in a single launch.
Now, an AV431 can do 13tonnes to ISS, is quite cheaper, and they can put more than enough volume (say a 3.6m diameter PCM, which could have 45m³) to carry 6 tonnes per launch. They can easily cover their requirement in three launches and it would not be a vehicle much bigger than a Super Cygnus.

Yeah, I'm definitely a fan of frequent deliveries, for the reasons you suggested. If I were them, I'd try to come up with something with low empty mass that could launch on an Atlas V 401. But we don't even know for sure at this point if the announcement will be news on an LM CRS-2 bid, so we shall see.

~Jon

NASA wants 4-5 flights per year max. They want the same amount or preferably more cargo, especially downmass.

If LM gave NASA one big volume every year, the other missions could all be Dragon, which is cheaper and more versatile than Cygnus.

If anybody has a viable Cygnus alternative right now I'm sure NASA will be tempted.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/07/2015 01:59 am
1-Lots of flights really challenge ISS operations. They create a lot of work for the astronauts and scheduling is a real pain.

Sure, it's a balance that needs to be struck. More frequent deliveries does have an impact on logistics and scheduling, but too infrequent and it has a negative impact on science as well.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/07/2015 01:26 pm
1-Lots of flights really challenge ISS operations. They create a lot of work for the astronauts and scheduling is a real pain.

Sure, it's a balance that needs to be struck. More frequent deliveries does have an impact on logistics and scheduling, but too infrequent and it has a negative impact on science as well.

~Jon
Each berthing takes away something like 3 man/days of crew time and it interrupts the microgravity environment. Thus, they wanted 6 to 8 berthing events and 20 to 30 tonnes per year with at least two contractors.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/07/2015 01:42 pm
1-Lots of flights really challenge ISS operations. They create a lot of work for the astronauts and scheduling is a real pain.

Sure, it's a balance that needs to be struck. More frequent deliveries does have an impact on logistics and scheduling, but too infrequent and it has a negative impact on science as well.

~Jon
Each berthing takes away something like 3 man/days of crew time and it interrupts the microgravity environment. Thus, they wanted 6 to 8 berthing events and 20 to 30 tonnes per year with at least two contractors.

They actually said 4 or 5 missions per year on a combined basis (i.e., for all of the providers).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1163041#msg1163041
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/07/2015 02:14 pm
It just so happens that LM build DC for SNC.

LM is not the lead on the SNC proposal. It's just a contractor. But it's possible that LM has submitted its own bid. Perhaps, a cargo Orion?
Crazy idea from a standpoint of cost-competitiveness.

For commercial crew, NASA choose the most expensive proposal. So you never know. Furthermore, NASA only wants 4 to 5 cargo missions per year on a combined basis. So a large spacecraft is at an advantage.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 03/07/2015 02:50 pm
Earlier on this thread there was a disscussion about the possibility of adding a  disposable pressurized module with a berthing adaptor in the dragons trunk to add pressurized volume and disposal option to dragon2. The module would be caried in the trunk and moved to a berthing port after the dragon docks.

Now we know a few more details - F9 increased capability, multiple bidders including cst-100 with downmass capability.

Does any of you think it is a viable possibility, or are we saying spacex will offer a simple dragon1 with a berthing adaptor,  so a second berthing module is imposible  ?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Billium on 03/07/2015 03:27 pm
I have always thought a suitcase for the trunk would be a great idea, since Dragon is volume not mass constrained. I have no idea if this is something Spacex would actually consider.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Star One on 03/07/2015 05:55 pm
It's worth noting the Chinese appear to have gone down the route of a 'space truck' for their re supply craft so perhaps there is some weight in the idea.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/07/2015 06:50 pm
It's not actually insane for a company like Lockheed to propose launching an enlarged Cygnus-style vehicle on Falcon 9. Falcon 9 is now fairly well proven and SpaceX is starting to increase the launch rate, and in expendable mode it has as greater performance to LEO as any but the VERY largest Atlas V variants. And with the upgrades that will fly later this year, it may rival even the 551 to LEO in fully expendable mode but at half the cost.

And if such high performance isn't required, then SpaceX can offer them a better deal using partial reusability.

I can hear you right now: But doesn't that leave the US reliant on a single launch vehicle for cargo?
Answer: Nope! CST-100 can carry significant amounts of cargo up and down, comparable to early Dragon flights even with a few crew. CST-100 is too expensive for regular cargo duty but is certainly capable of serving in a backup role.

And we have no indications that Atlas V is terribly profitable for Lockheed anyway. They have to split ULA's profits with Boeing, and there isn't much evidence of high profits in launch vehicles anyway, so they might rather use a cheap (but just as capable) $40-60 million Falcon 9 and pocket part of the savings they get over the more expensive Atlas V.

So yeah, that's a possibility.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/07/2015 07:02 pm
It just so happens that LM build DC for SNC.

LM is not the lead on the SNC proposal. It's just a contractor. But it's possible that LM has submitted its own bid. Perhaps, a cargo Orion?
Crazy idea from a standpoint of cost-competitiveness.

For commercial crew, NASA choose the most expensive proposal. So you never know. Furthermore, NASA only wants 4 to 5 cargo missions per year on a combined basis. So a large spacecraft is at an advantage.

Yeah, they chose the most expensive for crew because they judged it to have the least risk of not being ready to enter service on time.  Since both SpaceX and OrbATK are currently operational, if their CRS-2 proposals don't make radical changes, they'll have no risk of not being ready to enter service.  So, it's hard to see why NASA would pay more for Orion on that basis.  And I can't think of any other reason for NASA to pay more for Orion.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/07/2015 07:06 pm
It's not actually insane for a company like Lockheed to propose launching an enlarged Cygnus-style vehicle on Falcon 9. Falcon 9 is now fairly well proven and SpaceX is starting to increase the launch rate, and in expendable mode it has as greater performance to LEO as any but the VERY largest Atlas V variants. And with the upgrades that will fly later this year, it may rival even the 551 to LEO in fully expendable mode but at half the cost.

And if such high performance isn't required, then SpaceX can offer them a better deal using partial reusability.

I can hear you right now: But doesn't that leave the US reliant on a single launch vehicle for cargo?
Answer: Nope! CST-100 can carry significant amounts of cargo up and down, comparable to early Dragon flights even with a few crew. CST-100 is too expensive for regular cargo duty but is certainly capable of serving in a backup role.

And we have no indications that Atlas V is terribly profitable for Lockheed anyway. They have to split ULA's profits with Boeing, and there isn't much evidence of high profits in launch vehicles anyway, so they might rather use a cheap (but just as capable) $40-60 million Falcon 9 and pocket part of the savings they get over the more expensive Atlas V.

So yeah, that's a possibility.

I agree it makes sense.  I would be surprised to find LM and SpaceX both willing to work together like that (particularly LM) but it could happen.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/07/2015 07:27 pm
Well, SpaceX /did/ just launch some Boeing-built satellites.

If the price advantage is big enough, it makes a lot of sense to use someone else's launch vehicle.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/07/2015 07:34 pm
Well, SpaceX /did/ just launch some Boeing-built satellites.

If the price advantage is big enough, it makes a lot of sense to use someone else's launch vehicle.

Yeah, but did Boeing make the choice of launch vehicles or did Boeing's customers?

And nobody really expects commercial communications satellites to launch with ULA anyway -- it's more a matter of SpaceX versus Ariane there.  U.S. government contracts are more ULA's thing, and having LM choose SpaceX over ULA for a high-profile U.S. government contract would be much more of a PR blow against ULA than Boeing going with SpaceX for some comsats.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/07/2015 07:36 pm
Well, SpaceX /did/ just launch some Boeing-built satellites.

If the price advantage is big enough, it makes a lot of sense to use someone else's launch vehicle.

Yeah, but did Boeing make the choice of launch vehicles or did Boeing's customers?...
A little of both, although I think it's mostly the customers. I believe the dual-launch stacking was developed specifically with the Falcon 9 in mind.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Nomadd on 03/07/2015 07:41 pm
It just so happens that LM build DC for SNC.

I didn't quite understand that post. We seem to moving from 4 letter acronyms to 2 letters.  Perhaps in the future, we can economize further by using just one letter for everything.
From other threads, I gather you could patent that idea.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/07/2015 08:11 pm
It just so happens that LM build DC for SNC.

LM is not the lead on the SNC proposal. It's just a contractor. But it's possible that LM has submitted its own bid. Perhaps, a cargo Orion?
Crazy idea from a standpoint of cost-competitiveness.

For commercial crew, NASA choose the most expensive proposal. So you never know. Furthermore, NASA only wants 4 to 5 cargo missions per year on a combined basis. So a large spacecraft is at an advantage.

Yeah, they chose the most expensive for crew because they judged it to have the least risk of not being ready to enter service on time.  Since both SpaceX and OrbATK are currently operational, if their CRS-2 proposals don't make radical changes, they'll have no risk of not being ready to enter service.  So, it's hard to see why NASA would pay more for Orion on that basis.  And I can't think of any other reason for NASA to pay more for Orion.

It's not a good reason to pick one commercial crew company over the other. There is nothing magical about 2017. Furthermore, the main risk for commercial crew is not technical, it is not being fully funded by Congress.

As far as commercial cargo, we'll see. I think that SpaceX and OrbitalATK have an advantage. But it's possible that NASA will choose three companies.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/07/2015 10:34 pm
...
For commercial crew, NASA choose the most expensive proposal. So you never know. Furthermore, NASA only wants 4 to 5 cargo missions per year on a combined basis. So a large spacecraft is at an advantage.

Yeah, they chose the most expensive for crew because they judged it to have the least risk of not being ready to enter service on time.  Since both SpaceX and OrbATK are currently operational, if their CRS-2 proposals don't make radical changes, they'll have no risk of not being ready to enter service.  So, it's hard to see why NASA would pay more for Orion on that basis.  And I can't think of any other reason for NASA to pay more for Orion.

It's not a good reason to pick one company over the other. There is nothing magical about 2017. Furthermore, the main risk for commercial is not technical, it is not being fully funded by Congress.

As far as commercial cargo, we'll see. I think that SpaceX and OrbitalATK have an advantage. But it's possible that NASA will choose three companies.
I think they will choose the most expensive for CRS-2, just like with the selection of Boeing for CC in the down select.

COTS/CRS/CC have been too successful. Congress needs to keep "jobs" at the prime contractors, which are under threat from more efficient smaller firms. And since they may not be able to strangle funding for so-called "commercial" HSF/services given Russia's peculiar geopolitical antics, they can favor the established primes once again irrespective of success or need.

It is likely some kind of space station will continue indefinitely. It is also likely that derivative services will be needed for the logistics of BEO HSF exploration missions. So the big guys want to be cut in here, to avoid being forced out.

The best way would be by outscaling CRS-1 with much larger capacity. Of course, the other providers might also compete here as well. Conceivably a sausage like vehicle of modular segments that you buy services on by the section, like a stretched aircraft as much as you want - Cygnus already does this to a limited degree, maybe more might be in the offing. Lockheed might attempt to outscale them here.

Boeing CST-100 cargo capabilities likely would look like Dragon 1 - it is harder to see a bidding advantage, seems too much like "almost me too but not quite". Best off the top might be propulsive reboost capability, and/or the ability to deorbit ISS post HTV, as well as other HTV capabilities.

Dragon's bidding advantage might be to achieve a "quick turn" model using SC/LV reusability to afford a CONOPs for rapid response to payloads/replanning support strategy for more enhanced station utilization, as a new capability for NASA to evaluate. A way to put propulsive landings to use ahead of manned missions.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AncientU on 03/07/2015 11:00 pm
Anyone have any insight on whether CST-100 would have been proposed on Atlas, Delta, or Falcon? How about a combination of all three for redundancy?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Razvan on 03/07/2015 11:21 pm
I think SpaceX is the big favorite for the CRS2, given the quality of their services under CRS1 so far.
Now, it would be, IMO, a good thing to increase the volume of the cargo unpressurized compartment.
SpaceX is currently working on increasing the Falcon 9 power by 15% or so, and should NASA not be interested in a reusable alternative, they can use it for the benefit of the payload.
Trunk could provide a larger diameter and length to be more useful given the intention of NASA to do some restructuring works on ISS and so more bulky hardware and experiments would be required for the space station.
The new trunk sizes could be correlated to the Fairing they use for satellites, which measures 43' height and 17.1' Diameter.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/07/2015 11:23 pm
Anyone have any insight on whether CST-100 would have been proposed on Atlas, Delta, or Falcon? How about a combination of all three for redundancy?

Atlas, according to Boeing.

Something dramatic happened with the CST proposal. When they first talked about it was basically a crew CST with the seats pulled out and 1300 kg. capacity.

Suddenly it can do more than 2500. It's a pretty big increase just by removing the LAS and life support.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: watermod on 03/07/2015 11:43 pm
If NASA really wants a big load of supplies once in awhile for ISS under CRS-2.   Why not a FH-reusable with a huge disposable supply cylinder.   It could be more material than anybody else could launch.    If they want more, then do a disposable FH and enjoy the 45-53 metric tons that allows for a visiting craft and material.

Heck, forget the craft.   Just launch a fully stocked storage room to be made part of the ISS.


Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Star One on 03/08/2015 08:52 am

Well, SpaceX /did/ just launch some Boeing-built satellites.

If the price advantage is big enough, it makes a lot of sense to use someone else's launch vehicle.

Yeah, but did Boeing make the choice of launch vehicles or did Boeing's customers?

And nobody really expects commercial communications satellites to launch with ULA anyway -- it's more a matter of SpaceX versus Ariane there.  U.S. government contracts are more ULA's thing, and having LM choose SpaceX over ULA for a high-profile U.S. government contract would be much more of a PR blow against ULA than Boeing going with SpaceX for some comsats.

Other than the fact that ULA are launching a commercial communication satellite but don't let that little fact bother you.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/08/2015 02:31 pm
1-Lots of flights really challenge ISS operations. They create a lot of work for the astronauts and scheduling is a real pain.

Sure, it's a balance that needs to be struck. More frequent deliveries does have an impact on logistics and scheduling, but too infrequent and it has a negative impact on science as well.

~Jon
Each berthing takes away something like 3 man/days of crew time and it interrupts the microgravity environment. Thus, they wanted 6 to 8 berthing events and 20 to 30 tonnes per year with at least two contractors.

They actually said 4 or 5 missions per year on a combined basis (i.e., for all of the providers).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1163041#msg1163041
That's speculation and not deffinitive.
In the latest RFQ (160726-SOL-001-003) they state pretty clearly:
Quote
This Statement of Work (SOW) and all exhibits and documents attached or referenced herein define NASA’s requirements for the Contractor to provide the resupply services to the International Space Station (ISS), dispose of unneeded cargo, and to return cargo from the ISS back to NASA.  The end-to-end service shall include all activities to provide the resupply services including launch and landing site and associated resources, launch vehicle, ISS visiting vehicle, reentry vehicle, and the manner in which these are architected and implemented  by the Contractor in order to satisfy the requirements of this SOW. 
NASA requires the service to provide the annual upmass required of the ISS in no fewer than four (4) flights per year with the cargo somewhat evenly distributed throughout the year. Cargo includes both NASA cargo and NASA-sponsored cargo (hereinafter referred to as “cargo” or “NASA cargo”). Contractor provided non-NASA cargo may also be included per Clause II.A.5, Contractor Objectives on ISS Resupply Service Missions. Cargo includes both pressurized and unpressurized cargo.  Contracts may include 1) pressurized upmass, 2) pressurized return or pressurized disposal or both, 3) unpressurized upmass and disposal.  Contractors have the option to provide accelerated pressurized return as part of any standard mission(s).  Contractors can meet the required and optional capabilities by mixing them in any manner they choose within their 4 standard missions.   NASA will provide pressurized cargo to the Contractor including packing materials (bags, foam, flight support equipment).  The pressurized upmass mass requirements defined in Table I.A.3-1, Mission Capabilities for the Standard Resupply Services Missions A-D, include the cargo and packing materials.  NASA will provide unpressurized cargo to the Contractor without Flight Support Equipment (FSE).   The Contractor is required to provide the unpressurized FSE as part of the resupply service.  The unpressurized upmass mass requirements defined in Table I.A.3-1 includes the FSE that stays with the unpressurized item on ISS.
That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: gongora on 03/08/2015 02:50 pm
That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.

They've never said they want 8 flights, and they've never said they want 4 from each contractor.  They have said in the past they wanted about 4-5 flights total.  That document says minimum 4 flights total.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: GraniteHound92 on 03/08/2015 03:23 pm
Page 231 of the document states:

Quote
The Offeror shall propose, at least one (1) and up to four (4) standard mission(s).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: gongora on 03/08/2015 03:48 pm
Page 231 of the document states:

Quote
The Offeror shall propose, at least one (1) and up to four (4) standard mission(s).

The standard missions are vehicle configurations to address different needs (pressurized upmass, downmass, unpressurized upmass, etc.)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: woods170 on 03/08/2015 05:38 pm
LM is not the lead on the SNC proposal. It's just a contractor. But it's possible that LM has submitted its own bid. Perhaps, a cargo Orion?
Crazy idea from a standpoint of cost-competitiveness.

For commercial crew, NASA choose the most expensive proposal. So you never know. Furthermore, NASA only wants 4 to 5 cargo missions per year on a combined basis. So a large spacecraft is at an advantage.

Emphasis mine:
Invalid argument. Pressurized volume of enhanced Cygnus is substantially larger than pressurized volume of Orion.
Orion is (much) more expensive than Cygnus. Orion is an economic non-starter compared to the competition.
Also, the logic used for choosing Boeing in commercial crew is not the logic being applied to CRS-2. Selection rules for cargo are substantially different from those used for crew.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/08/2015 06:56 pm
Dragon should be safe as NASA really can't afford to lose its upressurized cargo carrying capabilities. Most flights todate  have used the trunk to carry external payloads for ISS. Most of the next few flights are carrying external payloads.

At present Cygnus is king when it comes to volume when compared to Dragon, DC and CST100. If LM can offer a diposable vehicle with more volume at better price they should be able win some flights.

With 2 commercial crew vehicles come on line NASA will have a lot more up and down mass capability. With both 7 seaters only carrying 4 crew there is a lot of spare volume for cargo.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/08/2015 07:25 pm
LM is not the lead on the SNC proposal. It's just a contractor. But it's possible that LM has submitted its own bid. Perhaps, a cargo Orion?
Crazy idea from a standpoint of cost-competitiveness.

For commercial crew, NASA choose the most expensive proposal. So you never know. Furthermore, NASA only wants 4 to 5 cargo missions per year on a combined basis. So a large spacecraft is at an advantage.

Emphasis mine:
Invalid argument. Pressurized volume of enhanced Cygnus is substantially larger than pressurized volume of Orion.
Orion is (much) more expensive than Cygnus. Orion is an economic non-starter compared to the competition.
Also, the logic used for choosing Boeing in commercial crew is not the logic being applied to CRS-2. Selection rules for cargo are substantially different from those used for crew.

Actually, the selection criteria are very similar. I agree that Orion doesn't make sense. But I didn't think that the CST-100 made any sense either. In any event, I suspect that it will be a less expensive liter version of Orion. I hope that NASA sticks with Orbital ATK and SpaceX too. But it is possible that NASA will add a third company. It could be the CST-100 or the LM spacecraft.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/08/2015 07:34 pm

Well, SpaceX /did/ just launch some Boeing-built satellites.

If the price advantage is big enough, it makes a lot of sense to use someone else's launch vehicle.

Yeah, but did Boeing make the choice of launch vehicles or did Boeing's customers?

And nobody really expects commercial communications satellites to launch with ULA anyway -- it's more a matter of SpaceX versus Ariane there.  U.S. government contracts are more ULA's thing, and having LM choose SpaceX over ULA for a high-profile U.S. government contract would be much more of a PR blow against ULA than Boeing going with SpaceX for some comsats.

Other than the fact that ULA are launching a commercial communication satellite but don't let that little fact bother you.

Yeah, their launch rate for commercial comsats is about one every five years.  When only a tiny fraction of the market goes to ULA, I stand by my statement that nobody really expects commercial communications satellites to launch with ULA.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/08/2015 07:36 pm
And we're supposed to expect commercial cargo craft will launch on ULA? ;)

But honestly, I don't see why LM would pick Atlas V over a Falcon 9 which is half the price.... Except if they believed the Falcon 9 manifest was too full or something (similar to the decision Orbital made).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/08/2015 07:58 pm
I think it would be wonderful if LM decided to put in a CRS-2 bid using their own spacecraft launched on Falcon.  Lockheed Martin has a lot of great people and a lot of great capabilities.  If they could start to be weaned from cost-plus contracting and embrace competing for commercial fixed-price contracts, I think they would have the right incentives to be more cost-conscious and they could do some amazing things.  I imagine SpaceX largely providing the launch services and LM largely providing the in-space elements of an exciting, cost-effective exploration program.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/08/2015 08:02 pm
That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.

Each contractor makes a proposal as if if it was to win the entire CRS2 contract. It's up to NASA to then decide how many companies it wants. But each company has to assume that no other provider but themselves will win a contract. So it's a total of at least 4 flight per year for the entire CRS2 contract.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/08/2015 08:18 pm
That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.

Each contractor makes a proposal as if if it was to win the entire CRS2 contract. It's up to NASA to then decide how many companies it wants. But each company has to assume that no other provider but themselves will win a contract. So it's a total of at least 4 flight for the entire CRS2 contract.

Not every CRS bid will cover all the capabilities NASA requires.  Cygnus has no downmass capability, but NASA has a requirement for downmass.  So Orbital's winning CRS-1 proposal can't have assumed no other provider would win a contract.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: swervin on 03/08/2015 08:23 pm
With regards to LM stating their intentions to submit a bid and release details on 12 Mar, have we any indication of the spacecraft they look to use (regardless of launch vehicle)?

They did team with SNC on the orbital spacefcraft composite airframe for Dream Chaser.

http://www.sncorp.com/AboutUs/NewsDetails/627

Perhaps they might pull a wild card and team with SNC? It may be an odd marriage, but may be expediant, and possibly get them a foothold on a cargo/crew capability and also not require them to design a clean-sheet spacecraft. Thoughts? Tear my question apart, and... Go!

Apologies if someone already posted this idea and I missed it. Mods delete if req'd.

Splinter
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/08/2015 08:27 pm
With regards to LM stating their intentions to submit a bid and release details on 12 Mar, have we any indication of the spacecraft they look to use (regardless of launch vehicle)?

They did team with SNC on the orbital spacefcraft composite airframe for Dream Chaser.

http://www.sncorp.com/AboutUs/NewsDetails/627

Perhaps they might pull a wild card and team with SNC? It may be an odd marriage, but may be expediant, and possibly get them a foothold on a cargo/crew capability and also not require them to design a clean-sheet spacecraft. Thoughts? Tear my question apart, and... Go!

Apologies if someone already posted this idea and I missed it. Mods delete if req'd.
Splinter

Yeah, this was discussed.  Someone pointed out (correctly, in my opinion) that with SNC also putting in a Dream Chaser bid for CRS-2 it wouldn't make sense for LM to put in a competing bid with the same spacecraft.  It was also pointed out that LM is a subcontractor, not the prime, for Dream Chaser.

Also, Dream Chaser would take a huge amount of money to be made operational, even in cargo mode, and it would need a different docking adaptor, and would need to be redesigned around that.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/08/2015 10:57 pm
That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.

Each contractor makes a proposal as if if it was to win the entire CRS2 contract. It's up to NASA to then decide how many companies it wants. But each company has to assume that no other provider but themselves will win a contract. So it's a total of at least 4 flight for the entire CRS2 contract.

Not every CRS bid will cover all the capabilities NASA requires.  Cygnus has no downmass capability, but NASA has a requirement for downmass.  So Orbital's winning CRS-1 proposal can't have assumed no other provider would win a contract.

Disposal (i.e., trash) is considered downmass. See page 83 of the RFP.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/08/2015 11:00 pm
That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.

Each contractor makes a proposal as if if it was to win the entire CRS2 contract. It's up to NASA to then decide how many companies it wants. But each company has to assume that no other provider but themselves will win a contract. So it's a total of at least 4 flight for the entire CRS2 contract.

Not every CRS bid will cover all the capabilities NASA requires.  Cygnus has no downmass capability, but NASA has a requirement for downmass.  So Orbital's winning CRS-1 proposal can't have assumed no other provider would win a contract.

Disposal (i.e., trash) is considered downmass. See page 83 of the RFP.
...which in context is irrelevant since NASA needs a way to /recover/ significant downmass, not just dispose of it.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/08/2015 11:17 pm
That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.

Each contractor makes a proposal as if if it was to win the entire CRS2 contract. It's up to NASA to then decide how many companies it wants. But each company has to assume that no other provider but themselves will win a contract. So it's a total of at least 4 flight for the entire CRS2 contract.

Not every CRS bid will cover all the capabilities NASA requires.  Cygnus has no downmass capability, but NASA has a requirement for downmass.  So Orbital's winning CRS-1 proposal can't have assumed no other provider would win a contract.

Disposal (i.e., trash) is considered downmass. See page 83 of the RFP.
...which in context is irrelevant since NASA needs a way to /recover/ significant downmass, not just dispose of it.

It is relevant because Orbital ATK will propose at least 4 flights of Cygnus. It is up to NASA to decide how many flights of Cygnus it wants. I agree that it is unlikely that NASA will choose only Orbital ATK flights. But in their proposal, Orbital ATK must suggests the maximum number of flights (i.e., at least 4) that it can as if it was the only cargo provider.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/09/2015 01:29 am
The rules are fairly simple:
1. Each bidder may propose up to four standard mission types (e.g., different configurations to meet different requirements).
2. Those standard mission types collectively must provide for pressurized up AND unpressurized up AND unpressurized disposal AND either pressurized disposal OR pressurized return.
3. For each standard mission type proposed, each bidder must provide pricing for 1-5 missions/year.
4. Each awardee will receive a minimum of six missions.

NASA may mix-and-match different proposed standard mission types from the same provider or different providers.  One bidder could offer different LV/craft in a single proposal--so long as the total number of standard mission types does not exceed four.

One bid could include Orion+Atlas and Cygnus+something.  Or whatever.  LM teaming with Orbital?  SNC teaming with whoever?   Maybe.  Pick your favorite or most potentially feasible teaming combination of craft and LV.

There is nothing in the RFP limiting such mash-ups, as long as collectively they meet the NASA requirements and can do so with no more than four different configurations. 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/09/2015 02:05 am
2. Those standard mission types collectively must provide for pressurized up AND unpressurized up AND unpressurized disposal AND either pressurized disposal OR pressurized return.

Cygnus doesn't provided unpressurized up.  Are you saying that they can't bid?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: gongora on 03/09/2015 02:31 am
2. Those standard mission types collectively must provide for pressurized up AND unpressurized up AND unpressurized disposal AND either pressurized disposal OR pressurized return.

Cygnus doesn't provided unpressurized up.  Are you saying that they can't bid?

According to the CRS2 solicitation, Orbital will have to bid a new configuration of the vehicle as one of their standard mission types to handle the unpressurized requirements.  (It doesn't necessarily have to be a configuration that is likely to be chosen, but it should exist).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 03/09/2015 02:57 am
Orbital did include an unpressurized variant of Cygnus in their CRS-1 proposal, but for whatever reason NASA ordered only pressurized missions.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/09/2015 03:03 am
And we're supposed to expect commercial cargo craft will launch on ULA? ;)

But honestly, I don't see why LM would pick Atlas V over a Falcon 9 which is half the price.... Except if they believed the Falcon 9 manifest was too full or something (similar to the decision Orbital made).

Until SpaceX gets its flight rate up to a decent fraction of what they claim at the beginning of a given year, they're going to keep losing customers who have to fly on time. Low cost matters, but only if it's delivered on time.

I personally think they'll get there, but I'd be more cautious about guessing how the cost vs. schedule reliability trade actually leads any given supplier to go.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/09/2015 03:13 am
And we're supposed to expect commercial cargo craft will launch on ULA? ;)

But honestly, I don't see why LM would pick Atlas V over a Falcon 9 which is half the price.... Except if they believed the Falcon 9 manifest was too full or something (similar to the decision Orbital made).

Until SpaceX gets its flight rate up to a decent fraction of what they claim at the beginning of a given year, they're going to keep losing customers who have to fly on time. Low cost matters, but only if it's delivered on time.

I personally think they'll get there, but I'd be more cautious about guessing how the cost vs. schedule reliability trade actually leads any given supplier to go.

That would be a more convincing argument if the cargo were military satellites or interplanetary probes.  But this is CRS-2.  NASA has apparently been happy with SpaceX's ability to meet their CRS obligations -- happy enough they gave them a commercial crew contract also.  And SpaceX is only going to get better from here.  I can't see SpaceX not being able to meet CRS-2 scheduling requirements, whether carrying Dragon or a LM vehicle.

And I haven't seen much evidence of SpaceX losing comsat customers either.  The big customers continue giving SpaceX a large share of their future bookings.  Comsats cost a lot and launch delays lead to significant revenue loss for them, so you'd think they'd be among the most sensitive to schedule slip.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/09/2015 01:16 pm
Cygnus doesn't provided unpressurized up.  Are you saying that they can't bid?

Currently Cygnus does not meet minimum requirements.  The RFP allows for consideration of proposals which do not meet minimums, but also cautions that--just like any other RFP--failure to meet minimums would likely cause rejection unless there is a very good reason otherwise.  (IIRC NASA softened the language a bit in the final RFP to allow consideration of such proposals.)

However, Cygnus (as presently known) could also be proposed as part of a solution which might include either a new Cygnus configuration to handle unpressurized up and unpressurized disposal, or in conjunction with a different spacecraft to handle those requirements.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/09/2015 01:31 pm
And we're supposed to expect commercial cargo craft will launch on ULA? ;)

But honestly, I don't see why LM would pick Atlas V over a Falcon 9 which is half the price.... Except if they believed the Falcon 9 manifest was too full or something (similar to the decision Orbital made).

Until SpaceX gets its flight rate up to a decent fraction of what they claim at the beginning of a given year, they're going to keep losing customers who have to fly on time. Low cost matters, but only if it's delivered on time.

I personally think they'll get there, but I'd be more cautious about guessing how the cost vs. schedule reliability trade actually leads any given supplier to go.

~Jon
SpaceX is commissioning LC-39A exactly for that. They are demonstrating an amazing ability to really push one-pad flow. With Texas for GTO, and both LC-40 and LC-39A available for cargo Dragon, they can hit any necessary schedule. In fact, Atlas V might need a new VIF, given its DoD use, if they where to win 4 missions/year.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/09/2015 07:15 pm
And we're supposed to expect commercial cargo craft will launch on ULA? ;)

But honestly, I don't see why LM would pick Atlas V over a Falcon 9 which is half the price.... Except if they believed the Falcon 9 manifest was too full or something (similar to the decision Orbital made).

Until SpaceX gets its flight rate up to a decent fraction of what they claim at the beginning of a given year, they're going to keep losing customers who have to fly on time. Low cost matters, but only if it's delivered on time.

I personally think they'll get there, but I'd be more cautious about guessing how the cost vs. schedule reliability trade actually leads any given supplier to go.

That would be a more convincing argument if the cargo were military satellites or interplanetary probes.  But this is CRS-2.  NASA has apparently been happy with SpaceX's ability to meet their CRS obligations -- happy enough they gave them a commercial crew contract also.  And SpaceX is only going to get better from here.  I can't see SpaceX not being able to meet CRS-2 scheduling requirements, whether carrying Dragon or a LM vehicle.

And I haven't seen much evidence of SpaceX losing comsat customers either.  The big customers continue giving SpaceX a large share of their future bookings.  Comsats cost a lot and launch delays lead to significant revenue loss for them, so you'd think they'd be among the most sensitive to schedule slip.

You're missing my point. If SpaceX doesn't steadily increase their flight rate capabilities, they won't have space in their manifest for regular cargo flights plus crew flights plus DoD flights plus commercial satellite flights.

The other thing to remember about comsats is that a lot of the time the comsats will book a launch with both SpaceX and a competitor (Proton or Arianespace typically), pay the 5-10% downpayment for both, and only really downselect to one provider or another once it's clear if SpaceX can fly them on time. Just because they have an order with SpaceX doesn't mean they'll ultimately fly the payload.

I personally think that SpaceX will continue improving their flight rate, but it's not going to be instantaneous. My only point is that not everyone is going to want to bet their CRS-2 proposal on being able to get into the SpaceX manifest in addition to Dragon, crewed dragon and everyone else.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/09/2015 07:19 pm
And we're supposed to expect commercial cargo craft will launch on ULA? ;)

But honestly, I don't see why LM would pick Atlas V over a Falcon 9 which is half the price.... Except if they believed the Falcon 9 manifest was too full or something (similar to the decision Orbital made).

Until SpaceX gets its flight rate up to a decent fraction of what they claim at the beginning of a given year, they're going to keep losing customers who have to fly on time. Low cost matters, but only if it's delivered on time.

I personally think they'll get there, but I'd be more cautious about guessing how the cost vs. schedule reliability trade actually leads any given supplier to go.

~Jon
SpaceX is commissioning LC-39A exactly for that. They are demonstrating an amazing ability to really push one-pad flow. With Texas for GTO, and both LC-40 and LC-39A available for cargo Dragon, they can hit any necessary schedule.

Once again, they'll get that at some point, the question is what is the confidence level their CRS-2 competitors have that they'll have manifest space available to fly someone else's CRS-2 flights on a regular basis in time for the CRS-2 mission? If you're a F9 competitor, you should assume SpaceX gets their act together quickly, but if you're an F9 customer you probably should err on the side of assuming they have teething pains with their new launch sites.

And more launch pads still doesn't get rid of all the potential bottlenecks for SpaceX.

To be clear, I'm not trying to badmouth SpaceX at all here. I'm just pushing back on the argument that all CRS-2 competitors should be flying on Falcon 9. I can see legitimate reasons why Atlas V could still be in the competition for CRS flights.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/09/2015 07:30 pm
I don't bleive you're trying to badmouth SpaceX. But Atlas V also has a pretty busy schedule. And it's going to go through a planed transition exactly in the middle of the contract. So, it's not like you have many choice. Personally, I believe that NASA will seriously consider at least two different LV for the CRS, as the ORB-3 anomaly has shown the wisdom of that choice.
But ULA's plans are for pad and fleet consolidation. While SpaceX is actively working on commissioning two additional pads. And if Dragon is being prepped on LC-39A, the other CRS customer could use LC-40.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/09/2015 08:05 pm
To be clear, I'm not trying to badmouth SpaceX at all here. I'm just pushing back on the argument that all CRS-2 competitors should be flying on Falcon 9. I can see legitimate reasons why Atlas V could still be in the competition for CRS flights.

I'm a huge SpaceX supporter, but you can only have true redundancy when you fly on at least two different launch vehicles.  That said, ULA will have it's hand full making the transition from Atlas V to the NGLV, so they are going to have to be very smart about this changeover because they are going to find out what it's like to field a new launcher when your competitor can point to a long history of successful launches.  Maybe SpaceX could give them some tips...   ;)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AncientU on 03/09/2015 08:53 pm
If recovery goes reasonably well, they'll probably build a backlog of flown cores... a few per pad would buffer any return failure.  I would expect them to leap frog among two or three cores on a pad once reuse gets rolling instead of returning a stage and hoping it goes well because the same stage is next up.

But yes, reuse is the multiplier for increased launch rate... the Hawthorne/McGregor cycle will be the bottle-neck without reuse.  FH need for three cores makes it 3x worse.

Some cores will also be expended for heavy payloads and some will land down range.  Steady launch rates require multiple reuse cores per pad.  Replacement cores will just be rolled into the queue.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Sam Ho on 03/09/2015 09:16 pm
Cygnus doesn't provided unpressurized up.  Are you saying that they can't bid?

Currently Cygnus does not meet minimum requirements.  The RFP allows for consideration of proposals which do not meet minimums, but also cautions that--just like any other RFP--failure to meet minimums would likely cause rejection unless there is a very good reason otherwise.  (IIRC NASA softened the language a bit in the final RFP to allow consideration of such proposals.)

However, Cygnus (as presently known) could also be proposed as part of a solution which might include either a new Cygnus configuration to handle unpressurized up and unpressurized disposal, or in conjunction with a different spacecraft to handle those requirements.

The unpressurized Cygnus configuration was previously proposed in CRS-1.  Presumably, Orbital ATK could propose it again.  The Unpressurized Cargo Module would have been based on the ELC.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/214893main_Orbital_COTS_Ph1_Redacted_SAA_2_27_08.pdf
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/09/2015 10:12 pm
To be clear, I'm not trying to badmouth SpaceX at all here. I'm just pushing back on the argument that all CRS-2 competitors should be flying on Falcon 9. I can see legitimate reasons why Atlas V could still be in the competition for CRS flights.

I'm a huge SpaceX supporter, but you can only have true redundancy when you fly on at least two different launch vehicles.  That said, ULA will have it's hand full making the transition from Atlas V to the NGLV, so they are going to have to be very smart about this changeover because they are going to find out what it's like to field a new launcher when your competitor can point to a long history of successful launches.  Maybe SpaceX could give them some tips...   ;)

Indeed.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/09/2015 10:41 pm
To be clear, I'm not trying to badmouth SpaceX at all here. I'm just pushing back on the argument that all CRS-2 competitors should be flying on Falcon 9. I can see legitimate reasons why Atlas V could still be in the competition for CRS flights.

I'm a huge SpaceX supporter, but you can only have true redundancy when you fly on at least two different launch vehicles.  That said, ULA will have it's hand full making the transition from Atlas V to the NGLV, so they are going to have to be very smart about this changeover because they are going to find out what it's like to field a new launcher when your competitor can point to a long history of successful launches.  Maybe SpaceX could give them some tips...   ;)
CST-100 has significant payload capacity that can be utilized in a pinch (and already will be utilized for commercial crew missions, so no modifications are necessary) and will be launching on Atlas V. So there's not a loss of redundancy.


(From what I gather, CST-100's ability to carry a lot of cargo along with the crew was one of Boeing's strong points.)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/09/2015 10:51 pm
And we're supposed to expect commercial cargo craft will launch on ULA? ;)

But honestly, I don't see why LM would pick Atlas V over a Falcon 9 which is half the price.... Except if they believed the Falcon 9 manifest was too full or something (similar to the decision Orbital made).

Until SpaceX gets its flight rate up to a decent fraction of what they claim at the beginning of a given year, they're going to keep losing customers who have to fly on time. Low cost matters, but only if it's delivered on time.

I personally think they'll get there, but I'd be more cautious about guessing how the cost vs. schedule reliability trade actually leads any given supplier to go.

~Jon
SpaceX is commissioning LC-39A exactly for that. They are demonstrating an amazing ability to really push one-pad flow. With Texas for GTO, and both LC-40 and LC-39A available for cargo Dragon, they can hit any necessary schedule.

Once again, they'll get that at some point, the question is what is the confidence level their CRS-2 competitors have that they'll have manifest space available to fly someone else's CRS-2 flights on a regular basis in time for the CRS-2 mission? If you're a F9 competitor, you should assume SpaceX gets their act together quickly, but if you're an F9 customer you probably should err on the side of assuming they have teething pains with their new launch sites.

And more launch pads still doesn't get rid of all the potential bottlenecks for SpaceX.

To be clear, I'm not trying to badmouth SpaceX at all here. I'm just pushing back on the argument that all CRS-2 competitors should be flying on Falcon 9. I can see legitimate reasons why Atlas V could still be in the competition for CRS flights.

~Jon
SpaceX won't double their launch rate year-on-year every year. I think from 2014 on out, roughly 50-75% increase in annual launch rate (until they near saturation of the market and have flown out their manifest) is doable. But even at that rate, they'll just about saturate the launch market by 2017-2018 with ~25 launches or so (meaning they may slow down the rate of increase before then).

In other words, given SpaceX current performance at increasing launch rate, it seems as likely as not that by the time CRS-2 is in full swing, increasing launch rate will not be the major concern (something else may, however).


The launch rate issue is a temporary concern driven by SpaceX's own remarkable success. As long as continual progress is made (as has been made for the last several), I literally cannot see it being a significant issue by 2018, 2019. Their manifest can't keep expanding, there won't be any more payloads for it!

So for CRS-2, the concern must be something else.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/09/2015 11:17 pm
The rules are fairly simple:
1. Each bidder may propose up to four standard mission types (e.g., different configurations to meet different requirements).
2. Those standard mission types collectively must provide for pressurized up AND unpressurized up AND unpressurized disposal AND either pressurized disposal OR pressurized return.
3. For each standard mission type proposed, each bidder must provide pricing for 1-5 missions/year.
4. Each awardee will receive a minimum of six missions.

NASA may mix-and-match different proposed standard mission types from the same provider or different providers.  One bidder could offer different LV/craft in a single proposal--so long as the total number of standard mission types does not exceed four.

One bid could include Orion+Atlas and Cygnus+something.  Or whatever.  LM teaming with Orbital?  SNC teaming with whoever?   Maybe.  Pick your favorite or most potentially feasible teaming combination of craft and LV.

There is nothing in the RFP limiting such mash-ups, as long as collectively they meet the NASA requirements and can do so with no more than four different configurations.

I was hoping that you would comment on this topic. I believe that at least 4 cargo missions per year must be proposed by each provider. But it can be more than four missions.

Although it is possible, I doubt that companies will be teaming up.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: didacticus on 03/10/2015 07:05 pm
I'm looking forward to seeing the prices each provider quotes. It will be interesting to see how SpaceX and OSC compare to Boeing and LM given they already had development contracts first, and then generous contracts for CRS-1. I'm especially interested in the difference between SpaceX and OSC's bids this time - I expect it to be even more stark this time.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/10/2015 09:43 pm
Anyone have any insight on whether CST-100 would have been proposed on Atlas, Delta, or Falcon? How about a combination of all three for redundancy?

Atlas, according to Boeing.

Something dramatic happened with the CST proposal. When they first talked about it was basically a crew CST with the seats pulled out and 1300 kg. capacity.

Suddenly it can do more than 2500. It's a pretty big increase just by removing the LAS and life support.
(replying to my own post... I know, I know.)

http://aviationweek.com/space/boeing-would-pull-seats-life-support-engines-cargo-carrying-cst-100
Quote
The four large hypergolic launch abort system engines in the service module will be removed, making room for unpressurized cargo, and half of the 24 orbital maneuver and control engines will be pulled as well because they won’t be needed to pull a crew away from a failing Atlas V launch vehicle.

They found a way to put unpressurized cargo in the trunk. Either they're using a pallet like HTV or they've put the solar panels somewhere else.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: clongton on 03/10/2015 11:05 pm
(From what I gather, CST-100's ability to carry a lot of cargo along with the crew was one of Boeing's strong points.)

How quickly they forget/dismiss the Number One lesson from the CAIB report. Carrying crew *and* essential cargo inside the same spacecraft was to be avoided at all costs. The report specifically recommended that all cargo to the ISS be flown in unmanned spacecraft. Manned spacecraft should only carry incidental and non-critical cargo. To claim that a spacecraft can carry both crew and cargo inside the same spacecraft as a positive is to blatantly scoff at and publicly ignore the report that in reality is what actually spelled the end of the Space Shuttle. Some people never learn.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: QuantumG on 03/11/2015 12:00 am
How quickly they forget/dismiss the Number One lesson from the CAIB report. Carrying crew *and* essential cargo inside the same spacecraft was to be avoided at all costs.

Please do quote that part of the report. I know it's widely interpreted that way and no amount of correction seems to stop people from saying that, but I'm pretty sure they never said that. The lesson was: don't put crew on the vehicle if you don't have to. Which is really just another way of saying: make sure the risk of spaceflight is worth the return.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/11/2015 04:11 am
I believe that at least 4 cargo missions per year must be proposed by each provider. But it can be more than four missions.

Not sure of that minimum.  I have not seen that in the RFP, although the RFI stated 4-5 missions/year as an "ideal", with 4/year preferred.

The RFP itself requires offeror to provide not-to-exceed pricing for 1-5 missions/year, for each of the years CY2017-2024, for each standard mission (aka configurations) of which a maximum of four may be proposed).  For example, if one standard mission type is proposed, the pricing matrix must have 40 entries (40 = 5x8 = Qty 1-5 missions CY2017-2024); if four standard mission types are proposed, the pricing matrix must have 160 entries (160 = 5x8x4 = Qty 1-5 missions CY2017-2018 for each of four standard mission types).

How all of that factors into the evaluation, contract award, or mission award is another matter.  The price evaluation is fairly complex.  There are no guarantees to an awardee (other than 6 missions total).  The actual mission awards will be through task orders which may be competitively bid.  That allows NASA much more granularity and freedom as to who is awarded what and when (very different than CRS-1 and CCtCap).*

Hope that helps.


* There is also a new-entrant on-ramp provision which provides a guarantee of two missions should NASA decide that is necessary in the future.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/11/2015 06:04 am
How quickly they forget/dismiss the Number One lesson from the CAIB report. Carrying crew *and* essential cargo inside the same spacecraft was to be avoided at all costs. The report specifically recommended that all cargo to the ISS be flown in unmanned spacecraft. Manned spacecraft should only carry incidental and non-critical cargo. To claim that a spacecraft can carry both crew and cargo inside the same spacecraft as a positive is to blatantly scoff at and publicly ignore the report that in reality is what actually spelled the end of the Space Shuttle. Some people never learn.

Don't you mean "hazardous" and not "incidental and non-critical" cargo?  Essential cargo is not necessarily hazardous, and hazardous cargo is not necessarily essential.  For example, many of the items necessary to keep the ISS and crew functioning, or required for research efforts (which after all is a key justification for ISS's existence) are essential to the ISS mission, but not hazardous.

Or are you suggesting that anything not essential to keeping the crew functioning during their transit to and from the ISS should be prohibited from being carried on the spacecraft?  That is rather extreme, which when taken to the extreme... Valve for the EVA suit repair, sorry, no, has to go up on a separate cargo flight.  Those biological or material samples, sorry, no ... Extra food, water, O2, N2, sorry, no ...  Holiday fruit basket, sorry, no ...   That would obviously be ridiculous, counter-productive, and sub-optimal.

In any case, I see no reason why the ability for a vehicle to deliver both crew and cargo should not be considered a plus, so long as the cargo is not hazardous (i.e., puts the crew at undue risk).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lars-J on 03/11/2015 06:09 am
How quickly they forget/dismiss the Number One lesson from the CAIB report. Carrying crew *and* essential cargo inside the same spacecraft was to be avoided at all costs.

Please do quote that part of the report. I know it's widely interpreted that way and no amount of correction seems to stop people from saying that, but I'm pretty sure they never said that. The lesson was: don't put crew on the vehicle if you don't have to. Which is really just another way of saying: make sure the risk of spaceflight is worth the return.

Exactly! And if you transport cargo with the crew, I can't think of much more suitable cargo to bring than supplies they will need on station. Right?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/11/2015 06:28 am
Exactly! And if you transport cargo with the crew, I can't think of much more suitable cargo to bring than supplies they will need on station. Right?

Wrong lesson.  The fundamental error in this line of thought is that any cargo transported with the crew that is not required for the survival of the crew is non-essential, therefore hazardous, therefore presents undue risk to the crew, therefore such cargo should not be transported with the crew.  That is obviously false.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/11/2015 07:10 am
Exactly! And if you transport cargo with the crew, I can't think of much more suitable cargo to bring than supplies they will need on station. Right?

Wrong lesson.  The fundamental error in this line of thought is that any cargo transported with the crew that is not required for the survival of the crew is non-essential, therefore hazardous, therefore presents undue risk to the crew, therefore such cargo should not be transported with the crew.  That is obviously false.

Yeah, that was the wrong lesson.  I think a better lesson is that if you're transporting large amounts of cargo, the design decisions you make will tend to be in conflict with the design decisions you would make to keep a small crew safe, so it's better not to combine a large amount of cargo capacity with crew.  Whether CST-100 has enough cargo capacity that the design had to make compromises that sacrificed safety in some material way I do not know, but I suspect the answer is no.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/11/2015 01:10 pm
Well, Shuttle couldn't carry anything without crew, even a fully fueled hypergolic stage that basically had to hang from just the back of the cabin. That's not a sound decision.
On the other hand, stowing some boxes that might even allow the crew to exit faster in case of emergency, and that add no risk to the crew if broken, is obviously not an issue.
To recap, Shuttle cargo meant satellites and things that could go boom and had to be human rated because the STS couldn't do it robotically. On Commercial Crew it just means boxes and bags of things that are already human rated since they have to go to the ISS and be handled by the crew. Quite different issues.
BTW, it would seem that CST-100 lacks any unpressurized cargo capabilities in crew mode. As I just said, anything pressurized to the ISS is human rated and "safe" to handle.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: clongton on 03/11/2015 03:44 pm
Please do quote that part of the report. I know it's widely interpreted that way and no amount of correction seems to stop people from saying that, but I'm pretty sure they never said that.

Throughout the entire report the difficulties of manifesting cargo in Shuttle because crew was aboard were spoken of again and again. The specific recommendation to not carry crew and cargo inside the same vehicle was actually articulated by a CAIB member when the report was released and can be found in multiple discussion here on NSF that were ongoing at that time.

Regarding the report itself, here are just 2 internal references to the crew/cargo separation in replacement vehicle designs. I know there are others but that's all I spotted in just a quick scan of the report. The Board members were all in agreement that crew and cargo should not be carried aloft inside the same vehicle, but in separate vehicles as spoken to at the report's release.

WRT the Shuttle replacement: p211 bottom of 2nd paragraph:
Quote
The nation must not shy from making that commitment. The International Space Station is likely to  be  the  major  destination  for  human  space  travel  for  the next decade or longer. The Space Shuttle would continue to be used when its unique capabilities are required, both with respect to space station missions such as experiment delivery and retrieval or other logistical missions, and with respect to the few planned missions not traveling to the space station. When cargo can be carried to the space station or other destinations by an expendable launch vehicle, it should be.

WRT Crew Escape: p217 1st paragraph:
Quote
Finally,  a  crew  escape  system  cannot  be  considered  separately  from  the  issues  of  Shuttle  retirement/replacement, separation of cargo from crew in future vehicles, and other considerations in the development – and the inherent risks of space flight.

Remember that the CAIB was created to identify what happened to Columbia and why, not to create design recommendations, but they did that anyway: separate the two to the extent practical in different spacecraft.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/11/2015 04:05 pm
Please do quote that part of the report. I know it's widely interpreted that way and no amount of correction seems to stop people from saying that, but I'm pretty sure they never said that.

Throughout the entire report the difficulties of manifesting cargo in Shuttle because crew was aboard were spoken of again and again. The specific recommendation to not carry crew and cargo inside the same vehicle was actually articulated by a CAIB member when the report was released and can be found in multiple discussion here on NSF that were ongoing at that time.

Regarding the report itself, here are just 2 internal references to the crew/cargo separation in replacement vehicle designs. I know there are others but that's all I spotted in just a quick scan of the report. The Board members were all in agreement that crew and cargo should not be carried aloft inside the same vehicle, but in separate vehicles as spoken to at the report's release.

WRT the Shuttle replacement: p211 bottom of 2nd paragraph:
Quote
The nation must not shy from making that commitment. The International Space Station is likely to  be  the  major  destination  for  human  space  travel  for  the next decade or longer. The Space Shuttle would continue to be used when its unique capabilities are required, both with respect to space station missions such as experiment delivery and retrieval or other logistical missions, and with respect to the few planned missions not traveling to the space station. When cargo can be carried to the space station or other destinations by an expendable launch vehicle, it should be.

WRT Crew Escape: p217 1st paragraph:
Quote
Finally,  a  crew  escape  system  cannot  be  considered  separately  from  the  issues  of  Shuttle  retirement/replacement, separation of cargo from crew in future vehicles, and other considerations in the development – and the inherent risks of space flight.

Remember that the CAIB was created to identify what happened to Columbia and why, not to create design recommendations, but they did that anyway: separate the two to the extent practical in different spacecraft.

Well, you've made QuantumG's point quite well -- the report didn't say what you claimed at all.

Your first quote from the report is specifically about the shuttle and preferring an expendable vehicle for cargo versus the shuttle.  It's not at all a blanket recommendation to never carry cargo in a crew vehicle.

Your second quote just says that when considering a crew escape system, whether or not to carry cargo in the same vehicle should be a consideration.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: JasonAW3 on 03/11/2015 05:14 pm
If recovery goes reasonably well, they'll probably build a backlog of flown cores... a few per pad would buffer any return failure.  I would expect them to leap frog among two or three cores on a pad once reuse gets rolling instead of returning a stage and hoping it goes well because the same stage is next up.

But yes, reuse is the multiplier for increased launch rate... the Hawthorne/McGregor cycle will be the bottle-neck without reuse.  FH need for three cores makes it 3x worse.

Some cores will also be expended for heavy payloads and some will land down range.  Steady launch rates require multiple reuse cores per pad.  Replacement cores will just be rolled into the queue.

I figure that any heavy cores that are expended woul be ones close to their EOU limit.  they'd strip it of landin legs and control fins and let that puppy Viking Funeral back to Earth.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: notsorandom on 03/11/2015 06:26 pm
Well, Shuttle couldn't carry anything without crew, even a fully fueled hypergolic stage that basically had to hang from just the back of the cabin. That's not a sound decision.
On the other hand, stowing some boxes that might even allow the crew to exit faster in case of emergency, and that add no risk to the crew if broken, is obviously not an issue.
To recap, Shuttle cargo meant satellites and things that could go boom and had to be human rated because the STS couldn't do it robotically. On Commercial Crew it just means boxes and bags of things that are already human rated since they have to go to the ISS and be handled by the crew. Quite different issues.
BTW, it would seem that CST-100 lacks any unpressurized cargo capabilities in crew mode. As I just said, anything pressurized to the ISS is human rated and "safe" to handle.
That and to launch a satellite one needed to fly a crew on the shuttle. There was no point in risking a human life when the same job could be done without that risk. Putting cargo on a crew vehicle because there is left over capacity is something totally different. There were no design compromises to add the cargo. The craft wasn't made bigger, more complex, or less able to abort.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: GraniteHound92 on 03/12/2015 02:17 pm
Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: woods170 on 03/12/2015 02:27 pm
Please, can we keep any discussion about launching cargo-and-crew together out of this thread? It has nothing to do with CRS-2, which is clearly about spacecraft that will not carry crew, just cargo.
Thank you.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/12/2015 03:10 pm
Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?

it's an "invitation only cocktail reception" apparently.

Hopefully some press are invited and LM release some renderings.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AncientU on 03/12/2015 05:58 pm
Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?
tonight
and here's an article:
Quote
The Jefferson County-based aerospace company has scheduled a Washington D.C. press conference for later today to outline its bid, which proposes using a cargo carrier adapted from designs of the MAVEN space probe it built for an ongoing Mars research mission.

Quote
LMSS is partnering with European aerospace contractor Thales Alenia to create a pressurized cargo container for ISS supplies, a container based on Europe's "automated transfer vehicle" that's been used for ISS deliveries in the past.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2015/03/lockheed-martin-proposes-building-iss-cargo-ship.html?page=2
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: GraniteHound92 on 03/12/2015 06:09 pm
Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?
tonight
and here's an article:
Quote
The Jefferson County-based aerospace company has scheduled a Washington D.C. press conference for later today to outline its bid, which proposes using a cargo carrier adapted from designs of the MAVEN space probe it built for an ongoing Mars research mission.

Quote
LMSS is partnering with European aerospace contractor Thales Alenia to create a pressurized cargo container for ISS supplies, a container based on Europe's "automated transfer vehicle" that's been used for ISS deliveries in the past.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2015/03/lockheed-martin-proposes-building-iss-cargo-ship.html?page=2

So...they are planning a MAVEN/ATV mashup?  Am I reading that correctly?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/12/2015 06:41 pm
Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?
tonight
and here's an article:
Quote
The Jefferson County-based aerospace company has scheduled a Washington D.C. press conference for later today to outline its bid, which proposes using a cargo carrier adapted from designs of the MAVEN space probe it built for an ongoing Mars research mission.

Quote
LMSS is partnering with European aerospace contractor Thales Alenia to create a pressurized cargo container for ISS supplies, a container based on Europe's "automated transfer vehicle" that's been used for ISS deliveries in the past.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2015/03/lockheed-martin-proposes-building-iss-cargo-ship.html?page=2

Sounds like a Lockheed built Cyguns, just using a Maven bus.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Star One on 03/12/2015 06:41 pm
Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?
tonight
and here's an article:
Quote
The Jefferson County-based aerospace company has scheduled a Washington D.C. press conference for later today to outline its bid, which proposes using a cargo carrier adapted from designs of the MAVEN space probe it built for an ongoing Mars research mission.

Quote
LMSS is partnering with European aerospace contractor Thales Alenia to create a pressurized cargo container for ISS supplies, a container based on Europe's "automated transfer vehicle" that's been used for ISS deliveries in the past.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2015/03/lockheed-martin-proposes-building-iss-cargo-ship.html?page=2

So...they are planning a MAVEN/ATV mashup?  Am I reading that correctly?

Its left me scratching my head as it sounds such an odd combination.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: notsorandom on 03/12/2015 06:58 pm
This is basically what Orbital did to make Cygnus. They took an existing satellite bus and paired it with a pressurized cargo module built by Thales Alenia. I am guessing that the Thales Alenia PCM like the one for Cygnus will be based on MPLM heritage rather than ATV.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/12/2015 07:06 pm
Looks like Jon was spot on with his guess.
Besides the extra payload to ISS this would be ideal for a EAM/mini space station for BEO missions.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: libs0n on 03/12/2015 08:42 pm
An honest to goodness space tug:

http://aviationweek.com/space/jupiter-space-tug-could-deliver-cargo-moon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/12/2015 08:45 pm
It's a tug called "Jupiter"

Launches on Atlas 500 series, has its own little robotic arm and everything.

http://aviationweek.com/space/jupiter-space-tug-could-deliver-cargo-moon?sf7295798=1

All sorts of claims about it being modular and extensible and multi purpose etc etc. I say it's DOA.

edit: the funny thing is, except for the whole space tug part, this is pretty much exactly what I expected.

Also, how do they reattach the old module to centaur for disposal?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: fgonella on 03/12/2015 09:03 pm
I like very much this concept! I always found discarding the SM such a waste.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/12/2015 09:13 pm
Looks like Jon was spot on with his guess.
Besides the extra payload to ISS this would be ideal for a EAM/mini space station for BEO missions.

I wasn't that close. A friend (not at LM) had suggested they were going to do a tug-like design, and I had poo-poohed him when he did so. Methinks I owe him a dinner next time I'm in town.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jarnis on 03/12/2015 09:17 pm
Props for something new rather than just an Atlas-based Cygnus-like disposable can.

Not sure how the $$$ side will work out. Either LockMart gets Atlas V:s from some kind of super sale (buy 2, get one free), or this will be... expensive.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 03/12/2015 09:19 pm
Alas - A space tug !

This is the future trying to be noticed.

btw ,
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/02/df-TUGpix_lockheedmartinconcept.jpg
This picture is wrong,  right?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Comga on 03/12/2015 09:21 pm
This image reminds me of my dog running up to a tennis ball with one in his mouth, then being conflicted.
What is Jupiter supposed to do with two PCM assemblies?
arachnitect:  Good point about the deorbit.  Maybe they ARE going to have two cargo "pods" at the same time, and swap the old one for the new one, with the new one going to the ISS and the old one riding the Centaur down.  That would seem to take two or three arms.  Still doesn't seem right.

It sounds like Lockheed is conflating CRS-2 with a whole-cloth space exploration architecture.  It's hard to imaging NASA accepting this "plays with everything" vision.  All they asked for was cargo delivery
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/12/2015 09:21 pm
Great idea. Not sure about using Centuar to do the deorbiting (see concept drawing). It may require some expendable propulsion (eg small solid and gas thrusters) for deorbiting.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/12/2015 09:23 pm
Props for something new rather than just an Atlas-based Cygnus-like disposable can.

Not sure how the $$$ side will work out. Either LockMart gets Atlas V:s from some kind of super sale (buy 2, get one free), or this will be... expensive.

Not necessarily. By leaving the SM on orbit, and keeping the delivery cans as simple as possible, I bet they'll be a lot cheaper than people would think. Remember, with it's available volume constraints, Dragon is currently costing ~$130M for ~3000kg of cargo. It's quite possible that the marginal cost of a tug delivery like this could be not much more than a one-use Dragon delivery, and probably for a lot more cargo.

Falcon 9 is really cheap in $/kg to LEO, but Dragon $/kg to ISS is substantially higher--it's an expensive wrapper (especially if used only once) that takes up over half of the Falcon 9 LEO delivery mass. Don't get me wrong--this same argument applies to all traditional cargo vehicles (HTV, ATV, Progress, Cygnus, etc). This was a point that Josh Hopkins (one of the LM guys who announced this) was making as an issue with propellant depots. Getting stuff to orbit is cheap, but using traditional delivery vehicles to get it to a specific space facility kills the cheapness.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/12/2015 09:24 pm
Great idea. Not sure about using Centuar to do the deorbiting (see concept drawing). It may require some expendable propulsion (eg small solid and gas thrusters) for deorbiting.

No, that's one of the things IVF is for.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 03/12/2015 09:24 pm
Props for something new rather than just an Atlas-based Cygnus-like disposable can.

Not sure how the $$$ side will work out. Either LockMart gets Atlas V:s from some kind of super sale (buy 2, get one free), or this will be... expensive.

Per mission yes. But per kg payload? Maybe not, compared to Antares/Cygnus.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: acrotti on 03/12/2015 09:27 pm
Imagine this tug attaching a service module to Hubble, to replace and bypass malfunctioning reaction wheels. No need of a human mission
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: nadreck on 03/12/2015 09:41 pm
I have always envisioned large, multi-planar, satellite constellations with a tender like this one for on orbit replacement/service/disposal. The Jupiter-electric mentioned in the aviation week article could even service more than one plane. I could see 5-7 degrees of inclination change as long as waiting a week or two was cool.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/12/2015 09:42 pm
I believe that at least 4 cargo missions per year must be proposed by each provider. But it can be more than four missions.

Not sure of that minimum.  I have not seen that in the RFP, although the RFI stated 4-5 missions/year as an "ideal", with 4/year preferred.

The minimum of 4 missions per year is also in the RFP (on page 79):

Quote from: page 79 of the RFP
NASA requires the service to provide the annual upmass required of the ISS in no fewer than four (4) flights per year with the cargo somewhat evenly distributed throughout the year.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 03/12/2015 09:43 pm
Theres no real need to launch on atlas v. Subsequent canisters can be launched on F9 or F9R
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/12/2015 09:52 pm
Theres no real need to launch on atlas v. Subsequent canisters can be launched on F9 or F9R

If anything, this system is less flexible than a disposable vehicle like Cygnus because of the way it appears to use the centaur upper stage to deorbit the old cargo module.

I can picture a couple ways the orbital handoff works, and neither of them make much sense.

The Constellation Services/SSL architecture looked a lot simpler and easier.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/12/2015 10:08 pm
The minimum of 4 missions per year is also in the RFP (on page 79):
Quote from: page 79 of the RFP
NASA requires the service to provide the annual upmass required of the ISS in no fewer than four (4) flights per year with the cargo somewhat evenly distributed throughout the year.
Yes, agree.  Sorry may not have been clear... note that the requirement is only for up-mass; there is no stipulation as to the number of missions required for down-mass (return or disposal).  In short, the minimum or maximum number of missions to meet all of NASA's requirements is unspecified.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/12/2015 10:19 pm
Where are we discussing this AWESOME LockMart reusable-refuelable-space-tug CRS-2 bid?
http://m.aviationweek.com/space/jupiter-space-tug-could-deliver-cargo-moon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/12/2015 10:19 pm
Ok, Jupiter allows for pressurized up, unpressurized up, pressurized disposal, and presumably unpressurized disposal(?).  That alone will not satisfy all of NASA's needs (although it qualifies for consideration under the CRS-2 RFP).  So presumably this is would be an adjunct to other proposals which provide for (at least) pressurized return.

So what is the price to NASA to develop Jupiter vs. an unpressurized variant of, e.g., Cygnus?  The  price for qualification is a factor in the price evaluation and thus relevant to the contract award and as a newbie, Jupiter appears to have a tough road to hoe (regardless of its long term potential).

The quote from Crocker,  "So I would say that while I think that ultimately this vehicle will get built, without CRS-2 as a foundation, it would be pushed way out." suggests it is likely to get "pushed way out".
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/12/2015 10:21 pm
This would be capable of more payload than Cygnus. The per-launch spacecraft cost could also be significantly lower since the tug is reusable (without refurbishment other than refueling).

Super excited about this proposal.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: GWH on 03/12/2015 10:26 pm
More info up on the Lockmart site:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ssc/crs2.html
Even a little animation :)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/12/2015 10:32 pm
Isn't that essentially an "LM robotic arm-included Parom"? Funny that Russian concept (http://russianspaceweb.com/parom.html) ended up as a CRS-2 bid......  ;)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/12/2015 10:33 pm


Sierra Nevada Corporation to Debut Dream Chaser® Cargo System
Company Unveils New Design for Uncrewed Missions

 

WHAT:
Sierra Nevada Corporation’s (SNC) Space Systems will host a press conference at the Satellite 2015 Conference to debut its Dream Chaser Cargo System, SNC’s solution for NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) contract.  Media will have the opportunity to speak with SNC’s Space Systems executive Mark Sirangelo and participate in a Q-and-A session following the conference.

WHEN:
Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. EDT

WHERE:
Walter E. Washington Convention Center, Salon D.
Media can request telecon service via RSVP.

WHO:

    Mark N. Sirangelo, corporate vice president, SNC’s Space Systems
    Steve Lindsey, senior director and co-program manager, SNC’s Space Systems Space Exploration Systems

WHY:
SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft is a multi-mission-capable space utility vehicle (SUV) suitable for crewed or uncrewed missions. The Dream Chaser Cargo System is an uncrewed system developed to provide cargo transportation services to the International Space Station (ISS). The Dream Chaser Cargo System utilizes a mission variant of the Dream Chaser crewed spacecraft that meets or exceeds all of NASA’s goals for cargo transportation to the ISS, including rapid return of critical science.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Oberon_Command on 03/12/2015 10:33 pm
If anything, this system is less flexible than a disposable vehicle like Cygnus because of the way it appears to use the centaur upper stage to deorbit the old cargo module.

I can picture a couple ways the orbital handoff works, and neither of them make much sense.

What did you have in mind? Just from looking at the picture, here's what I was envisioning, that would only require one arm:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) The Centaur jettisons the new pod.
3) Jupiter uses its arm to position itself and the old pod on the Centaur, attaching the old pod to the centaur in the process.
4) Jupiter undocks from the old pod, which stays with the Centaur.
5) Jupiter chases after the new pod, grapples and berths it with itself, then proceeds to station, while the Centaur with the old pod deorbits.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/12/2015 10:36 pm
This would be capable of more payload than Cygnus. The per-launch spacecraft cost could also be significantly lower since the tug is reusable (without refurbishment other than refueling).

Could be.  Keep in mind that CRS-2 is intended primarily to be a cargo service contract; meeting NASA's CRS-2 requirements and price over the term of the contract is what will win.

Anyone want to venture a guess at how cost-competitive this might be in the context of CRS-2?  The CRS-2 price evaluation and contract award does not care about how cool it may be, or whether it has a longer term payoff.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/12/2015 10:55 pm
If anything, this system is less flexible than a disposable vehicle like Cygnus because of the way it appears to use the centaur upper stage to deorbit the old cargo module.

I can picture a couple ways the orbital handoff works, and neither of them make much sense.

What did you have in mind? Just from looking at the picture, here's what I was envisioning, that would only require one arm:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) The Centaur jettisons the new pod.
3) Jupiter uses its arm to position itself and the old pod on the Centaur, attaching the old pod to the centaur in the process.
4) Jupiter undocks from the old pod, which stays with the Centaur.
5) Jupiter chases after the new pod, grapples and berths it with itself, then proceeds to station, while the Centaur with the old pod deorbits.

So how is the new cargo container stabilized while it drifts free?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: robertross on 03/12/2015 10:56 pm


Sierra Nevada Corporation to Debut Dream Chaser® Cargo System
Company Unveils New Design for Uncrewed Missions
...
WHY:
SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft is a multi-mission-capable space utility vehicle (SUV) suitable for crewed or uncrewed missions. The Dream Chaser Cargo System is an uncrewed system developed to provide cargo transportation services to the International Space Station (ISS). The Dream Chaser Cargo System utilizes a mission variant of the Dream Chaser crewed spacecraft that meets or exceeds all of NASA’s goals for cargo transportation to the ISS, including rapid return of critical science.

Hope springs eternal!

(not that I have a problem with Lockheed Martin's tug that features an MDA robotic arm (Canadian)  ;)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: newpylong on 03/12/2015 11:04 pm
This proposal is legit.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lars-J on 03/12/2015 11:38 pm
If anything, this system is less flexible than a disposable vehicle like Cygnus because of the way it appears to use the centaur upper stage to deorbit the old cargo module.

I can picture a couple ways the orbital handoff works, and neither of them make much sense.

What did you have in mind? Just from looking at the picture, here's what I was envisioning, that would only require one arm:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) The Centaur jettisons the new pod.
3) Jupiter uses its arm to position itself and the old pod on the Centaur, attaching the old pod to the centaur in the process.
4) Jupiter undocks from the old pod, which stays with the Centaur.
5) Jupiter chases after the new pod, grapples and berths it with itself, then proceeds to station, while the Centaur with the old pod deorbits.

Now when you phrase it as simple as that...  ;D No, this seems like quite the awkward solution.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: NovaSilisko on 03/12/2015 11:41 pm
To be honest, I'm more interested in the possibilities besides ISS resupply for Jupiter. I like the idea of a situation with a company purchasing a launch on a small rocket to get their satellite to LEO, then contracting with Lockheed to have a Jupiter Electric push it to GEO. Business-wise I think it makes sense as well, it could allow Lockheed to profit on its competitors' launches.  :P
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/13/2015 12:54 am
If anything, this system is less flexible than a disposable vehicle like Cygnus because of the way it appears to use the centaur upper stage to deorbit the old cargo module.

I can picture a couple ways the orbital handoff works, and neither of them make much sense.

What did you have in mind? Just from looking at the picture, here's what I was envisioning, that would only require one arm:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) The Centaur jettisons the new pod.
3) Jupiter uses its arm to position itself and the old pod on the Centaur, attaching the old pod to the centaur in the process.
4) Jupiter undocks from the old pod, which stays with the Centaur.
5) Jupiter chases after the new pod, grapples and berths it with itself, then proceeds to station, while the Centaur with the old pod deorbits.

Try this:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Port on 03/13/2015 01:05 am
nobody seemed to have posted the videolink (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkJOUoJK8kA) for LM-Jupiter proposal so far.

I really like the idea and it took me by surprise that they could come up with something worthwhile after all this liberty-stuff nobody seemed to take seriously  (imo)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: GraniteHound92 on 03/13/2015 01:12 am
nobody seemed to have posted the videolink (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkJOUoJK8kA) for LM-Jupiter proposal so far.

I really like the idea and it took me by surprise that they could come up with something worthwhile after all this liberty-stuff nobody seemed to take seriously  (imo)

It's frustrating that the video doesn't show the cargo exchange with Centaur.  None of the solutions to the exchange proposed here are entirely satisfactory.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2015 01:17 am
This is great!  I'm glad to see LM not just trying to duplicate Cygnus but actually moving ahead in a substantial way.  A real space tug will enable all sorts of things going forward.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/13/2015 01:30 am
If anything, this system is less flexible than a disposable vehicle like Cygnus because of the way it appears to use the centaur upper stage to deorbit the old cargo module.

I can picture a couple ways the orbital handoff works, and neither of them make much sense.

What did you have in mind? Just from looking at the picture, here's what I was envisioning, that would only require one arm:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) The Centaur jettisons the new pod.
3) Jupiter uses its arm to position itself and the old pod on the Centaur, attaching the old pod to the centaur in the process.
4) Jupiter undocks from the old pod, which stays with the Centaur.
5) Jupiter chases after the new pod, grapples and berths it with itself, then proceeds to station, while the Centaur with the old pod deorbits.

Try this:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm

I think we have a winner.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 03/13/2015 01:34 am
So who is threatened more with this proposal SpaceX or OrbitalATK?  If you were betting who would you now pick as the likely winners or CRS2?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: GWH on 03/13/2015 01:35 am
It's frustrating that the video doesn't show the cargo exchange with Centaur.  None of the solutions to the exchange proposed here are entirely satisfactory.

I doubt it needs to be anything that extraordinary - as one possible example a simple hinge mounted to the adapter to the centaur would allow  the new pod to swing out of the way while the disposal pod is connected.  Grab the new pod with the arm and connect  to the Jupiter.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Port on 03/13/2015 01:38 am
So who is threatened more with this proposal SpaceX or OrbitalATK?  If you were betting who would you now pick as the likely winners or CRS2?

if it would be just between OSC, SpX and LM obviously the LM prop is a direct threat to OSC's CRS vehicle since the LM prop does not provide downmass.

if you take Boing and SNC into the boat i'm not so sure, SNC seems more desperate than ever, CST-100 is even more volume-restricted and not as proven as Dragon to date but i would not count on SpX just going through just so easy as that.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/13/2015 01:42 am
Yes, a longshot. But look at how CST-100 won NASA's interest with the potential additional capabilities/mission features. This looks to do same.

I might see LM getting a small piece of the pie--potentially one of those six-mission minimums or positioning themselves for later on-ramp.  I think it unlikely they will displace anyone unless LM's per mission price is competitive and DDT&E (ISS certification) is on their own dime.

Unlike CRS-1 or CCtCap, ISS certification costs and the time-value of any payments are added.[1]  Incumbents who are already ISS certified and do not require substantive advance payments thus have a significant advantage.

In short, there is little wriggle room in the CRS-2 evaluation criteria; NASA is clearly looking to minimize cost and risk for ISS cargo; anything else takes a very distant second place.


[1] Specific formula is: (CLIN 0002A ISS Integration Certification Price) + the sum of (CLIN 0001 Contract Years 2018-2024 NTE Standard Mission prices at ½ annual demand for pressurized upmass).  Pricing for CLIN 0002A includes GFE + The time value of financed milestone payments.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/13/2015 01:44 am
So who is threatened more with this proposal SpaceX or OrbitalATK?  If you were betting who would you now pick as the likely winners or CRS2?
SpaceX and Orbital/ATK. [edit] With maybe CST-100 getting a distant third placeholder position (six mission minimum award) followed by possibly LM a very distant fourth (potential future on-ramp two-mission minimum, but no initial award). ... now back to MMS.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: GraniteHound92 on 03/13/2015 01:59 am
So who is threatened more with this proposal SpaceX or OrbitalATK?  If you were betting who would you now pick as the likely winners or CRS2?

I think Cygnus is more threatened with this proposal because Dragon provides downmass.  However, my picks for CRS2 winners are SpaceX and OrbitalATK, as they are the incumbents.  Having said that, Jupiter is an awesome proposal, and I hope LM pursues development regardless of the outcome of CRS2.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2015 02:01 am
Fascinating all-around. This is almost better than commercial crew.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Space Junkie on 03/13/2015 02:05 am
And here I thought the CRS2 competition would be boring. :)

I'm trying not to get too excited though. NASA puts a large premium on risk reduction and this concept is definitely riskier than a disposable Cygnus-style vehicle.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/13/2015 02:28 am
Fascinating all-around. This is almost better than commercial crew.

Too bad they can't all win - imagine the capabilities we'd have then.  Too much for just supporting the ISS of course, but between the almost off-the-shelf Lockheed Martin Jupiter and SpaceX saying the Dragon V2 is BEO capable, it's starting to look like the private sector could, on it's own, support operations near the region of the Moon or EML.

Yes, yes, I know, we lack a business model for the private sector to do that, and NASA isn't funded to do anything like that, but having the capability means that we're that much closer to someone saying "you know, we're ready to fund a beyond-LEO effort".

And certainly we have Commercial Cargo and Crew to thank for that.  CRS-2 is getting fun to watch...
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Comga on 03/13/2015 02:42 am
This image reminds me of my dog running up to a tennis ball with one in his mouth, then being conflicted.
What is Jupiter supposed to do with two PCM assemblies?
arachnitect:  Good point about the deorbit.  Maybe they ARE going to have two cargo "pods" at the same time, and swap the old one for the new one, with the new one going to the ISS and the old one riding the Centaur down.  That would seem to take two or three arms.
Your dog doesn't have a mouth on either side of its head, but this bus might have two adapters top and bottom.

Note the orientation of the latching parts of the payload adapters.

Could be there's a lot of interesting surprises with this one.

And I think the biggest is its business model ;)

Fair enough but Jupiter is NOT symmetric front to back.  If it puts the "new" PCM on the "back" it looks like it won't be able to rotate its solar panels.  I don't see the "latching parts  of the payload adapters."

And in this hand-off mode Jupiter always has a PCM attached, either on its way to ISS, sitting on ISS, or returning from ISS with an old PCM, and it could be in the latter configuration for a long time.  It would not be available for other tasks like taking comm sats to GEO.  It would probably have to remain coorbital with the ISS so that it didn't experience differential orbital precession.

As to the business model, we will see if they get the "Our old partner doing neat stuff" or "We didn't ask for that" response from NASA.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/13/2015 02:49 am
I wonder why LM went with an arm on board instead of just docking to the container for every mission like in Russia's Parom proposal - isn't it more expensive to fit an arm on board for just ISS flights?

I don't think Jupiter will make it for CRS-2, but the concept is certainly interesting and has uses further than ISS....

P.S. The Jupiter name reminds me that the DIRECT team has a similar concept spacecraft for ISS servicing, just with an even bigger PCM. Am I correct?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Blackstar on 03/13/2015 03:15 am
However, my picks for CRS2 winners are SpaceX and OrbitalATK, as they are the incumbents. 

I've read plenty of space enthusiast comments that Bigelow space habitats are just around the corner and will provide plenty of business for SpaceX.

So NASA could pick two new entrants in the field, develop new capabilities, and leave SpaceX to fill the sky with their Dragons servicing all those Bigelow space stations that will soon be up there.

Right?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/13/2015 03:28 am
The arm gives them more options, especially as space tug and for satellite servicing.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Port on 03/13/2015 03:28 am
no, nasa should pick the option best suited for there needs. crs-2 is not a development-program, that ship sailed when LM failed to put forth a good proposal for CRS-1.
LM should have to carry the burden of cost/risk of developing jupiter by themselves when they think it's case is compelling enough - provided nasa will not pick them for crs-2 - which i strongly hope for.
The fact that they want to fly it on an Atlas V is an enormous cost-factor alone, also making it non-future-proof since the A-V has a limited lifetime now, so that it would have to be requalified with anything ULA/LM/Boing come up with in coop with Blue Origin - when ever that may be.

(the only option would be to pick them for a late date, letting SpX and OSC fly for the frist 2/3 of the CRS-2 duration)

however that all may sound, I hold no grudge against LM. I just think they had there chance and missed it, that's how the open market is supposed to work.
I think Jupiter is a good concept and I give them all the credit in the world for it. It's worth pursuing - but not under the CRS-2 Contract.

my 0.02 on all proposals that need serious development going forward
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Space Junkie on 03/13/2015 03:47 am
I've read plenty of space enthusiast comments that Bigelow space habitats are just around the corner and will provide plenty of business for SpaceX.

So NASA could pick two new entrants in the field, develop new capabilities, and leave SpaceX to fill the sky with their Dragons servicing all those Bigelow space stations that will soon be up there.

Right?

What Port said.

NASA's goal with CRS-2 is to obtain reliable and preferably cost-effective transportation of cargo to the ISS. I really like this concept. (I'd like it even more if it used a cheaper launch vehicle.) I doubt NASA will pick it though.

BTW: Bigelow space habitats have been "just around the corner" for a while and probably will be for 5-7 years at least. Lots of work still needs to be done.

I would love to be proven wrong.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 03/13/2015 03:49 am
Examining both the video and the graphics it does appear that there are end effector fixtures on both the Jupiter and the Mission Support Module. In other words it can dock with pods on either/both ends.

Therefore;

1) Jupiter with old pod grappled to forward end rendezvouses with new pod and Centaur and uses arm to grapple to Centaur.

2) Jupiter uses arm to maneuver to MSM effector with new pod. (stack is old pod, Jupiter, MSM, new pod, Centaur)

3) Centaur disengages from new pod. (stack is old pod, Jupiter, MSM, new pod)

4) Jupiter uses arm to rotate 180 reference Centaur and redocks (stack is new pod, MSM, Jupitor, old pod, Centaur)

5) Jupiter disengages old pod and releases Centaur.

6) Jupiter grapples new pod with arm and moves it from aft MSM effector to forward Jupiter effector.

Note for MSM's with solar panels the MSM grapple would simply be longer.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2015 04:18 am
This would be capable of more payload than Cygnus. The per-launch spacecraft cost could also be significantly lower since the tug is reusable (without refurbishment other than refueling).

Could be.  Keep in mind that CRS-2 is intended primarily to be a cargo service contract; meeting NASA's CRS-2 requirements and price over the term of the contract is what will win.

Anyone want to venture a guess at how cost-competitive this might be in the context of CRS-2?  The CRS-2 price evaluation and contract award does not care about how cool it may be, or whether it has a longer term payoff.

It's true that NASA doesn't take into account longer-term payoff in the CRS-2 decision.  But LM can take it into account.  They can give up profit on the CRS-2 contract if they see it setting them up for long-term gain.  So the long-term potential can help in with CRS-2, if LM really believes in it and puts their money behind it, as they claim they are willing to do.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2015 04:35 am
nobody seemed to have posted the videolink (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkJOUoJK8kA) for LM-Jupiter proposal so far.

I really like the idea and it took me by surprise that they could come up with something worthwhile after all this liberty-stuff nobody seemed to take seriously  (imo)

Liberty was ATK, not Lockheed-Martin.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 03/13/2015 05:55 am
It's a tug called "Jupiter"

Launches on Atlas 500 series, has its own little robotic arm and everything.

http://aviationweek.com/space/jupiter-space-tug-could-deliver-cargo-moon?sf7295798=1

All sorts of claims about it being modular and extensible and multi purpose etc etc. I say it's DOA.

edit: the funny thing is, except for the whole space tug part, this is pretty much exactly what I expected.

Also, how do they reattach the old module to centaur for disposal?
It sounds like a bad proposal. I don't like the unnecessary complexity or that the majority of the proposal out sources work to foreign aerospace companies (the Atlas V engine, the pressurized vessel, the robotic arm). I don't think CRS should be used to prop up the space economies of other countries when the US space economy is in as bad of shape as it's in.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/13/2015 06:10 am
The Cygnus was >$200m a mission has only half volume and payload, no external cargo or refuelling option for ISS. If LM can sell for < $400m they should competitive with Cygnus. Volume more than mass seems to be limiting factor with Dragon (11m3)and Cygnus(27m3) at approx 71m3 (4.5m*4.5m)Jupiter is king.
NB edit volume.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: LastStarFighter on 03/13/2015 06:26 am
nobody seemed to have posted the videolink (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkJOUoJK8kA) for LM-Jupiter proposal so far.

I really like the idea and it took me by surprise that they could come up with something worthwhile after all this liberty-stuff nobody seemed to take seriously  (imo)

Liberty was ATK, not Lockheed-Martin.

I'm guessing it was a reference to the composite version of the Orion capsule that was to go ontop of Liberty. LM was a subcontractor to ATK for that Commercial crew proposal I think. LM was to build the service module, integrate avionics and do final assembly.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Star One on 03/13/2015 06:34 am

This would be capable of more payload than Cygnus. The per-launch spacecraft cost could also be significantly lower since the tug is reusable (without refurbishment other than refueling).

Could be.  Keep in mind that CRS-2 is intended primarily to be a cargo service contract; meeting NASA's CRS-2 requirements and price over the term of the contract is what will win.

Anyone want to venture a guess at how cost-competitive this might be in the context of CRS-2?  The CRS-2 price evaluation and contract award does not care about how cool it may be, or whether it has a longer term payoff.

It's true that NASA doesn't take into account longer-term payoff in the CRS-2 decision.  But LM can take it into account.  They can give up profit on the CRS-2 contract if they see it setting them up for long-term gain.  So the long-term potential can help in with CRS-2, if LM really believes in it and puts their money behind it, as they claim they are willing to do.

If LM are willing to put a lot of their own money into this as far as development is concerned then maybe I can see this getting somewhere.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2015 06:35 am
It sounds like a bad proposal. I don't like the unnecessary complexity

Making something reusable isn't unnecessary complexity in my book.  It tends to makes things cheaper, and it enables us to grow far more in the future than we ever could with the old paradigm of building everything new for every mission.

or that the majority of the proposal out sources work to foreign aerospace companies (the Atlas V engine, the pressurized vessel, the robotic arm). I don't think CRS should be used to prop up the space economies of other countries when the US space economy is in as bad of shape as it's in.

The U.S. space economy is in the best shape its ever been in.  All sorts of exciting innovations are going on.

Working with companies in other countries lets us get more out of each tax dollar we spend, and makes it easier for U.S. companies to sell to the governments of those other countries in return.

What you're proposing is a form of protectionism.  Everyone loses from that.  It was one of the leading causes of the Great Depression.  The freer trade of every sort is between countries, the more everyone wins.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2015 06:37 am
nobody seemed to have posted the videolink (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkJOUoJK8kA) for LM-Jupiter proposal so far.

I really like the idea and it took me by surprise that they could come up with something worthwhile after all this liberty-stuff nobody seemed to take seriously  (imo)

Liberty was ATK, not Lockheed-Martin.

I'm guessing it was a reference to the composite version of the Orion capsule that was to go ontop of Liberty. LM was a subcontractor to ATK for that Commercial crew proposal I think. LM was to build the service module, integrate avionics and do final assembly.

Ah, right.  I still don't blame Lockheed Martin for that.  ATK was the driving force.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: MP99 on 03/13/2015 08:28 am


It's frustrating that the video doesn't show the cargo exchange with Centaur.  None of the solutions to the exchange proposed here are entirely satisfactory.

I doubt it needs to be anything that extraordinary - as one possible example a simple hinge mounted to the adapter to the centaur would allow  the new pod to swing out of the way while the disposal pod is connected.  Grab the new pod with the arm and connect  to the Jupiter.

I like this. Simplest proposal I've seen so far.

Jupiter arm docks to Centaur;
new container hinges away from the docking port;
arm docks old container to the docking port;
Jupiter detaches from old container;
arm manoeuvres Jupiter to dock with new container;
hinge releases new stack;
arm moves stack away from Centaur before it detaches.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2015 08:41 am
Another possibility is that the cargo module's docking adaptor is on the top end of the stack on launch and it's connected to the Centaur on the other end with a different mechanism.  Then the sequence would be:

1.) Jupiter arrives with the old cargo module docked to it and uses its arm to remove the old cargo module and hold it on the arm.
2.) Jupiter docks itself to the new cargo module that is still attached to the Centaur, while still holding the old module in its arm.
3.) Centaur releases the new cargo module, which is still docked to Jupiter.
4.) Jupiter puts the old cargo module, which is still in its arm, on the Centaur and releases it.
5.) The Centaur re-enters with the old cargo module while Jupiter flies off to ISS with the new cargo module.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: su27k on 03/13/2015 08:58 am
It sounds like a bad proposal. I don't like the unnecessary complexity or that the majority of the proposal out sources work to foreign aerospace companies (the Atlas V engine, the pressurized vessel, the robotic arm). I don't think CRS should be used to prop up the space economies of other countries when the US space economy is in as bad of shape as it's in.

There's not much choice with regards to foreign companies, Orbital uses them too (Russian engines, same supplier for pressure vessel).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: docmordrid on 03/13/2015 09:47 am
ISTM this adds a bunch of expensive failure modes. Just launch, fly and berth without the juggling act.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2015 09:53 am
ISTM this adds a bunch of expensive failure modes. Just launch, fly and berth without the juggling act.

Are you concerned just about using the Centaur to de-orbit or are you against the whole idea of a re-usable tug?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2015 11:20 am
Let's say LM is awarded 10 flights.

Jupiter might be expensive, so say it costs $300 million. The containers (which have plenty of volume) may cost only $40 million (or less!) since they're mostly just passive metal. Say LM buys Atlas V flights for $130 million each. That means each mission costs about $200 million each, but should have greater cargo than Dragon or Cygnus.

Sounds competitive to me, even if you tag on another $300 million dev cost for Jupiter bringing per mission costs to $230 million.

...Now suppose you add in another 10 mission, this time launched on a reusable F9 with a 35% discount, giving a per mission cost of just $80 million...
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: newpylong on 03/13/2015 11:35 am
Let's say LM is awarded 10 flights.

Jupiter might be expensive, so say it costs $300 million. The containers (which have plenty of volume) may cost only $40 million (or less!) since they're mostly just passive metal. Say LM buys Atlas V flights for $130 million each. That means each mission costs about $200 million each, but should have greater cargo than Dragon or Cygnus.

Sounds competitive to me, even if you tag on another $300 million dev cost for Jupiter bringing per mission costs to $230 million.

...Now suppose you add in another 10 mission, this time launched on a reusable F9 with a 35% discount, giving a per mission cost of just $80 million...

I also agree that we could be surprised how competitive the pricing for this proposal might be.

If built this system has far-reaching possibilities for use - I especially like how it could feed into the Orion program to allow for some commonality and reduce costs.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: manboy on 03/13/2015 12:07 pm
It sounds like a bad proposal. I don't like the unnecessary complexity

Making something reusable isn't unnecessary complexity in my book.  It tends to makes things cheaper, and it enables us to grow far more in the future than we ever could with the old paradigm of building everything new for every mission.
It's how they intend to accomplish reusability that adds complexity. How long does it delay getting supplies to the ISS?


or that the majority of the proposal out sources work to foreign aerospace companies (the Atlas V engine, the pressurized vessel, the robotic arm). I don't think CRS should be used to prop up the space economies of other countries when the US space economy is in as bad of shape as it's in.

The U.S. space economy is in the best shape its ever been in.
 
It depends on how you look at it. How many liquid engine manufacturers are there left? Aerojet Rocketdyne and SpaceX are the only ones building engines that have gone into space. How many rocket manufacturers?  And is there any American company besides Boeing that has history building space station modules?


Working with companies in other countries lets us get more out of each tax dollar we spend, and makes it easier for U.S. companies to sell to the governments of those other countries in return.

What you're proposing is a form of protectionism.
CRS is the American contribution to the ISS. If you want a Canadian or European one then look for funding from CSA or ESA. It's debatable on whether or not out sourcing the work really results in a higher return. What it does result in is less jobs for the aerospace industry and loss of technical capability.

It sounds like a bad proposal. I don't like the unnecessary complexity or that the majority of the proposal out sources work to foreign aerospace companies (the Atlas V engine, the pressurized vessel, the robotic arm). I don't think CRS should be used to prop up the space economies of other countries when the US space economy is in as bad of shape as it's in.

There's not much choice with regards to foreign companies, Orbital uses them too (Russian engines, same supplier for pressure vessel).
Sure there's a choice but they're choosing not to use them.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/13/2015 12:14 pm
LM's proposal is really interesting.

I think SpaceX are ok - NASA needs downmass and the three bidders offering that are the same as for commercial crew, except this time SpaceX are in an even stronger position having repeatedly proven their ability to do CRS. So SpaceX must be lowest risk and would expect them to be very price competitive.

 However, Orbital ATK may well have more of a fight on their hands than they may have assumed.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AncientU on 03/13/2015 01:04 pm
Real competition is fantastic! (let's hope awards are on merit and price, not political clout)
New ideas, new players in the reusability gig, more competitors than previously, huge/creative variation in approaches...
The potential for this COTS/CRS model is growing...

On to the lander (or hab module, exploration outpost, space station, BFR, whatever***) competition.

*** forgot to add fuel depots!
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: SWGlassPit on 03/13/2015 01:09 pm
I've read plenty of space enthusiast comments that Bigelow space habitats are just around the corner and will provide plenty of business for SpaceX.

So NASA could pick two new entrants in the field, develop new capabilities, and leave SpaceX to fill the sky with their Dragons servicing all those Bigelow space stations that will soon be up there.

Right?

What Port said.

NASA's goal with CRS-2 is to obtain reliable and preferably cost-effective transportation of cargo to the ISS. I really like this concept. (I'd like it even more if it used a cheaper launch vehicle.) I doubt NASA will pick it though.

BTW: Bigelow space habitats have been "just around the corner" for a while and probably will be for 5-7 years at least. Lots of work still needs to be done.

I would love to be proven wrong.

I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure Blackstar's tongue was firmly planted in his cheek as he posted that.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Steam Chaser on 03/13/2015 01:42 pm
Sounds competitive to me, even if you tag on another $300 million dev cost for Jupiter bringing per mission costs to $230 million.

On top of all that, it looks like they have the ability to launch significant secondary payloads on the flights that aren't launching Jupiter, or offer some services similar to what ISS does (e.g.: hosting instruments), which could give them revenue that would allow them to reduce their bid, giving them a better chance against Cygnus.

If I recall correctly, NASA's proposed funding for CRS-2 was a lot more than for CRS-1, I think because of the larger span of years in CRS-2 and greater per-year mass (I suppose due to NASA taking over ATV's former responsibilities).  That might allow NASA to work with 3 cargo suppliers.  It's hard for me from my armchair to imagine LM replacing Orbital entirely during CRS-2.  CRS-2 starts pretty soon in aerospace development timeframes, so I'd be surprised if NASA would be confident enough that LM would be ready with this for the start of CRS-2.  I could see NASA working with both Orbital and LM, though (maybe phasing in more LM responsibilities later in CRS-2).

I wonder what Orbital's bid will be compared to LM?  They would have known about NASA's increased requirements, and the larger amount of money on the table possibly drawing in competitors.  Would Orbital have been able to offer a bid with more mass and/or volume based on Cygnus than they are already increasing to?  Is Antares the limit?  Could they have offered a mix of small and large Cygnus variants launched by a mix of Antares and Atlas V (since they are already working with Atlas V)?  Would they simply have lowered their bid price compared to CRS-1, given that their development phase would be done?  Would they offer ballute-based return capability?  Could they know about non-CRS Antares or Cygnus business in the pipeline, allowing them to share costs and lower their CRS-2 bid price?

It would be really good to have 3 independent cargo spacecraft, using 3 independent rockets, regardless of which spacecraft the Atlas V would be launching (CST-100, Dream Chaser, or Jupiter-Exoliner).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: beancounter on 03/13/2015 01:48 pm
Since this is a CRS contract, I'm assuming that all vehicle development costs will be paid for by the companies making their various pitches, not by NASA or other government agencies.  They'll only pay for the delivery and return services.  It's not a COTS equivalent.  Is this correct?
Cheers
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: acrotti on 03/13/2015 03:17 pm
I'm surprised that no one has thought that LM, with Jupiter, is winking to NASA, indirectly suggesting a solution to fund (through CRS2) the development of a basic SM for Orion. A SM with a robotic arm, swappable tanks (its easy to increase the amount of fuel and oxidizer, just enlarge the tanks), and ion propulsion. All of that more or less for free. Yes, I know, the low power engine may be useful only in LEO, but it's a start. We need to keep in mind that the European SM for Orion is only 1, for the first mission. And then? Jupiter may be perfect also because it can be throughly tested in space before using it with a manned Orion.
Once funded through CRS2 resupply mission (that NASA has to pay anyhow), Jupiter can also be a low cost base to develop the ARM tug, an Hubble servicing tug and so on.
A forward-looking NASA administrator may trade the complexity of this solution with the savings it can give in these future missions.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/13/2015 03:36 pm
Since this is a CRS contract, I'm assuming that all vehicle development costs will be paid for by the companies making their various pitches, not by NASA or other government agencies.  They'll only pay for the delivery and return services.  It's not a COTS equivalent.  Is this correct?
Cheers

Beancounter,

That's at least my understanding. If someone wants to propose something that doesn't exist yet, they only get paid for flights, so they have to foot the development costs in-house and try to recoup them from CRS-2 flight revenues.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/13/2015 03:40 pm
I'm surprised that no one has thought that LM, with Jupiter, is winking to NASA, indirectly suggesting a solution to fund (through CRS2) the development of a basic SM for Orion. A SM with a robotic arm, swappable tanks (its easy to increase the amount of fuel and oxidizer, just enlarge the tanks), and ion propulsion. All of that more or less for free. Yes, I know, the low power engine may be useful only in LEO, but it's a start. We need to keep in mind that the European SM for Orion is only 1, for the first mission. And then? Jupiter may be perfect also because it can be throughly tested in space before using it with a manned Orion.
Once funded through CRS2 resupply mission (that NASA has to pay anyhow), Jupiter can also be a low cost base to develop the ARM tug, an Hubble servicing tug and so on.
A forward-looking NASA administrator may trade the complexity of this solution with the savings it can give in these future missions.

Thank you for pointing out the variable tank size feature.  This feature does not stop here. Think of a AV 551 delivering a tank 18mt(16mt prop) for attachment to the tug. Now add another one. Then add a 18mt payload. Deliver this 18mt payload to L2 (A BA330-DS fully loaded). Deliver the payload to L2 drop one tank and return to LEO.  At ~$200M per AV551 launch X3 = ~$600M for a 18mt delivery to L2 vs SLS ~$2B. Now use an FH for the tank delivery of a single 40mt tank with 36mt of prop. Now add the AV551 flight with the payload. Costs for delivery to L2 drops to ~$350M. The tanks would be highly LV agnostic vs most of the other payload types currently launched because the tanks are about as dumb as you can get and as cheap a payload as can be manufactured.

For a slower delivery but still possible 2 40mt tanks and a 40mt payload delivered by FH for ~$450M sent to L2.  A BA 2100 DS module. Or just the delivery of the 40mt tanks to be parked at L2 for a Mars mission of truly impressive size for less than 3 years of SLS operations costs (SLS 3 years -3 launches ~$4.2B). 6 40mt storable prop tanks at L2 for ~$2.7B. Launched in just 1 year.

But alas its only a CRS contract and features not needed are a detractor and not a plus for such contract selection.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: GraniteHound92 on 03/13/2015 04:56 pm
Has automated on-orbit fuel transfer ever been attempted more than once with the same spacecraft?  I know the Orbital Express mission accomplished automated fuel transfer, but I can't find anything that explicitly states how many times it was done over the course of the mission.  Does repeated refueling pose any specific technical difficulties (e.g. wear on valves or connectors)?  Also, does the LM CRS2 proposal warrant its own thread?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: meekGee on 03/13/2015 05:03 pm
Late to the party...

I'm trying to look at it from a corporate viewpoint.

Looks to me like the board decided that they can't just snub commercial space any longer.

The question they posed was "what can we put together relatively quickly from things that we have in the drawer"

It's not a bad result, and against the background of the industry of 10 years ago it might have looked revolutionary, but right now it seems a bit anachronistic. It is past-future.  (Didn't want to say steampunk)

It is not really optimized for CRS, but that's their business, and I count that as a plus.  One of my issues with Boeing and Orbital was that the proposals were never a part of something bigger.  This one is forward looking.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: robert_d on 03/13/2015 05:27 pm
Sorry, but I don't understand. Does the arm at any point leave the Jupiter tug completely?


Try this:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: WmThomas on 03/13/2015 05:38 pm
Just saying that I find the LockMart proposal exciting. It is trying to provide value-added. This whole competition now looks full of possibilities.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Archibald on 03/13/2015 06:05 pm
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=34093.0;attach=813869;image)

I knew I had seen this (lockheed) silhouette before. History (and lockheed) repeat themselves
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202731.html?search=agena

What this jupiter / exoliner intends to do today, Lockheed own Agena could have done it four decades ago...
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Darkseraph on 03/13/2015 06:48 pm
I hope something like this gets picked over Cygnus...because of its future applications! It's forward thinking. The interesting and profitable things to do in space are not so much in the 10 mins of fireworks the launcher does, but what hardware we put up there, esp reusable robotics systems, propellant refuelling, electric propulsion, small sat deployment.

It being dependent on Atlas V is possibly a problem.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: nadreck on 03/13/2015 07:05 pm

It being dependent on Atlas V is possibly a problem.

Is it dependent? How much more expense/development would be required to ensure it could launch on an Antares or F9. Given that Cygnus is going to go for a one off ride on an Atlas, I think this would not be prohibitive in time or money. Also redundancy here might include two operational units at the ISS at any one time.  I also still see the constellation tender making for some serious demand for the Jupiter Electric, pairing that with the FH might be a good business model.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: butters on 03/13/2015 07:49 pm
Is the propulsion system (presumably hydrazine monopropellant like MAVEN?) on the reusable bus or the expendable pod?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Political Hack Wannabe on 03/13/2015 08:00 pm
Is the propulsion system (presumably hydrazine monopropellant like MAVEN?) on the reusable bus or the expendable pod?

it's on the reusable bus. 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/13/2015 08:08 pm
Sorry, but I don't understand. Does the arm at any point leave the Jupiter tug completely?


Try this:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm

I think Ronsmytheiii has cracked the case by identifying the white object on the tail of the Jupiter tug as a latching end effector.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2015 08:20 pm
On top of all that, it looks like they have the ability to launch significant secondary payloads on the flights that aren't launching Jupiter, or offer some services similar to what ISS does (e.g.: hosting instruments), which could give them revenue that would allow them to reduce their bid, giving them a better chance against Cygnus.

Yeah, and it would give them an ideal way to easy into the market for such smaller payloads and hosted instruments -- they can prove they can execute and find out what the market really is without the risk of losing a big investment for a stand-alone program.

The big losers here are the stand-alone small payload launcher hopefuls, such as Firefly.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/13/2015 08:23 pm
Is the propulsion system (presumably hydrazine monopropellant like MAVEN?) on the reusable bus or the expendable pod?

it's on the reusable bus.

they have a capability to refuel the tug from the cargo containers as well
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2015 08:31 pm
I'm surprised that no one has thought that LM, with Jupiter, is winking to NASA, indirectly suggesting a solution to fund (through CRS2) the development of a basic SM for Orion. A SM with a robotic arm, swappable tanks (its easy to increase the amount of fuel and oxidizer, just enlarge the tanks), and ion propulsion. All of that more or less for free. Yes, I know, the low power engine may be useful only in LEO, but it's a start. We need to keep in mind that the European SM for Orion is only 1, for the first mission. And then? Jupiter may be perfect also because it can be throughly tested in space before using it with a manned Orion.
Once funded through CRS2 resupply mission (that NASA has to pay anyhow), Jupiter can also be a low cost base to develop the ARM tug, an Hubble servicing tug and so on.
A forward-looking NASA administrator may trade the complexity of this solution with the savings it can give in these future missions.

I believe it would be illegal for NASA to take such factors into consideration.  They put out a request for bids and specified in some detail what they were looking for and how they would judge the bids.  For them to change their mind and use other criteria violates government contracting rules.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Comga on 03/13/2015 08:33 pm
Try this:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm

I think Ronsmytheiii has cracked the case by identifying the white object on the tail of the Jupiter tug as a latching end effector.

OK, but if this is the plan, why not make Jupiter symmetric front to back?

The full connector for carrying the "pod" would have to be enough more complex and expensive that it is worth having the end effector in place of one and going through this coreography on each transfer. 

It seems simpler for Jupiter to
grab the Centaur,
berth to the new pod with the "rear" connector,
release the new pod from the Centaur,
flip around using the arm,
berth the old pod to the Centaur,
and let go of the Centaur and leave for the ISS.

I also see issues with orbital mechanics.  Jupiter needs to stay coorbital with the ISS to stay in the same orbital plane.  It may have to go to higher altitude for a while to let its orbit precess one way, before descending to meet the Centaur, where it's orbit will precess the other way.  If the timing is good, the orbit precesses back to the plane of the ISS.   If the launch is delayed, for whatever reason, the synchronicity fails and plane of Jupiter's orbit starts to drift. 

edit: "Engineering is done with numbers".  If I had the time, which might happen, part of the answer is the delta-V required daily to effect the plane change for differential precession for the insertion orbit.  Can anyone estimate the altitude at which the Centaur could deliver the pod and wait, while still being able to descend for disposal?  How many restarts can a Centaur do and how long can it remain functional? 

In last night's MMS launch, the Centaur's first burn gave it an apogee around 320 km.  That would be an OK altitude for a CRS-2 delivery in a three burn profile: inject, circularize, and descend to the atmosphere.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: WM68 on 03/13/2015 08:39 pm
From the Lockheed Martin website:
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/13/2015 08:44 pm
Try this:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm

I think Ronsmytheiii has cracked the case by identifying the white object on the tail of the Jupiter tug as a latching end effector.

OK, but if this is the plan, why not make Jupiter symmetric front to back?

The full connector for carrying the "pod" would have to be enough more complex and expensive that it is worth having the end effector in place of one and going through this coreography on each transfer. 

It seems simpler for Jupiter to
grab the Centaur,
berth to the new pod with the "rear" connector,
release the new pod from the Centaur,
flip around using the arm,
berth the old pod to the Centaur,
and let go of the Centaur and leave for the ISS.

I also see issues with orbital mechanics.  Jupiter needs to stay coorbital with the ISS to stay in the same orbital plane.  It may have to go to higher altitude for a while to let its orbit precess one way, before descending to meet the Centaur, where it's orbit will precess the other way.  If the timing is good, the orbit precesses back to the plane of the ISS.   If the launch is delayed, for whatever reason, the synchronicity fails and plane of Jupiter's orbit starts to drift. 

edit: "Engineering is done with numbers".  If I had the time, which might happen, part of the answer is the delta-V required daily to effect the plane change for differential precession for the insertion orbit.  Can anyone estimate the altitude at which the Centaur could deliver the pod and wait, while still being able to descend for disposal?  How many restarts can a Centaur do and how long can it remain functional? 

In last night's MMS launch, the Centaur's first burn gave it an apogee around 350 km.  That would be a good altitude for a CRS-2 delivery in a three burn profile: inject, circularize, and descend to the atmosphere.

It they make Jupiter symmetrical, they need two sets of main thrusters.

Perhaps the LEE is lighter than the exoliner docking mechanism

Perhaps they want the flexibility of having a second end effector for non-CRS missions, like satellite servicing or an L2 outpost.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/13/2015 08:47 pm
Since this is a CRS contract, I'm assuming that all vehicle development costs will be paid for by the companies making their various pitches, not by NASA or other government agencies.  They'll only pay for the delivery and return services.  It's not a COTS equivalent.  Is this correct?

Maybe-kinda-sorta.  There is a separate contract line item (CLIN-0002A) for "ISS Integration Certification", which is the price to certify the standard mission configurations.  That is in addition to the NTE per-mission price (i.e., simple delivery and return service price).

Exactly what is permissible under that "ISS Integration Certification" line item is unclear ... a test flight?  Some amount of DDT&E?  The RFP is unclear as to what is allowed, other than that ISS Integration Certification will be added to the total for purposes of the price evaluation.

My read is that bidders could potentially include whatever they think they can get away with under that "ISS Integration Certification" line item.  Recognizing of course that for every $ they put in that bucket, they are going to suffer in the price evaluation.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Oberon_Command on 03/13/2015 08:55 pm
Try this:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm

I think Ronsmytheiii has cracked the case by identifying the white object on the tail of the Jupiter tug as a latching end effector.

OK, but if this is the plan, why not make Jupiter symmetric front to back?

The full connector for carrying the "pod" would have to be enough more complex and expensive that it is worth having the end effector in place of one and going through this coreography on each transfer. 

It seems simpler for Jupiter to
grab the Centaur,
berth to the new pod with the "rear" connector,
release the new pod from the Centaur,
flip around using the arm,
berth the old pod to the Centaur,
and let go of the Centaur and leave for the ISS.

I also see issues with orbital mechanics.  Jupiter needs to stay coorbital with the ISS to stay in the same orbital plane.  It may have to go to higher altitude for a while to let its orbit precess one way, before descending to meet the Centaur, where it's orbit will precess the other way.  If the timing is good, the orbit precesses back to the plane of the ISS.   If the launch is delayed, for whatever reason, the synchronicity fails and plane of Jupiter's orbit starts to drift. 

edit: "Engineering is done with numbers".  If I had the time, which might happen, part of the answer is the delta-V required daily to effect the plane change for differential precession for the insertion orbit.  Can anyone estimate the altitude at which the Centaur could deliver the pod and wait, while still being able to descend for disposal?  How many restarts can a Centaur do and how long can it remain functional? 

In last night's MMS launch, the Centaur's first burn gave it an apogee around 350 km.  That would be a good altitude for a CRS-2 delivery in a three burn profile: inject, circularize, and descend to the atmosphere.

It they make Jupiter symmetrical, they need two sets of main thrusters.

Perhaps the LEE is lighter than the exoliner docking mechanism

Perhaps they want the flexibility of having a second end effector for non-CRS missions, like satellite servicing or an L2 outpost.

Isn't this concept based on an existing satellite bus? Maybe it's cheaper to modify the bus by simply sticking the end effector on LEGO-style (which it looks like in the pictures), versus redesigning the whole bus to make it symmetrical?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: robert_d on 03/13/2015 09:09 pm
So the top picture is between panel 4 and 5 of arachnitect's diagram? Is that correct? 


From the Lockheed Martin website:
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: robert_d on 03/13/2015 09:15 pm
I thought that ULA intended to phase out the Centaur upper stage in favor of a wider version? Not that that would change the concept, would it?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/13/2015 09:19 pm
A CRS mission will be something like this.
1) Jupiter + exoliner dock with ISS.
2) A month later Jupiter + Exoliner (full of rubbish, maybe Jon's HatchBasket with its payload.) departs ISS.
3) Jupiter with Exoliner fly off and do secondary mission eg deploy satellites.
 4) Months( maybe a year)later Jupiter meets Centuar and swaps Exoliners.
5) Centuar deorbits. Jupiter docks with ISS.

NB secondary payload has full use of Jupiter for months at a time.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 03/13/2015 10:40 pm
Also, does the LM CRS2 proposal warrant its own thread?

Report the thread if you think so.  I think it should be split off at the first LM-Jupiter post because it's an interesting spacecraft concept that's not limited to ISS CRS-2.  (The first time I saw the attached image I immediately thought of a Hubble servicing mission.)

Either the mods disagree with the idea of a thread split or they haven't seen my report yet.  Or they're being lazy and waiting for more reports to roll in. :)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2015 10:41 pm
Someone set up a new thread for the Lockheed stuff in this section.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2015 11:15 pm
Fine. Here's the new thread to discuss Jupiter:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37034.0
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/13/2015 11:52 pm
Does CRS2 allow for more than 2 vehicles?

I was thinking of keeping Dragon and Cygnus plus adding one Jupiter mission per year. NASA may decide to add another vehicle for down mass redundancy, eg CST100 or DC.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: rayleighscatter on 03/14/2015 12:00 am
Does CRS2 allow for more than 2 vehicles?

I was thinking of keeping Dragon and Cygnus plus adding one Jupiter mission per year. NASA may decide to add another vehicle for down mass redundancy, eg CST100 or DC.
No, it doesn't specify the number of contracts to be awarded.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 03/14/2015 01:08 am
Since this is a CRS contract, I'm assuming that all vehicle development costs will be paid for by the companies making their various pitches, not by NASA or other government agencies.  They'll only pay for the delivery and return services.  It's not a COTS equivalent.  Is this correct?
Cheers

One can only hope!

Yes, more market forces in the space transport industry is a good thing for all of us want to see space access decrease in cost with a concomitant radical increase in flight frequency and mass to orbit.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 03/14/2015 03:56 pm
Now that people have looked at Jupiter what chance do you see of it at least getting a piece of the CRS2 contract such as 1 -2 flights?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 03:58 pm
Might be prudent for LM to approach reuse incrementally so as to reduce initial risk and cost?

Strip it down to a disposable system; get rid of the arm and anything else possible.  Essentially an HTV or Cygnus++, which is not as exciting as a reusable space tug, but potentially much less initial risk and cost.  Do the first flights in disposable mode, then move to reusable later.

OTOH, it may not be possible to get the price down to a reasonable and competitive level when disposable (even for a few initial flights), so it may be reuse required from the start for the business case to close.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: MDDevice on 03/14/2015 04:05 pm
SNC will hold a press conference on March 17th about the cargo version of DC.

http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=45303
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 03/14/2015 04:08 pm
NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS, just with a shorter version of MPLM (although there's no reason in principle they couldn't use a whole MPLM sized container, especially once the tug is placed in orbit).

The CRS-2 evaluation criteria does not care about fuzzy NASA future or potential needs; it cares only about meeting CRS-2 requirements at the lowest cost and risk, as spelled out in the CRS-2 RFP.

If LM can make a competitive bid that addresses CRS-2 requirements and is competitive, wonderful and more power to them.  If LM cannot make a competitive bid that addresses CRS-2 requirements and which is competitive, its ability to meet future or potential NASA needs is irrelevant with respect to CRS-2.

While I agree that LM's proposal has great potential, I have doubts that it will competitive for CRS-2.  In any case, I look forward to reading the CRS-2 selection statement.

I completely agree wit that. I was disapointed when NASA said in the CCtCap selection statement that the fact that the CST-100 could carry more cargo than other companies was a positive. It should have been a negative. If you provide stuff that NASA didn't require, it increases cost of a mission for no reason. Plus, it isn't really fair. If NASA wants a space tug, it should allow all commercial companies to bid for it. Cygnus could also easily be turned into a tug. Hopefully, NASA will look at prices for CRS-2 and not what is the "best value" for the government (which is a very subjective criteria).

I'll have to go reread the source selection document but I don't think the advantage for CST-100 was so much "more cargo" as just having a really specific plan for how they were going to accommodate it. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen a rendering or mockup of Dragon2 or Dreamchaser in an ISS mission configuration, but well before the CCtCap bids went in there were renderings and mockups of CST in its ISS configuration showing exactly where all the lockers and freezers were, how they would be accessed, etc.

Yes, I agree. But I am just saying that the fact that the CST-100 provided more cargo should not have been seen as a positive. It should have been a negative because it increases the cost of the CST-100 and of the Atlas V which uses a heavier version (the 422). But you are right, I don't believe that extra cargo capacity was the main reason that CST-100 won.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/14/2015 04:14 pm
Now that people have looked at Jupiter what chance do you see of it at least getting a piece of the CRS2 contract such as 1 -2 flights?

This probably belongs back in the main CRS II thread, but I see three possible scenarios:

1. 3-4 Dragon + 1-2 Cygnus per year. [80% likelihood]

2. 4 Dragon + 1 "Jupiter-Exoliner" every year. [12%]

3. ~3 Dragon + 1-2 Cygnus + 1 cargo CST-100 per year [8%]
 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 04:23 pm
If Jupiter gets just 4-5 flights, the per-flight cost would be about twice the amount it'd be if they got 15+ flights. Barely worth it.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 04:34 pm
Remember, both HTV and ATV are basically retired.

They were flying 3 Dragon and 2 Cygni.

So I can easily see:

2 Dragon cargo, 2 Exoliners, 2 Cygnus, plus a little extra cargo on crewed CST-100 and Dragon.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/14/2015 04:38 pm
If Jupiter gets just 4-5 flights, the per-flight cost would be about twice the amount it'd be if they got 15+ flights. Barely worth it.

I don't think NASA thinks in terms of "is this a good deal?"

NASA thinks more like "Does this solve our problem and if so can we afford it?"

Tortured analogy: NASA wants a drink and goes to the store. They want a Coke and they can afford a Coke. So they buy a Coke. Meanwhile a hundred NSF posters scream about how Kirkland Signature Cola tastes just as good and is $0.0015 cheaper per mL and NASA is stupid to buy a Coke. But NASA got what they wanted at what they feel is a fair price so they don't care.

Remember, both HTV and ATV are basically retired.

They were flying 3 Dragon and 2 Cygni.

So I can easily see:

2 Dragon cargo, 2 Exoliners, 2 Cygnus, plus a little extra cargo on crewed CST-100 and Dragon.

Yeah I think I worked this stuff out against the CRS-II RFP a while ago but I may be remembering wrong. But remember that NASA really really wants more downmass, especially once they get another crewmember up there doing science.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/14/2015 04:41 pm
Remember, both HTV and ATV are basically retired.

They were flying 3 Dragon and 2 Cygni.

So I can easily see:

2 Dragon cargo, 2 Exoliners, 2 Cygnus, plus a little extra cargo on crewed CST-100 and Dragon.

Not for the HTV - at least 5 more mission are confirmed till 2019.

Hence I don't think Jupiter will made it in for CRS-2, but after that it may have some chance for bids from 2020 onwards.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/14/2015 04:44 pm
If fuel depots ever eventuate, the tug could be used for docking fuel tanks.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 04:53 pm
Now that people have looked at Jupiter what chance do you see of it at least getting a piece of the CRS2 contract such as 1 -2 flights?

IMHO the probability of LM getting an initial CRS-2 contract is low-to-nil.  LM's proposal is net new (regardless of components' flight heritage), with attendant effort, cost and risk.  DDT&E is going to be reflected in their CRS-2 pricing whether explicitly or implicitly.

There are three CRS-2 competitors starting with closely related systems that are in use, or will be in use: SpaceX, Orbital and Boeing.  Assuming they are proposing changes for CRS-2, their effort, cost and risk will be incremental.  (Not to mention HTV overlap with Jupiter capabilities in the near term.)

Moreover, Jupiter cannot provide pressurized return based on what we have seen, so there will be at least one additional provider--never mind multiple provider competition and redundancy concerns.  Once you factor in an additional provider(s), Jupiter's higher volume/mass capabilities become less significant.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 03/14/2015 05:02 pm
I wonder if this is a reasonable line of argument.

CongressNASA will want one of the old space companies in the mix. Flying with Atlas V. That could be Boeing with the CST-100 or Lockheed Martin. CST-100 overlaps a lot with Dragon and NASA would not want to terminate the flights of the one contractor that provides downmass at very reasonable cost, so they chose Lockheed Martin if their offer is even remotely competetive with Orbital, which I believe it will be counted in $/kg. Twice the price for twice the cargo per flight.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 05:05 pm
Remember, both HTV and ATV are basically retired.

They were flying 3 Dragon and 2 Cygni.

So I can easily see:

2 Dragon cargo, 2 Exoliners, 2 Cygnus, plus a little extra cargo on crewed CST-100 and Dragon.

Not for the HTV - at least 5 more mission are confirmed till 2019.

Hence I don't think Jupiter will made it in for CRS-2, but after that it may have some chance for bids from 2020 onwards.
Except that CRS-2 is for through 2024, I believe. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) So that's only 3 out of 8 years which we'll still have HTV.

And even with HTV, you're still missing out on those ATV flights.

So yeah, 2-3 cargo Dragon, around 2 Cygnuses maybe, then up to 2 Exoliners per year, perhaps back-loaded so it starts with 1 Exoliner per year and goes to 2, for a total of ~13 Exoliners. That's enough so that the tug itself is well-amortized over the life of the contract such that you're not likely to significantly reduce per-launch costs by totally eliminating Cygnus. (Just 8 Exoliners total would be a lot more marginal, though.)




Sidenote: As far as down-mass, both crewed Dragon and CST-100 are capable of taking down significant science (FAR more than Soyuz), and there will be at least 2 of those per year, giving a total of 4-5 down-mass opportunities instead of the current 2-3 with just cargo Dragon. That additional downmass would be handled by commercial crew, though, not by CRS-2.

I also can't see them cutting cargo Dragon, since it is the cheapest way (with the largest berthing port) of sending downmass and is already well-proven.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 05:12 pm
I wonder if this is a reasonable line of argument.

CongressNASA will want one of the old space companies in the mix. Flying with Atlas V. That could be Boeing with the CST-100 or Lockheed Martin. CST-100 overlaps a lot with Dragon and NASA would not want to terminate the flights of the one contractor that provides downmass at very reasonable cost, so they chose Lockheed Martin if their offer is even remotely competetive with Orbital, which I believe it will be counted in $/kg. Twice the price for twice the cargo per flight.
Also, I believe Exoliner is big enough that you can fit full ISS racks inside, just like HTV or MPLM. (Dragon MIGHT be able to do that for a single full rack if you modify the internal packing layout, but it can't do that currently and it'd fill up a lot of the free space inside.)

Cygnus can't do that due to the smaller hatch and it'd be awkward even without that constraint, since the diameter of Cygnus is different from MPLM and the other station modules.


OH! BTW, the tug DOES solve the problem of how to launch satellites from ISS to higher altitudes or (slightly) different inclinations. Theoretically, it could also be used to capture small, quick-turnaround packages sent up to ISS (and back down if it has a small heatshield), that way those payloads don't have to solve the problem of how to safely enter and exit the ISS keep-out zone. It could also in principle fuel up satellites sent to ISS empty for safety concerns. (And yeah, it is sort of weird to launch satellites from ISS, but we're doing it anyway.)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 05:26 pm
Sidenote: As far as down-mass, both crewed Dragon and CST-100 are capable of taking down significant science (FAR more than Soyuz), and there will be at least 2 of those per year, giving a total of 4-5 down-mass opportunities instead of the current 2-3 with just cargo Dragon. That additional downmass would be handled by commercial crew, though, not by CRS-2.

CCtCap may help with some return down-mass, but the CRS-2 return down-mass requirement is independent of CCtCap.  For CRS-2, if all pressurized return (not disposal), the minimum requirement is 2500kg/flight (for a given standard mission configuration).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 05:30 pm
Sidenote: As far as down-mass, both crewed Dragon and CST-100 are capable of taking down significant science (FAR more than Soyuz), and there will be at least 2 of those per year, giving a total of 4-5 down-mass opportunities instead of the current 2-3 with just cargo Dragon. That additional downmass would be handled by commercial crew, though, not by CRS-2.

CCtCap may help with some return down-mass, but the CRS-2 return down-mass requirement is independent of CCtCap.  For CRS-2, if all pressurized return (not disposal), the minimum requirement is 2500kg/flight (for a given standard mission configuration).
I realize that, but there is no one piece of equipment that is 2500kg. Outside of the fiction created by the strictures of the CRS-2 bid requirements, the crew missions will be an important part of recovered downmass considerations.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 05:43 pm
I realize that, but there is no one piece of equipment that is 2500kg. Outside of the fiction created by the strictures of the CRS-2 bid requirements, the crew missions will be an important part of recovered downmass considerations.

Yes, crew missions will undoubtedly be important.  However, the CRS-2 requirements are not "fiction".  Those requirements are what they are, the requirements that must be met, and the requirements on which proposals will be evaluated.  They are independent of CCtCap.

(And what does "no one piece of equipment that is 2500kg" have to do with anything?  The return requirement is neutral as to whether it is a single piece of equipment, science samples, or bags of trash.)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Norm38 on 03/14/2015 05:43 pm
Quote
No. The tug would decelerate the container to a reentry and fly back to a stable orbit

The trash container is de-orbited by Centaur not the tug.

So now we're back to how the old and new containers are swapped.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Steam Chaser on 03/14/2015 05:44 pm
Now that people have looked at Jupiter what chance do you see of it at least getting a piece of the CRS2 contract such as 1 -2 flights?

This probably belongs back in the main CRS II thread, but I see three possible scenarios:

1. 3-4 Dragon + 1-2 Cygnus per year. [80% likelihood]

2. 4 Dragon + 1 "Jupiter-Exoliner" every year. [12%]

3. ~3 Dragon + 1-2 Cygnus + 1 cargo CST-100 per year [8%]

I think NASA is looking for more cargo per year now than in CRS-1, and they are looking for 4-5 cargo flights per year.  To many flights taxes the astronauts too much, and too few doesn't give enough opportunities to get supplies that aren't expected ahead of time (e.g.: something breaks and needs to be replaced).  That implies that they're looking for more capable cargo systems than in CRS-1.  On the other hand, having already-developed and proven cargo systems is a big advantage.  Who knows how long it will take to develop a new system?  NASA won't want to count on a new one.  So my per-year guess, assuming the Dragon/Cygnus bids are pretty close to what they are in CRS-1, would be:

~2-3 Dragon
~2 Cygnus
~1 "something else on Atlas V"

In later years as it proves itself the "something else" might get a bigger cut.

For the "something else", CST-100 has the advantage that the crew version is being developed already.  However, Jupiter/Exoliner seem to meet NASA's needs more (getting the mass/volume NASA wants in, or closer to, that 4/5 flight per year box).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/14/2015 05:47 pm
Quote
No. The tug would decelerate the container to a reentry and fly back to a stable orbit

The trash container is de-orbited by Centaur not the tug.

So now we're back to how the old and new containers are swapped.

Ronsmytheiii had a theory I like and illustrated in this post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1345849#msg1345849
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: guckyfan on 03/14/2015 06:00 pm
How long can centaur be in orbit and still be able to do a deorbit burn?

Assuming the reattachment can be done. How long would it all take from rendezvous after takeoff to swap of the cargo modules completed? The centaur will have to be active for that period and the period will not be too short.

Just in general, I believe it quite possible that Lockheed Martin has considered the requirements and has a plan how to achieve the goal. ;)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 06:09 pm
I realize that, but there is no one piece of equipment that is 2500kg. Outside of the fiction created by the strictures of the CRS-2 bid requirements, the crew missions will be an important part of recovered downmass considerations.

Yes, crew missions will undoubtedly be important.  However, the CRS-2 requirements are not "fiction".
They are how the bids will be judged, but not how logistics will be planned and operated. It's in that sense that they are fiction.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 06:19 pm
... So my per-year guess, assuming the Dragon/Cygnus bids are pretty close to what they are in CRS-1, would be ...

So what if Cygnus adds unpressurized up/disposal capability?  Or Dragon or CST-100 adds a trunk module for pressurized up/disposal?  If sufficient additional pressurized up and disposal capability were available with Dragon or CST-100, that could significantly change the equation, and Dragon or CST-100 might satisfy all CRS-2 requirements with four CRS flights/year.  Which would leave Cygnus and Jupiter in the dust.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 06:31 pm
They are how the bids will be judged, but not how logistics will be planned and operated. It's in that sense that they are fiction.
I hope and expect that logistics planning and operation was involved in developing the CRS-2 requirements, and that those requirements are not simply pro-forma.  Or maybe I'm being overly optimistic.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 06:36 pm
Now that people have looked at Jupiter what chance do you see of it at least getting a piece of the CRS2 contract such as 1 -2 flights?

This probably belongs back in the main CRS II thread, but I see three possible scenarios:

1. 3-4 Dragon + 1-2 Cygnus per year. [80% likelihood]

2. 4 Dragon + 1 "Jupiter-Exoliner" every year. [12%]

3. ~3 Dragon + 1-2 Cygnus + 1 cargo CST-100 per year [8%]

I think NASA is looking for more cargo per year now than in CRS-1, and they are looking for 4-5 cargo flights per year.  To many flights taxes the astronauts too much, and too few doesn't give enough opportunities to get supplies that aren't expected ahead of time (e.g.: something breaks and needs to be replaced).  That implies that they're looking for more capable cargo systems than in CRS-1.  On the other hand, having already-developed and proven cargo systems is a big advantage.  Who knows how long it will take to develop a new system?  NASA won't want to count on a new one.  So my per-year guess, assuming the Dragon/Cygnus bids are pretty close to what they are in CRS-1, would be:

~2-3 Dragon
~2 Cygnus
~1 "something else on Atlas V"

In later years as it proves itself the "something else" might get a bigger cut.

For the "something else", CST-100 has the advantage that the crew version is being developed already.  However, Jupiter/Exoliner seem to meet NASA's needs more (getting the mass/volume NASA wants in, or closer to, that 4/5 flight per year box).
Agreed.

The Jupiter/Exoliner fits better the constraint on having as few cargo flights as reasonable (it has the most volume and payload of any of the proposals so far, by a significant margin) while being capable of both pressurized and unpressurized upmass and disposal and all that at a (presumably) quite reasonable cost since the spacecraft part is reused each time.

It also has a list of fairly unique attributes that would no doubt prove valuable to NASA operationally or to NASA's mission:
1) Should have capability to send up (and dispose of) multiple full ISS racks. Not as critical as it once was, but currently only HTV can do this.
2) Can transfer fluids. This makes water logistics more efficient and allows fuller use of the launch vehicle's capacity to launch water (or whatever).
3) Large unpressurized volume.
4) Tug capability with an arm would allow adding new modules to Station or some future station or outpost or interplanetary transfer vehicle at EML1/2 or lunar DRO.
5) Makes in-orbit rendezvous and docking/berthing fairly simple. The tug and the upperstage do all the work. So if you need, say, two SLS or two Delta IV Heavy or two Falcon Heavy launches in order to launch something big (like a Mars surface rendezvous or something), you don't have to add rendezvous capability to each piece, you can just off-load that to the tug. This is useful for more than just human spaceflight missions, of course. If you use this with less expensive launch vehicles (like Falcon Heavy), it would be cheap enough for unma'ammed missions, too.
6) It makes propellant transfer a US-native TRL-9 (i.e. not just tech demo but operational) technology and provides a template for a propellant tanker. This could end up being pretty useful if NASA decides to keep ISS running after the Russians leave.
7) In combination with propellant transfer, it gives the US options for controlled deorbit of ISS, if for whatever reason Progress isn't an option.
8) As a solar-electric tug (a later version of Jupiter), it'd also allow the ability to move payloads to different orbits. Launch stuff on ISS, move it to higher orbit. Launch stuff to LEO on a reusable launch vehicle, move it up to GTO or lunar orbit or whatever.
9) Is an obvious platform for robotic servicing.

I don't know exactly how the rest of these things would factor into the CRS-2 bid decision (if at all), but they certainly can't hurt. (Although for whatever reason, it seems that a lot of people dislike something if it's genuinely useful for more than a single thing... This is irrational, but I've seen it more than once, especially as related to space architectures.)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 06:41 pm
... So my per-year guess, assuming the Dragon/Cygnus bids are pretty close to what they are in CRS-1, would be ...

So what if Cygnus adds unpressurized up/disposal capability?  Or Dragon or CST-100 adds a trunk module for pressurized up/disposal?  If sufficient additional pressurized up and disposal capability were available with Dragon or CST-100, that could significantly change the equation, and Dragon or CST-100 might satisfy all CRS-2 requirements with four CRS flights/year.  Which would leave Cygnus and Jupiter in the dust.
I doubt that. The CRS-2 requirements seem written to favor the much larger volume of Cygnus and Exoliner (Jupiter). Recoverable down-mass capability is necessarily fairly volume-limited (inflatable heatshield would help change that trade-off, but is too low-TRL for this sort of thing), so I am confident that both reentry craft bid(s) and big-tin-can bid(s) will be chosen. And no, I don't think Dragon or CST-100 will include a separate tin can.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 06:50 pm
I don't know exactly how the rest of these things would factor into the CRS-2 bid decision (if at all), but they certainly can't hurt. (Although for whatever reason, it seems that a lot of people dislike something if it's genuinely useful for more than a single thing... This is irrational, but I've seen it more than once, especially as related to space architectures.)

If they come at no additional risk or cost, then they are irrelevant.  If they come with additional risk and cost, then they are relevant.  The rationality of the decision, and like or dislike, has nothing to do with whether the solution is "useful for more than a single thing", but its risk and cost.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jongoff on 03/14/2015 06:51 pm
How long can centaur be in orbit and still be able to do a deorbit burn?

Assuming the reattachment can be done. How long would it all take from rendezvous after takeoff to swap of the cargo modules completed? The centaur will have to be active for that period and the period will not be too short.

Just in general, I believe it quite possible that Lockheed Martin has considered the requirements and has a plan how to achieve the goal. ;)

If IVF is flying in time, Centaur will have no problem hanging around long enough for this mission. Even without IVF, Centaur has done half-day missions, and could probably be "kitted" to support a reasonable duration for a mission like this, especially if they do a fast rendezvous like Soyuz has been doing lately.

~Jon
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/14/2015 07:02 pm
Items to add to the list above:
 * leverages the assets of the ISS - including human interaction and return
 * works with hazardous (i.e. non-ISS bound) applications
 * can function as a "repurposable" sat
 * can host sensor / imaging platforms (note coverage of 52 degrees inclination)
 * CRS-2 payloads can "ride share" with non-insignificant secondary payloads
 * non CRS-2 missions can make use of same capabilities
 * "frequent flyer" usage can reduce parasitic payload loss by substituting Jupiter on-orbit "services"

As to the "irrational" above, its because you mess with certain peoples "perfect world" vision / hallucination.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 07:12 pm
I doubt that. The CRS-2 requirements seem written to favor the much larger volume of Cygnus and Exoliner (Jupiter). Recoverable down-mass capability is necessarily fairly volume-limited (inflatable heatshield would help change that trade-off, but is too low-TRL for this sort of thing), so I am confident that both reentry craft bid(s) and big-tin-can bid(s) will be chosen. And no, I don't think Dragon or CST-100 will include a separate tin can.

Not necessarily.  At an optimal four flights/year with a total desired pressurized up-mass of 15000kg/yr over four flights = 3750kg/flight.  Again, Cygnus in its present form, and Jupiter as we know it today, cannot alone meet CRS-2 requirements.

Therefore there will be other providers.  Therefore the higher mass/volume capability of Jupiter (or Cygnus or whatever) for up-mass is a less significant benefit, and thus likely to be awarded a marginal number of flights ("gap filler" if you will, which increases cost/flight).

As to whether SpaceX or Boeing proposes an additional/optional pressurized tin can, we will have to see.  But, if proposed, I have to believe the cost and risk for such is significantly lower than what LM is proposing.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/14/2015 07:50 pm
About disposal, if I understand correctly Hohmann transfer orbits, in order to go from ISS orbit to delivery orbit you need (simplifying it) a deorbit backburn to lower orbit and a new burn to stabilize on the rendevouz orbit. If the discarded PCM would be jettisoned before the last burn, wouldn't it safely deorbit and burn up even before you reach the Centaur? On the other hand, swapping PCMs would indeed allow for a more controlled deorbit.

No, the transfer orbit is an eliptical orbit with its low point at the intended low altitude and its high point at the original higher altitude.  If you discarded the PCM before the last burn, it would stay in the eliptical orbit, going back and forth between the low altitude and the high altitude.  It would eventually deorbit, just as anything in any low Earth orbit would, but more slowly than if it were in the Centaur's orbit even without the Centaur's de-orbit burn.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 08:53 pm
I don't know exactly how the rest of these things would factor into the CRS-2 bid decision (if at all), but they certainly can't hurt. (Although for whatever reason, it seems that a lot of people dislike something if it's genuinely useful for more than a single thing... This is irrational, but I've seen it more than once, especially as related to space architectures.)

If they come at no additional risk or cost, then they are irrelevant.  If they come with additional risk and cost, then they are relevant.  The rationality of the decision, and like or dislike, has nothing to do with whether the solution is "useful for more than a single thing", but its risk and cost.
Cost also matters. This solution allows an Atlas V-based solution to be cost-competitive with the cheaper-launch Antares-based Cygnus.

Atlas V (especially 501) is a very, very reliable launch vehicle, so much so that it likely would easily overwhelm the tiny added perceived risk of doing things a little differently with rendezvous. And once Jupiter is in orbit, there's a lot less deployment risk. Once a spacecraft is functioning and in orbit, it's unlikely to just randomly breakdown (infant mortality tends to dominate). So past the initial mission, it could easily have a much, much lower per-launch risk overall than something like Cygnus.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jtrame on 03/14/2015 09:04 pm
Looks like something that is needed long term and the short term use will satisfy the tenants of CRS2.

We can't dismiss the forward-looking component of this proposal as a non starter simply due to the written requirements of CRS2.  A computer is not making the decision; humans will make the call.  The seed has been planted.  Human nature will play a role. 

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 09:21 pm
Atlas V (especially 501) is a very, very reliable launch vehicle, so much so that it likely would easily overwhelm the tiny added perceived risk of doing things a little differently with rendezvous.
Yes, cost matters, which is partly a reflection of risk, which has been my point (sorry if that has not been clear).  The LV risk is, IMHO, a relatively minor part of this equation.

Quote
And once Jupiter is in orbit, there's a lot less deployment risk. Once a spacecraft is functioning and in orbit, it's unlikely to just randomly breakdown (infant mortality tends to dominate). So past the initial mission, it could easily have a much, much lower per-launch risk overall than something like Cygnus.
Yes... "once Jupiter is in orbit"... once DDT&E is complete... once the bugs have been worked out... I agree that it could have a lower risk.  It is getting to that point, and specifically in the context of CRS-2, which is the question.  Can LM do the development, deploy it, and make it work reliably on a day-to-day basis, and be competitive given the competition?  I have doubts.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 09:30 pm
We can't dismiss the forward-looking component of this proposal as a non starter simply due to the written requirements of CRS2.

The CRS-2 requirements and evaluation criteria are cold and uncaring, and do not give a whit about any possibilities not otherwise called for in those requirements and evaluation criteria.

edit: If you want to talk about possibilities independent of CRS-2, I think Jupiter has potential (in which case this is not the proper thread for that discussion).  In the context of CRS-2--which is what this thread is about--the CRS-2 requirements cannot be dismissed.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/14/2015 09:39 pm
Atlas V (especially 501) is a very, very reliable launch vehicle, so much so that it likely would easily overwhelm the tiny added perceived risk of doing things a little differently with rendezvous.
Yes, cost matters, which is partly a reflection of risk, which has been my point (sorry if that has not been clear).  The LV risk is, IMHO, a relatively minor part of this equation.

Quote
And once Jupiter is in orbit, there's a lot less deployment risk. Once a spacecraft is functioning and in orbit, it's unlikely to just randomly breakdown (infant mortality tends to dominate). So past the initial mission, it could easily have a much, much lower per-launch risk overall than something like Cygnus.
Yes... "once Jupiter is in orbit"... once DDT&E is complete... once the bugs have been worked out... I agree that it could have a lower risk.  It is getting to that point, and specifically in the context of CRS-2, which is the question.  Can LM do the development, deploy it, and make it work reliably on a day-to-day basis, and be competitive given the competition?  I have doubts.

I think the risk of the first Jupiter failing is comparable to the risk of a new interstellar probe built on an existing, proven bus failing.  The U.S. has a very good record with such probes, especially in recent decades.  LM is involved with a lot of that -- the very bus that Jupiter is planned to use is also on MAVEN.  So I think the chances of the first Jupiter working as planned are very good.

And even if the first Jupiter fails, it's not that big a deal as far as CRS-2 is concerned because they can fly another one soon after if the first fails, and in the meantime there are other providers.  The Cygnus failure shows NASA isn't affected much by one provider being down for a year.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 10:01 pm
And even if the first Jupiter fails, it's not that big a deal as far as CRS-2 is concerned because they can fly another one soon after if the first fails, and in the meantime there are other providers.  The Cygnus failure shows NASA isn't affected much by one provider being down for a year.

If it is not that big a deal, then why go there?  Again, how much are you willing to pay for reliable ISS supply as a system (i.e., independent of individual providers)?  At best, I see Jupiter as a marginal addition, which makes it less attractive.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 10:07 pm
Atlas V (especially 501) is a very, very reliable launch vehicle, so much so that it likely would easily overwhelm the tiny added perceived risk of doing things a little differently with rendezvous.
Yes, cost matters, which is partly a reflection of risk, which has been my point (sorry if that has not been clear).  The LV risk is, IMHO, a relatively minor part of this equation.

Quote
And once Jupiter is in orbit, there's a lot less deployment risk. Once a spacecraft is functioning and in orbit, it's unlikely to just randomly breakdown (infant mortality tends to dominate). So past the initial mission, it could easily have a much, much lower per-launch risk overall than something like Cygnus.
Yes... "once Jupiter is in orbit"... once DDT&E is complete... once the bugs have been worked out... I agree that it could have a lower risk.  It is getting to that point, and specifically in the context of CRS-2, which is the question.  Can LM do the development, deploy it, and make it work reliably on a day-to-day basis, and be competitive given the competition?  I have doubts.

I think the risk of the first Jupiter failing is comparable to the risk of a new interstellar probe built on an existing, proven bus failing.  The U.S. has a very good record with such probes, especially in recent decades.  LM is involved with a lot of that -- the very bus that Jupiter is planned to use is also on MAVEN.  So I think the chances of the first Jupiter working as planned are very good.

And even if the first Jupiter fails, it's not that big a deal as far as CRS-2 is concerned because they can fly another one soon after if the first fails, and in the meantime there are other providers.  The Cygnus failure shows NASA isn't affected much by one provider being down for a year.
I agree with your point. Failure is not likely. And by using the most reliable launch vehicle around (Atlas V), they're buying down the risk so much that I'd probably score it just as high as Cygnus-on-Antares.

...but I would like to see where you're finding these interstellar probes. ;)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 10:11 pm
And even if the first Jupiter fails, it's not that big a deal as far as CRS-2 is concerned because they can fly another one soon after if the first fails, and in the meantime there are other providers.  The Cygnus failure shows NASA isn't affected much by one provider being down for a year.

If it is not that big a deal, then why go there?  Again, how much are you willing to pay for reliable ISS supply as a system (i.e., independent of individual providers)?  At best, I see Jupiter as a marginal addition, which makes it less attractive.
You see wrong, then. It's the most volume-capable of any of the options and the only one capable of full racks like HTV. It's an attractive option. No guarantee of being picked, but it's certainly a good showing by Lockheed.

Also, CRS was never about extreme risk aversion as you seem to imply (and the latest round, CRS-2, is no different). Toilet paper, tang, and t-shirts are cheap to replace and ISS has plenty of margin for a failure or two without drastically affecting anything.

This is NOT the same as some unique, multi-billion-dollar national security payload. This is why NASA was ever willing to put station supply on totally new launch vehicles to start. A strong bid by an experienced player using an existing satellite bus on the most reliable launch vehicle available is not worth considering "too risk-averse to be viable," and so there must be some other reason. I don't get what the REAL reason you don't like the Jupiter/Exoliner concept is.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Avron on 03/14/2015 10:13 pm
And even if the first Jupiter fails, it's not that big a deal as far as CRS-2 is concerned because they can fly another one soon after if the first fails, and in the meantime there are other providers.  The Cygnus failure shows NASA isn't affected much by one provider being down for a year.

If it is not that big a deal, then why go there?  Again, how much are you willing to pay for reliable ISS supply as a system (i.e., independent of individual providers)?  At best, I see Jupiter as a marginal addition, which makes it less attractive.

Looking at the benefits the Tug in ISS context brings, I fail to see many over the status quo. I see increased costs, with increased risks. 
The first question that comes to mind is what does it really replace, or for that matter where is the reuse to the existing proven means?
What is the increased fuel use in orbit to make use of a tug?
How to safely use the tug to  de-orbit spacecraft?
What will it cost to maintain a tug in orbit?

Each of these are covered to the extent of the tug gets reused. but does to show any benefit /risk or cost reduction

 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 10:38 pm
And even if the first Jupiter fails, it's not that big a deal as far as CRS-2 is concerned because they can fly another one soon after if the first fails, and in the meantime there are other providers.  The Cygnus failure shows NASA isn't affected much by one provider being down for a year.

If it is not that big a deal, then why go there?  Again, how much are you willing to pay for reliable ISS supply as a system (i.e., independent of individual providers)?  At best, I see Jupiter as a marginal addition, which makes it less attractive.

Looking at the benefits the Tug in ISS context brings, I fail to see many over the status quo. I see increased costs, with increased risks. 
The costs are decreased significantly. Exoliner has roughly twice Cygnus's volume, and not having to build a new bus each time (which is usually the majority of the cost!) means they save enough to use a more powerful and much more reliable launch vehicle. (Cygnus/Antares is the status quo).

Quote
The first question that comes to mind is what does it really replace, or for that matter where is the reuse to the existing proven means?
Unclear question, but the arm has some heritage from Shuttle and ISS, the bus is a typical Lockheed bus used for spacecraft in the past, and the Exoliner is made on ATV, Cygnus, and ISS module heritage.
Quote
What is the increased fuel use in orbit to make use of a tug?
Not really any. Remember, using a tug means you don't have to launch a new spacecraft bus each time, so that saves significant mass.
Quote
How to safely use the tug to  de-orbit spacecraft?
Addressed up-thread.
Quote
What will it cost to maintain a tug in orbit?
Nothing significant, really. The tug just sits there like any other bird until another Exoliner is launched. It is refueled once it docks/berths to the new Exoliner. That's the nice thing: it can be reused without having to withstand the rigors (and subsequent refurbishment) of reentry and another launch. There's nothing magically complicated about refueling, either. Salyut 6 (in orbit 5 years), Salyut 7 (9 years), Mir (15 years for the first module and had several such modules), and ISS's Zvezda and Zarya (in orbit 14 & 15 years respectively and will be 25+ years by the time ISS is EOL) all had/have such capability.

Quote
Each of these are covered to the extent of the tug gets reused. but does to show any benefit /risk or cost reduction
The cost reduction is you can just build a dumb container, not a super-expensive spacecraft every mission. It also means there's more room for payload (as mentioned above) per-launch and less risk of infant mortality. And the fact that you're also doing much more payload per launch (both volume and mass) also contributes to the savings.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 11:12 pm
You see wrong, then. It's the most volume-capable of any of the options and the only one capable of full racks like HTV. It's an attractive option. No guarantee of being picked, but it's certainly a good showing by Lockheed.

This may be a case of missing the forest for the trees.  If it was a matter of this one vehicle capable of satisfying the requirements against all others, then yes, it might be at the top of the list.  But it is not.  It is one vehicle among others which will be required to satisfy the system requirements.  That it may be the most volume-capable as a single vehicle is irrelevant alone.  The question is what is the relevance of that large volume in the context of the overall ISS supply requirements and competition?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2015 01:37 am
You see wrong, then. It's the most volume-capable of any of the options and the only one capable of full racks like HTV. It's an attractive option. No guarantee of being picked, but it's certainly a good showing by Lockheed.

This may be a case of missing the forest for the trees.  If it was a matter of this one vehicle capable of satisfying the requirements against all others, then yes, it might be at the top of the list.  But it is not.  It is one vehicle among others which will be required to satisfy the system requirements.  That it may be the most volume-capable as a single vehicle is irrelevant alone.  The question is what is the relevance of that large volume in the context of the overall ISS supply requirements and competition?
What do you see as its competitor? Cygnus is the only one I can see.

The only folk who can do recoverable downmass would have a big problem with getting enough pressurized upmass in as few flights as NASA wants.

Are you thinking that NASA will pick a single provider, or act as if they will pick just a single provider and not complementary providers?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/15/2015 08:12 am
This is from the beginning of the CRS-2 RFP:

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.


Thanks Steam Chaser for this information.

If CRS2 goes from 2018-2024 that is 7 years ie 2 billion a year.

There should be enough money and payloads to support 4 suppliers.
Here is one example with some guesses on prices.
Jupiter/Exoliner 1 x$400m
Dragon  2x $150m  = $300m
CST100 or Dream Chaser (can't see both flying)  2x 200m = $400m
Cygnus 2 x $200m = $400m
Total = $1.5B (Still money for some extra flights)

Dragon is a given as it is flying, cheap and most important of all, LV (f9) is different from all of the competition. (Edited)
Same can be said for Cygnus, except maybe the price.
Due to the importance on down mass, adding another vehicle to backup Dragon would make sense even if it is more expensive hence CST100 or Dream Chaser but doubt there is room for both.
Jupiter is dark horse but it does fill ATV hole and may end up being cheaper than Cygnus per kg and m3.

With 4 different vehicles and 3 LVs there is no shortage of redundancy.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: JBF on 03/15/2015 12:05 pm

Dragon is a given as it is flying, cheap and most important of all, LV independent of all competition.


Dragon is not LV independent. It is not designed to fit in a fairing and is does not have a central mounting point.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 03/15/2015 12:53 pm
Optimistically
Jupiter/Exoliner is just the MAVEN bus with a few tweeks, the ATV pressurized section and Centaur with planned changes (IVF).

All done and dusted within 3 years, with no need for a demo flight.

Total development cost < $500M

Pesimistically
Jupiter is based on the MAVEN bus but has
- new power management (because of Earth orbit and Exoliner power demands),
- new thermal management (because of Earth orbit),
- new avionics (no high gain antenna, or science payload; new TDRS, GPS and ISS proximity sensors, real time demands for arm, etc),
- new software (for all the new capabilities),
- new structure (for the arm, Exoliner attachment and launch with Exoliner attached)
- new fuel system (for refuelling)
- new thrusters and attitude control (as it needs to cope with the Exoliner loaded mass)
- new solar panels (LEO environment or not enough power from the old ones)

Exoliner is based on ATV, but is a new design
- changed avionics (to interface with Jupiter)
- new power management (to cope with times when Jupiter is not attached)
- new thermal management (because it cannot rely on Jupiter)
- new structure (because loads are different)

Centaur needs changes above those planned in the near term.

A 6 year development including a demo flight.

Total development cost > $1B (including demo flight)

The reality is probably somewhere in-between, but I haven't seen enough information to make an informed guess.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Steam Chaser on 03/15/2015 02:03 pm
This is from the beginning of the CRS-2 RFP:

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.

If CRS2 goes from 2018-2024 that is 7 years ie 2 billion a year.

There should be enough money and payloads to support 4 suppliers.
Here is one example with some guesses on prices.
Jupiter/Exoliner 1 x$400m
Dragon  2x $150m  = $300m
CST100 or Dream Chaser (can't see both flying)  2x 200m = $400m
Cygnus 2 x $200m = $400m
Total = $1.5B (Still money for some extra flights)

The $14B is a "not to exceed" number, and I'm sure NASA hopes to get bids such that it can spend a lot less.  Still, even with your example prices, multiplied by 7 years it's a lot of money for any of the competitors.  For example, from the point of view of Dream Chaser, like for Jupiter/Exoliner, if they win a bid you could see how it might be worth their while to accept the cost of developing their cargo craft if the cost of doing that is in the ballpark of, say, developing Antares+Cygnus or Falcon+Dragon cargo solutions.

If SNC is hungry enough, it seems like there might be a close competition between CTS-100 and Dream Chaser if there's room for either one (I'm assuming the incumbents have a big advantage).  Boeing's higher score on schedule factors during the commercial crew competition might not matter as much for cargo since Dragon already exists.  It will be interesting to see what the different competitors offer for cargo.

One note of caution about having many cargo providers.  I recall someone on this site mentioning that is it something of a burden on NASA to work with so many different providers.  If that's the case, there will have to be a tradeoff between that burden and the advantage of having more redundancy in rockets, spacecraft, and spacecraft specialties (like mass/volume vs. downmass).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 03/15/2015 02:05 pm
We haven't seen what any of the others are offering yet.

I doubt that SpaceX or Orbital ATK will offer straight Dragon 1/2 and Cygnus. Both are likely in my opinion to offer extra capabilities.

For SpaceX it might be:
- a pressurized trunk
- a pressurized container + bus (a bit like Cygnus but sized for F9R)
- a pressurized container with Dagon acting as tug (a bit like Jupiter/Exoliner)
- an early version of MCT (perhaps on FH) - maybe as an on-ramp later
- an enlarged Dragon 3 (say 3 times the volume).

For Orbital ATK it might be:
- extra expanded Cygnus (on Atlas V or F9)
- Cygnus with return capsule.
- Cygnus with fluid transfer (perhaps also with reboost capability)
- Cygnus with external payload capability
- some combination of the above

We don't know what Boeing has offered, likely based on CST-100, but it may include something else.

We don't know what SNC has offered, a cargo DC of some sort, but the details are unclear, we will know on March 17th.

Each vendor can offer several configurations, so there are lots of combinations.

I think it is too soon to make anything other than very tentative guesses.

A (totally unrealistic?) hope
My hope is that:
- SpaceX will have the bulk of the missions, 3-4/year with reused Dragon on F9R @ < $100M / flight
- Orbital ATK will have 1/year with an enlarged Cygnus @ $170M / flight

This is only $4B of the maximum $14B over the course of CRS-2, so NASA will use the rest of the money (on a use it or loose it basis) to get new capabilities using the on-ramp provisions. While technically these capabilities can all meet the CRS criteria they would all add extra features over and above what is necessary for CRS-2.
- MCT on BFR
- Jupiter/Exoliner
- free flying science lab (at end of mission berths with ISS to unload cargo, samples and takes on trash before disposal).
- Bigelow BA330 as a temporary ISS volume enhancement (it might seem a waste to dispose of it at the end to meet the trash disposal requirement, but it could dispose of a very large mass/volume of trash in one go).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Steam Chaser on 03/15/2015 02:13 pm
All done and dusted within 3 years, with no need for a demo flight.

I was thinking about the potential Jupiter/Exoliner test program for CRS-2, and how it might differ from that of Antares/Cygnus and Falcon/Dragon during CRS-1.  I wouldn't think LM would need a separate test of the rocket, of course.  Also, if the demo flight includes a fully functional Jupiter tug, and it passes its tests, could they then use that demo tug for the rest of the CRS-2 missions?  If so, doing a separate demonstration flight might not be all that much of a burden ... if it passes.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/15/2015 05:06 pm
What do you see as its competitor? Cygnus is the only one I can see.

The only folk who can do recoverable downmass would have a big problem with getting enough pressurized upmass in as few flights as NASA wants.

Are you thinking that NASA will pick a single provider, or act as if they will pick just a single provider and not complementary providers?

Agree Cygnus+ (enhanced) is the only competitor--at least as far as I can tell based on current information.  I believe NASA will pick at least two CRS-2 providers, and one of those will be Dragon or CST-100, and the other will be Cygnus+.

One of the reasons I say that is because the CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price  for 1/2 of the total annual pressurized up-mass; for evaluation purposes that annual total is set at 15000kg.[1]  The price evaluation is thus based on the number of missions required for 7500kg pressurized up-mass.[2]


[1] Evaluation is different if only unpressurized up-mass is proposed, but I doubt there are any proposals for unpressurized only.
[2] Per the RFI, the nominal volume equivalent is ~28-35m3.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/15/2015 05:13 pm
We don't know what Boeing has offered, likely based on CST-100, but it may include something else.

Details are limited, but Boeing is proposing a modified CST-100 (http://aviationweek.com/space/boeing-would-pull-seats-life-support-engines-cargo-carrying-cst-100).  It eliminates crew accoutrements, life support, LAS and about half of the RCS thrusters.  It adds unpressurized cargo capacity in the service module (much like the Dragon trunk).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/15/2015 05:26 pm
All done and dusted within 3 years, with no need for a demo flight.

I was thinking about the potential Jupiter/Exoliner test program for CRS-2, and how it might differ from that of Antares/Cygnus and Falcon/Dragon during CRS-1.  I wouldn't think LM would need a separate test of the rocket, of course.  Also, if the demo flight includes a fully functional Jupiter tug, and it passes its tests, could they then use that demo tug for the rest of the CRS-2 missions?  If so, doing a separate demonstration flight might not be all that much of a burden ... if it passes.

Since the Jupiter/Exoliner will be berthing to a manned ISS NASA will probably demand a demo flight. The flight could carry a light weight low value cargo. Since both the Cygnus and Dragon V1 spacecraft conducted a series of navigation, control and safety tests as they approached the station on their demo flights NASA will almost certainly demand similar tests be performed by the new spacecraft. For instance the Jupiter's avionics will have to obey an abort during approach sent by the ISS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Orb-D1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Orb-D1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_C2%2B (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_C2%2B)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/15/2015 05:37 pm
I was thinking about the potential Jupiter/Exoliner test program for CRS-2, and how it might differ from that of Antares/Cygnus and Falcon/Dragon during CRS-1.  I wouldn't think LM would need a separate test of the rocket, of course.  Also, if the demo flight includes a fully functional Jupiter tug, and it passes its tests, could they then use that demo tug for the rest of the CRS-2 missions?  If so, doing a separate demonstration flight might not be all that much of a burden ... if it passes.

NASA doesn't care; they are buying a service.  Also, the CRS-1 LV, spacecraft and ISS qualification flights were conducted under COTS, not CRS.  There is no COTS equivalent for CRS-2.

If you are talking about the price NASA might be asked or expected to pay for qualifying Jupiter service, that is another matter.  Whatever it costs to qualify Jupiter, I have no doubt that it will show up in their CRS-2 pricing, whether amortized per-mission, or bundled into the "ISS integration" contract line item.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2015 05:51 pm
What do you see as its competitor? Cygnus is the only one I can see.

The only folk who can do recoverable downmass would have a big problem with getting enough pressurized upmass in as few flights as NASA wants.

Are you thinking that NASA will pick a single provider, or act as if they will pick just a single provider and not complementary providers?

Agree Cygnus+ (enhanced) is the only competitor--at least as far as I can tell based on current information.  I believe NASA will pick at least two CRS-2 providers, and one of those will be Dragon or CST-100, and the other will be Cygnus+.

One of the reasons I say that is because the CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price  for 1/2 of the total annual pressurized up-mass; for evaluation purposes that annual total is set at 15000kg.[1]  The price evaluation is thus based on the number of missions required for 7500kg pressurized up-mass.[2]


[1] Evaluation is different if only unpressurized up-mass is proposed, but I doubt there are any proposals for unpressurized only.
[2] Per the RFI, the nominal volume equivalent is ~28-35m3.
That is odd you reach the conclusion that Jupiter wouldn't be viable, then, since in that range, Jupiter should be cost-competitive or perhaps superior to Cygnus.

I don't know what will be picked (Cygnus is off to an advantaged start due to being already flown... although that's tempered somewhat by the launch vehicle difficulties), but the Jupiter proposal is a very strong one.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2015 05:55 pm
It appears to me that the "demo" mission for Jupiter (if required at all) would be the only mission where Jupiter itself would need to be launched. Every other flight could just be an Exoliner module. Thus the demo mission wouldn't add too much to the overall costs.

Launching a /separate/ Jupiter for later missions--once the demo mission is successful--wouldn't improve risk at all. Once you know the first Jupiter works, there's no reason to launch another one for the life of the contract.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: jtrame on 03/15/2015 06:22 pm
We can't dismiss the forward-looking component of this proposal as a non starter simply due to the written requirements of CRS2.

The CRS-2 requirements and evaluation criteria are cold and uncaring, and do not give a whit about any possibilities not otherwise called for in those requirements and evaluation criteria.

edit: If you want to talk about possibilities independent of CRS-2, I think Jupiter has potential (in which case this is not the proper thread for that discussion).  In the context of CRS-2--which is what this thread is about--the CRS-2 requirements cannot be dismissed.

Yes, quite true, I didn't see the new thread.  Moving to the new thread, but good luck with the "cold and uncaring."  The human component will be alive and well, just as it was with Commercial Crew.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/15/2015 06:25 pm
That is odd you reach the conclusion that Jupiter wouldn't be viable, then, since in that range, Jupiter should be cost-competitive or perhaps superior to Cygnus.

Partly because with initial CRS-2 contract award, task orders for a minumum of six missions will also be awarded to each CRS-2 contract awardee (June 2015 if the schedule holds).

That means Jupiter has to recover costs within that minumum of six missions (or roll the dice for future missions), and that fulfilling those six missions at the stated price is competitive (including DDT&E and qualification), and that the risk sufficiently low to be acceptable to NASA, without substantive prior qualification or testing.  I just don't see that happening in this time frame.

A little more time, a little more risk reduction... and Jupiter could very well be a strong contender.  Which is why I suggested previously that Jupiter may not be in the cards for an initial award, but could very well be considered for later on-ramp.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2015 07:02 pm
Why not? LM seems willing to put a little skin in the game to help make this viable.

Worst case is 6 flights? That's not too bad, considering each flight will be roughly twice the Cygnus capability just for pressurized cargo (not counting the value of the unpressurized cargo and fluids). Remember, this is not a reentry vehicle, so that significantly improves things. The pressure vessel (and presumably refueling) have ATV heritage, so that's not a huge DDT&E, either (and it's being outsourced, so the risk is less to LM). The arm is from Canada. The spacecraft bus is pre-existing. (And even better than for Cygnus/Antares, the launch vehicle is already well-amortized and will be used by several other customers.)

So, worst case is 6 flights but best case could be more than a dozen. And at the end, they now have a significant capability that they wouldn't have before, something that would be useful to just about ANY HSF program in the future but also for commercial or defense purposes as well. Sounds like a real winner.


EDIT:And I don't think this is terribly risky, either. LM has a lot of experience in spacecraft (they're building Orion after all), and they're outsourcing some of the more tricky stuff (like arm and much of the Exoliner) to the premier world experts in robotic space arms and space-tin-can construction.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/15/2015 09:55 pm
No, not so risky on a component/capability basis. All of this has been done before by the very contractors before, and kept current. As to US grapple, its reversed roles with Jupiter playing the ISS part, and all the stage does pre-grapple is station keep until grapple then goes passive, reversing this post-grapple release.

Mostly integration and test issues with existing, current stuff. For the contractors, they benefit from bonus on top of existing commitments, an indefinite life extension beyond ISS 2024 EOM, and a future beyond ISS where they become the first step.

The best part of this is that the ISS becomes the stepping stone to beyond LEO exploration, especially the human assets and research products - they have "solar system reach" through this way station.

However there might also be a downside - what if Lockheed and Boeing lock out OA/SX, given a narrow Congressional affinity for the big guys only, notice the selection of CST-100 was influenced by additional NASA usable "capabilities" - sounds a bit like this but more on the unmanned/cargo side.

You'd think you'd want a balance of both. Congress doesn't inspire me with reason and balance at the moment.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/15/2015 10:18 pm
Why not? LM seems willing to put a little skin in the game to help make this viable.

Yes, remembering however that we are dealing with two large organizations which by all indications tend to be risk averse... In round numbers, let's say optimistically:

$300M to get the Jupiter tug up and operating plus $110M per cargo flight for Exoliner.  For six cargo flights = ($300M + 6*$110M) = $9600M = $160M per flight over the minimum CRS-2 contract term of six flights.  (That first $300M flight might also include a cargo filght, which would reduce the total.)

Close, but not compelling IMHO.  What might tip the balance?  Not sure.  Depends heavily on what the competition is offering, how much LM is willing to buy down development cost and risk, and how much of a premium NASA places on minimizing the number of cargo flights.  For that we will have to wait and see.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 03/15/2015 10:29 pm
Why not? LM seems willing to put a little skin in the game to help make this viable.

Yes, remembering however that we are dealing with two large organizations which by all indications tend to be risk averse... In round numbers, let's say optimistically:

$300M to get the Jupiter tug up and operating plus $110M per cargo flight for Exoliner.  For six cargo flights = ($300M + 6*$110M) = $9600M = $160M per flight over the minimum CRS-2 contract term of six flights.  (That first $300M flight might also include a cargo filght, which would reduce the total.)

Close, but not compelling IMHO.  What might tip the balance?  Not sure.  Depends heavily on what the competition is offering, how much LM is willing to buy down development cost and risk, and how much of a premium NASA places on minimizing the number of cargo flights.  For that we will have to wait and see.


I'd multiply those numbers by 2
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2015 10:57 pm
Why not? LM seems willing to put a little skin in the game to help make this viable.

Yes, remembering however that we are dealing with two large organizations which by all indications tend to be risk averse... In round numbers, let's say optimistically:

$300M to get the Jupiter tug up and operating plus $110M per cargo flight for Exoliner.  For six cargo flights = ($300M + 6*$110M) = $9600M = $160M per flight over the minimum CRS-2 contract term of six flights.  (That first $300M flight might also include a cargo filght, which would reduce the total.)

Close, but not compelling IMHO.  What might tip the balance?  Not sure.  Depends heavily on what the competition is offering, how much LM is willing to buy down development cost and risk, and how much of a premium NASA places on minimizing the number of cargo flights.  For that we will have to wait and see.
That's comparable to Cygnus but for twice the cargo.

(Also, while I think the Exoliner itself is cheap, Atlas V is not... So I'd actually argue the per-flight cost for 6 flights is closer to $230m total.)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/16/2015 12:07 am
That's comparable to Cygnus but for twice the cargo.

Yes, but only 3/4 of Jupiter's capability is relevant for the price evaluation, as the evaluation is based on 1/2 the annual pressurized up-mass requirement (7500kg).  On that basis, Cygnus+ requires 3 flights; Jupiter requires 2 flights.  Thus if Jupiter is 1/3 cheaper per flight than Cygnus, it wins (discounting other factors).
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 03/16/2015 04:11 am
So, worst case is 6 flights but best case could be more than a dozen. And at the end, they now have a significant capability that they wouldn't have before, something that would be useful to just about ANY HSF program in the future but also for commercial or defense purposes as well. Sounds like a real winner.


EDIT:And I don't think this is terribly risky, either. LM has a lot of experience in spacecraft (they're building Orion after all), and they're outsourcing some of the more tricky stuff (like arm and much of the Exoliner) to the premier world experts in robotic space arms and space-tin-can construction.

Good points Robotbeat. The Jupiter/Exoliner represents a significant capability both for CRS-2 and for BEO applications. It is quite encouraging that LM will be throwing some skin in the game and that it won't cost NASA anything to get it up and running.

From where I am sitting here is where things stand:

1. Dragon vs. CST-100 vs. Dream Chaser (for the role of the re-entry capable craft)

Dragon I think has the advantage here. It has already run 5 successful CRS missions and recently had 3
missions added on to the CRS-1 contract. It also should beat CST-100 and DC on price and schedule.

2. Cygnus vs. Jupiter/Exoliner (for the role of the disposable vehicle)

This choice I think will be tougher. Cygnus has got the incumbency and schedule advantage but Jupiter/Exo can deliver around twice the cargo for what seems to be around the same price. At the same time cargo transfer using Jupiter/Exo is far more intricate. Finally, even though this is only supposed to be about CRS-2 no one can be blind to the potential uses of Jupiter/Exo on BEO missions. If I were Orbital I might be thinking about making Cygnus a more attractive BEO option if only to win the media battle. 

Edit: If I were making the decision I would pick Dragon and Jupiter/Exoliner. Jupiter/Exo has more capability for around the same price as Cygnus. Also the possible BEO applications for it are very exciting.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/16/2015 11:51 am
That's comparable to Cygnus but for twice the cargo.

Yes, but only 3/4 of Jupiter's capability is relevant for the price evaluation, as the evaluation is based on 1/2 the annual pressurized up-mass requirement (7500kg).  On that basis, Cygnus+ requires 3 flights; Jupiter requires 2 flights.  Thus if Jupiter is 1/3 cheaper per flight than Cygnus, it wins (discounting other factors).
There's the SuperCygnus that Orbital had shown, it had four rings in the pressurized section with 33m³. Mass would be LV limited. If Antares 2 can make 6tonnes to ISS insertion orbit, then Super Cygnus could do 3.8tonnes to the ISS. That would mean two launches to cover the upmass requirement for the pricing case.
Super Cygnus would weigh 2.2tonnes, plus 3.8tonnes of cargo, with a mean density of just 115kg/m³ (compare to the 214kg/m³ that Dragon has to achieve to be able to lift 3tonnes).
From what they have disclosed, Antares 230 can do 6 tonnes to a 250km circular ISS orbit. ORB-2 was 200km x 300km, if this is roughly comparable, then they might be able to pull it off. An Antares 231 has margin to spare but would need a bigger fairing.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 03/16/2015 01:53 pm
From what they have disclosed, Antares 230 can do 6 tonnes to a 250km circular ISS orbit. ORB-2 was 200km x 300km, if this is roughly comparable, then they might be able to pull it off. An Antares 231 has margin to spare but would need a bigger fairing.

If I am NASA right now, I'm not too excited about the prospects of relying on a paper rocket again.  For COTS/CRS that was necessary, but that isn't the case anymore as all other bidders will be using proven LVs.  (I don't think concerns about RD-180 are meaningful in this context, based on non-military use and contract length, as well as ULA's sterling reputation, FWIW).

If other bidders can come close to Antares/Cygnus capabilities/cost I think that's going to hurt OrbATK substantially in comparison.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/16/2015 02:19 pm
From what they have disclosed, Antares 230 can do 6 tonnes to a 250km circular ISS orbit. ORB-2 was 200km x 300km, if this is roughly comparable, then they might be able to pull it off. An Antares 231 has margin to spare but would need a bigger fairing.

If I am NASA right now, I'm not too excited about the prospects of relying on a paper rocket again.  For COTS/CRS that was necessary, but that isn't the case anymore as all other bidders will be using proven LVs.  (I don't think concerns about RD-180 are meaningful in this context, based on non-military use and contract length, as well as ULA's sterling reputation, FWIW).

If other bidders can come close to Antares/Cygnus capabilities/cost I think that's going to hurt OrbATK substantially in comparison.

The upgraded Cygnus will fitted nicely in the standard SpaceX PLF. So maybe OrbitalATK might give serious consideration to out-sourcing the launch vehicle. Especially with the availability of the Atlas V for civilian flights looks cloudy for the future and the Antares's dependency on Russian engines.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 03/16/2015 02:43 pm
The upgrades Cygnus will fitted nicely in the standard SpaceX PLF. So maybe OrbitalATK might give serious consideration to out-sourcing the launch vehicle. Especially with the availability of the Atlas V for civilian flights looks cloudy for the future and the Antares's dependency on Russian engines.

They might, but COTS/CRS for Orbital was a way to subsidize a small-medium launcher under their ownership.  They seem very invested in making re-engined Antares work moving forward.  The only thing it will be used for in the near future is to finish out CRS-1.  I wonder if they would be that interested in a CRS-2 bid with only the Cygnus and purchasing Falcon/Atlas rides.  The unfortunate thing from their perspective is the timing, with the contract award date in May that is well before the new Antares will launch.  On the other hand, maybe NASA won't worry so much about LV issues, since the first new Antares will launch well before the contract start date in 2018.

Overall I think this puts OrbATK at a disadvantage, and somewhat counteracts the benefits of their status as an incumbent.  How much is very difficult to say.

I don't personally put much stock in the Russian engine concern for civilian (albeit still government) applications.  And it wouldn't hurt them more than Atlas V, and I can't see NASA going all-Falcon, so for the purposes of this discussion I think it is clearly a non-factor.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/16/2015 04:01 pm
From what they have disclosed, Antares 230 can do 6 tonnes to a 250km circular ISS orbit. ORB-2 was 200km x 300km, if this is roughly comparable, then they might be able to pull it off. An Antares 231 has margin to spare but would need a bigger fairing.

If I am NASA right now, I'm not too excited about the prospects of relying on a paper rocket again.  For COTS/CRS that was necessary, but that isn't the case anymore as all other bidders will be using proven LVs.  (I don't think concerns about RD-180 are meaningful in this context, based on non-military use and contract length, as well as ULA's sterling reputation, FWIW).

If other bidders can come close to Antares/Cygnus capabilities/cost I think that's going to hurt OrbATK substantially in comparison.
There are paper rockets and paper rockets. Antares 200 has everything proven save the RD-181 propulsion, and that comes from the best possible legacy of rocket engine designer/manufacturers. Plus it's an underrated and simplified version of the RD-191. Lots of legacy there. And now Orbital ATK manufactures the upper stage itself, so if they were going to need a Castor 30XLB, they can do it relatively quick. And Cygnus will already be integrated to the Atlas V. So that's really a contractor's problem.
Besides, Atlas V is going through a transition to the NGLV right in the middle of the contract.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 03/16/2015 04:48 pm
There are paper rockets and paper rockets. Antares 200 has everything proven save the RD-181 propulsion, and that comes from the best possible legacy of rocket engine designer/manufacturers. Plus it's an underrated and simplified version of the RD-191. Lots of legacy there. And now Orbital ATK manufactures the upper stage itself, so if they were going to need a Castor 30XLB, they can do it relatively quick. And Cygnus will already be integrated to the Atlas V. So that's really a contractor's problem.
Still a paper rocket.  And a lot of heritage with one that exploded seconds after launch most recently.  Still waiting for AIB results, will be interesting to see how conclusive they are.
Quote
Besides, Atlas V is going through a transition to the NGLV right in the middle of the contract.
True, it will be interesting to see how that is reflected (or not) in CRS-2 proposals.  If I am NASA I am still more confident in Atlas V + NGLV than Antares 200.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/16/2015 05:07 pm
There are paper rockets and paper rockets. Antares 200 has everything proven save the RD-181 propulsion, and that comes from the best possible legacy of rocket engine designer/manufacturers. Plus it's an underrated and simplified version of the RD-191. Lots of legacy there. And now Orbital ATK manufactures the upper stage itself, so if they were going to need a Castor 30XLB, they can do it relatively quick. And Cygnus will already be integrated to the Atlas V. So that's really a contractor's problem.
Still a paper rocket.  And a lot of heritage with one that exploded seconds after launch most recently.  Still waiting for AIB results, will be interesting to see how conclusive they are.
No it isn't. The next Antares 200 will actually be 100 cores with the new engines. Same pad, same avionics, same upper stage, same fairing, same HIF, same flow, same core tanks, just new engines. Calling that a paper rocket is sort of insulting.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 03/16/2015 08:11 pm
Is it possible that as one of the four options that every company is allowed to submit, SpaceX, SNC or Boeing will offer a reused vehicle?
Is it possible for spacex to offer a partially reused F9?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/16/2015 08:19 pm
They might, but COTS/CRS for Orbital was a way to subsidize a small-medium launcher under their ownership.  They seem very invested in making re-engined Antares work moving forward.  The only thing it will be used for in the near future is to finish out CRS-1.

Not the only reason, and may be overtaken by events... One of NASA's objectives for COTS/CRS-1 was also development of an affordable medium class LV to replace Delta II. 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: joek on 03/16/2015 08:28 pm
Is it possible that as one of the four options that every company is allowed to submit, SpaceX, SNC or Boeing will offer a reused vehicle?
Is it possible for spacex to offer a partially reused F9?
Yes and yes.  The RFP does not care whether the spacecraft or LV is new or used.  edit: and unless new-vs-used changes the configuration, it would not count against the maximum allowable four standard mission configurations.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/16/2015 08:53 pm
I'm fairly certain SpaceX will be (optionally) reusing cores for CRS2.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/16/2015 09:36 pm
Is it possible that as one of the four options that every company is allowed to submit, SpaceX, SNC or Boeing will offer a reused vehicle?
Is it possible for spacex to offer a partially reused F9?
Yes and yes.  The RFP does not care whether the spacecraft or LV is new or used.  edit: and unless new-vs-used changes the configuration, it would not count against the maximum allowable four standard mission configurations.

Although since there have never been reusable launch vehicles like the Falcon 9 it's never had to be stated - it was always assumed that the entire launcher was expendable.

Has someone had a chance to verify that NASA hasn't put in a statement in the RFP that addresses new versus reusable launch vehicles?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 03/17/2015 08:07 am
So, worst case is 6 flights but best case could be more than a dozen. And at the end, they now have a significant capability that they wouldn't have before, something that would be useful to just about ANY HSF program in the future but also for commercial or defense purposes as well. Sounds like a real winner.


EDIT:And I don't think this is terribly risky, either. LM has a lot of experience in spacecraft (they're building Orion after all), and they're outsourcing some of the more tricky stuff (like arm and much of the Exoliner) to the premier world experts in robotic space arms and space-tin-can construction.

Good points Robotbeat. The Jupiter/Exoliner represents a significant capability both for CRS-2 and for BEO applications. It is quite encouraging that LM will be throwing some skin in the game and that it won't cost NASA anything to get it up and running.

From where I am sitting here is where things stand:

1. Dragon vs. CST-100 vs. Dream Chaser (for the role of the re-entry capable craft)

Dragon I think has the advantage here. It has already run 5 successful CRS missions and recently had 3
missions added on to the CRS-1 contract. It also should beat CST-100 and DC on price and schedule.

2. Cygnus vs. Jupiter/Exoliner (for the role of the disposable vehicle)

This choice I think will be tougher. Cygnus has got the incumbency and schedule advantage but Jupiter/Exo can deliver around twice the cargo for what seems to be around the same price. At the same time cargo transfer using Jupiter/Exo is far more intricate. Finally, even though this is only supposed to be about CRS-2 no one can be blind to the potential uses of Jupiter/Exo on BEO missions. If I were Orbital I might be thinking about making Cygnus a more attractive BEO option if only to win the media battle. 

Edit: If I were making the decision I would pick Dragon and Jupiter/Exoliner. Jupiter/Exo has more capability for around the same price as Cygnus. Also the possible BEO applications for it are very exciting.

I totatly agree ,
 I don't see any reason to have both Cygnus and Jupiter. It is not a super sensitive contract that needs a doubled redundancy.  Between Dragon, CST and DC the price the Atlas lv won't allow the latters to be price competitive and between the disposables,  Jupiter is the better deal.
So it should come down to ~ 2 Jupiters and 3-4 Dragons a year , IMO.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/17/2015 08:49 am
...but I would like to see where you're finding these interstellar probes. ;)

Oops, I guess my daydreams of the far future accidentally worked their way into the wrong conversation! :-)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: woods170 on 03/17/2015 08:53 am
I'm fairly certain SpaceX will be (optionally) reusing cores for CRS2.
Before some folks start yet another lenghty back-and-forth over your statement...Let's make it very clear that this is your opinion, not based on any fact.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/17/2015 09:56 am
- an early version of MCT (perhaps on FH) - maybe as an on-ramp later

No, MCT would be way, way, way too big for an ISS resupply mission.  It's intended to carry 100 people for a months-long trip to Mars.  It would be like driving an 18-wheeler up the driveway of someone's house just to deliver a week's groceries for one family.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/17/2015 09:57 am

Dragon is a given as it is flying, cheap and most important of all, LV independent of all competition.


Dragon is not LV independent. It is not designed to fit in a fairing and is does not have a central mounting point.

I don't think that's what Trevor meant.  He meant Falcon 9 is an independent launch vehicle -- none of the competition use it, so it gives full redundancy when used in conjunction with any other supplier.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: rpapo on 03/17/2015 09:58 am
I'm fairly certain SpaceX will be (optionally) reusing cores for CRS2.
Before some folks start yet another lenghty back-and-forth over your statement...Let's make it very clear that this is your opinion, not based on any fact.
And the most likely outcome is that NASA will be paying full price for a bunch of boosters and capsules that SpaceX will reuse for their own, or other customer's purposes.  If reusability works, then in a sense, NASA will be subsidizing somebody else's launches.  Until NASA or Congress catches on, of course.

There is nothing illegal about this at all, since NASA will be paying for the payload to orbit, not for the rocket to get there.  Though I could imagine somebody complaining about SpaceX "taking advantage" of NASA in something like this.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/17/2015 11:53 am
I'm fairly certain SpaceX will be (optionally) reusing cores for CRS2.
Before some folks start yet another lenghty back-and-forth over your statement...Let's make it very clear that this is your opinion, not based on any fact.
And the most likely outcome is that NASA will be paying full price for a bunch of boosters and capsules that SpaceX will reuse for their own, or other customer's purposes.  If reusability works, then in a sense, NASA will be subsidizing somebody else's launches.  Until NASA or Congress catches on, of course.

There is nothing illegal about this at all, since NASA will be paying for the payload to orbit, not for the rocket to get there.  Though I could imagine somebody complaining about SpaceX "taking advantage" of NASA in something like this.
Most likely is your opinion (and SpaceX's hope). But NASA won't be subsidizing anything. They asked for a service and SpaceX will get all the money they asked for that service if they are elected. Look at the Commercial Crew program, where both winners got whatever they asked for. If SpaceX can get reusability for cheap, they'll get better margin on their already signed contract. If not, they won't. NASA specifically asked them to price CRS-1 on brand new Dragons for each mission and SpaceX haven't reused a single one, exactly because of the economics of re certification. CRS-2 will be a similar issue. But again, LV is a contractor's problem, NASA just cares about getting their cargo on schedule on the ISS.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/17/2015 12:51 pm
I'm fairly certain SpaceX will be (optionally) reusing cores for CRS2.
Before some folks start yet another lenghty back-and-forth over your statement...Let's make it very clear that this is your opinion, not based on any fact.
Absolutely. Informed (based essentially entirely on what is found on this site), but definitely my opinion, not trying to subtly hint about some inside info. But I think it's clear SpaceX would do so when they're capable of it, which should be quite soon.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/17/2015 12:53 pm
I'm fairly certain SpaceX will be (optionally) reusing cores for CRS2.
Before some folks start yet another lenghty back-and-forth over your statement...Let's make it very clear that this is your opinion, not based on any fact.
And the most likely outcome is that NASA will be paying full price for a bunch of boosters and capsules that SpaceX will reuse for their own, or other customer's purposes.  If reusability works, then in a sense, NASA will be subsidizing somebody else's launches.  Until NASA or Congress catches on, of course.

There is nothing illegal about this at all, since NASA will be paying for the payload to orbit, not for the rocket to get there.  Though I could imagine somebody complaining about SpaceX "taking advantage" of NASA in something like this.
It is not a subsidy whatsoever.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 03/17/2015 01:22 pm
No it isn't. The next Antares 200 will actually be 100 cores with the new engines. Same pad, same avionics, same upper stage, same fairing, same HIF, same flow, same core tanks, just new engines. Calling that a paper rocket is sort of insulting.
That's fair, "paper rocket" is over the top.  I don't think it is unfair or unrealistic to call it "unproven" compared with the competing LVs, however.  I would have said the exact same thing when Falcon 9 1.1 had yet to fly.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: rpapo on 03/17/2015 05:16 pm
It is not a subsidy whatsoever.
I forget.  One must be careful with their choice of words around here.  The term "subsidy" has been beaten to death in these forums.

All I meant was that NASA, by paying for the building of complete rockets to be used for the first time, was indirectly, absolutely not on purpose, making it possible for SpaceX to provide an price break to others who might choose to use previously flown equipment.  It's the same way the used car market works: those can afford it, and want to do it, can purchase new cars.  Once they've used them for a while, they sell them off at market rate (generally a huge discount from new), which provides other, more thrifty-minded (by choice or by necessity) people to buy somewhat used, but still quite functional, equipment at something more closely resembling their budget.

That doesn't mean the people who buy new cars are granting a subsidy to lesser folk.  But the effect is similar.  You pay less money for what you want/need.

Wow.  The mental image it conjures: Honest Bill's Used Rockets...

EDIT: Of course, the problem with this analogy is that SpaceX never gives up ownership of the rockets it flies.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/17/2015 07:17 pm
No it isn't. The next Antares 200 will actually be 100 cores with the new engines. Same pad, same avionics, same upper stage, same fairing, same HIF, same flow, same core tanks, just new engines. Calling that a paper rocket is sort of insulting.
That's fair, "paper rocket" is over the top.  I don't think it is unfair or unrealistic to call it "unproven" compared with the competing LVs, however.  I would have said the exact same thing when Falcon 9 1.1 had yet to fly.
Just for comparison Falcon v1.1 had new avionics, new engines, new tooling, new manufacturing method, new tank design, new GSE, new fairing and new engine geometry. As far as I can tell it was a ground up new rocket.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 03/17/2015 07:29 pm
Just for comparison Falcon v1.1 had new avionics, new engines, new tooling, new manufacturing method, new tank design, new GSE, new fairing and new engine geometry. As far as I can tell it was a ground up new rocket.
Now you're the one engaging in hyperbole.

You know, you keep dancing around the point.  Do you think for the purposes of CRS-2 Antares 2 will be considered more unproven than Falcon 9 1.1 or Atlas V by NASA?  Yes or no.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/17/2015 07:41 pm
It is not a subsidy whatsoever.
I forget.  One must be careful with their choice of words around here.  The term "subsidy" has been beaten to death in these forums.

All I meant was that NASA, by paying for the building of complete rockets to be used for the first time, was indirectly, absolutely not on purpose, making it possible for SpaceX to provide an price break to others who might choose to use previously flown equipment.  It's the same way the used car market works: those can afford it, and want to do it, can purchase new cars.  Once they've used them for a while, they sell them off at market rate (generally a huge discount from new), which provides other, more thrifty-minded (by choice or by necessity) people to buy somewhat used, but still quite functional, equipment at something more closely resembling their budget.

That doesn't mean the people who buy new cars are granting a subsidy to lesser folk.  But the effect is similar.  You pay less money for what you want/need.

Wow.  The mental image it conjures: Honest Bill's Used Rockets...

EDIT: Of course, the problem with this analogy is that SpaceX never gives up ownership of the rockets it flies.
Indeed. I think the implication here is that reused cores are less reliable. I think that's a false notion, and I'll explain. Your analogy is a little like saying the Shuttles were "used" after the inaugural flights and thus of lesser value. On the contrary, their inaugural flights were probably among their most dangerous because they hadn't been flown before. And the Shuttles never failed due to age, they failed due to intrinsic design choices like sidemount, foam placement on the tank, SRB joint temperature tolerances, etc. The Shuttles arguably still had plenty of cycle life in them when they were retired.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/17/2015 07:57 pm
Just for comparison Falcon v1.1 had new avionics, new engines, new tooling, new manufacturing method, new tank design, new GSE, new fairing and new engine geometry. As far as I can tell it was a ground up new rocket.
Now you're the one engaging in hyperbole.

You know, you keep dancing around the point.  Do you think for the purposes of CRS-2 Antares 2 will be considered more unproven than Falcon 9 1.1 or Atlas V by NASA?  Yes or no.
Absolutely less proven. And Falcon 9 1.1 quite a bit less proven than Atlas V. Those are facts. But CRS-1/2 are Class D payload, and thus they only care if the rockets are expected to be reliable enough.
But then there's a special situation. Cygnus will be integrated with Atlas V. And the regrettable failure of Orb-3 has shown that if Antares 2 is unreliable, Orbital could switch to Atlas V meanwhile. This is not easy to understand to those that haven't done active financial speculation. But you can take higher risk if you can quickly switch to a lower risk strategy if things don't go well. So, having that capability of OrbitalATK to switch from the less reliable to the most reliable, might actually allow a higher confidence on the service for NASA than SpaceX's. Falcon 9 might be more reliable than Antares, but a failure would mean no Dragon until solved, and Dragon is not integrated to the Atlas V. Which would mean a longer stand down.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/17/2015 08:40 pm
Hence the need for another down mass capable vehicle to backup Dragon.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 03/17/2015 08:50 pm
Baldusi, you misunderstand my point.  I'm not comparing OrbATK to SpaceX, I am comparing them to Boeing, Lockheed, and SNC.  The fact that they could (in the event of a failure) switch to Atlas V is less palatable than just using Atlas V to begin with.  I think this is a negative.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/17/2015 11:12 pm
OK, calm it down. Gets very boring, really fast when a few people dominate a thread.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/18/2015 12:17 pm
Baldusi, you misunderstand my point.  I'm not comparing OrbATK to SpaceX, I am comparing them to Boeing, Lockheed, and SNC.  The fact that they could (in the event of a failure) switch to Atlas V is less palatable than just using Atlas V to begin with.  I think this is a negative.
May be I didn't made myself clear. I named SpaceX because of the Falcon 9/Dragon close integration. With the option to switch, if I do the risk estimation like any hedge fund would do, I might well get less overall risk than Dragon, more risk than CST-100 Cargo, and the Jupiter proposal has more events and is an unproven system with an unproven concept (even though each independent capability is proven). I would guess that the Dream Chaser Cargo proposal might be more risky than Cygnus, if taken from that point of view.
But, as Chris requested, let's move the discussion. This is the table I've arranged of the current situation.
SpacecraftLVService MaturityRisksPriceOther Considerations
DragonGood (but slow to integrate to other).Most ProvenFalcon 9 stand down.Probably BestCurrent workhorse/Crewed synergies
CygnusUnproven (already integrated to best LV).ProvenAntares IIProbably medium high, but better than low frequency JupiterCBM and disposal.
CST-100Most reliableUnproven, best mainLittle.Probably higher than Dragon and DCno CBM???/Crewed Synergies
Dream ChaserMost reliable
Jupiter/ExolinerMost reliableMost risky conops, less matured design, top integratorTechnological and conops risksProbably expensive without extensive use.Scalable, only other with no return capability.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: rayleighscatter on 03/18/2015 08:55 pm
Since there's been some talk about "backup" craft it's worth noting that there will already be redundancy with the commercial crew vehicles. They won't be as cheap or able to haul quite as much mass as their cargo cousins but in an emergency can be pressed into cargo service. The redundancy, if it's needed, will already be in place.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: gongora on 03/18/2015 09:25 pm
Since there's been some talk about "backup" craft it's worth noting that there will already be redundancy with the commercial crew vehicles. They won't be as cheap or able to haul quite as much mass as their cargo cousins but in an emergency can be pressed into cargo service. The redundancy, if it's needed, will already be in place.

They use the same launchers and many of the same parts, the crew vehicles really don't provide any redundancy.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: rayleighscatter on 03/18/2015 10:34 pm
Since there's been some talk about "backup" craft it's worth noting that there will already be redundancy with the commercial crew vehicles. They won't be as cheap or able to haul quite as much mass as their cargo cousins but in an emergency can be pressed into cargo service. The redundancy, if it's needed, will already be in place.

They use the same launchers and many of the same parts, the crew vehicles really don't provide any redundancy.
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that the crew vehicles were redundant for their cargo counterpart, but that the crew program vehicles are in effect redundant for the cargo program. There's no need for NASA to select a cargo vehicle program merely for backup or redundancy because an unmanned vehicle from the crew program can provide that redundancy. Regardless of what cargo option(s) are selected there's almost no conceivable dilemma which should exclude CST, Atlas, Dragon, and Falcon all at the same time. It's again not the most efficient redundancy, but it is redundancy.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 03/19/2015 02:53 pm
I've been wondering about the fact that Dream Chaser and CST-100 appear to use IDA. From the Cargo DC thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37049.msg1348188#msg1348188), I began to think if having an IDA Cargo craft isn't actually an advantage.
If NASA already has HTV and at least one other CBM capable craft, and given that the logistics of approach and berthing of the CBM take at least a couple of days from crew time (that is disregarding loading/unloading and packing/unpacking), wouldn't an additional IDA vehicle allow for increased number of mission without the extra work overload on the crew? From there, I've formed my current expectation that NASA might give one minimum contract to a third, IDA capable vehicle. In particular, I'm expecting the Cargo CST-100 to get a minimum award. The bulk of development will be paid by Crew contract, the are the top ISS integrator, but more importantly, each flight of the cargo version will add experience and confidence in the crewed vehicle. And if they end up being the high cost crew supplier and thus the ones with the least missions, they might keep the experience and infrastructure working on the cargo version.
Thus, I will expect something like a 3/2/1 missions per year to Dragon/Cygnus/CST-100. That's my current expectation. That will give, once you add the HTV, seven cargo missions per year, with four cargo and two crewed downmass missions, and allow a floor on the the experience and workload for the crewed capsules.
Only item is that nowhere in the RFQ there was mention of the synergies with crew contract, and thus it would have purely been dependent on the aggressiveness of Boeing proposal. They usually like to charge a premium, but since they knew that they had got the crew contract, and considering that they are not the incumbents on ISS cargo, they might have made a strategic decision to make a very low price (for a Boeing proposal) on CRS-2. After all, that will probably help up the revenue of the division that handles ISS and CST-100 quite a bit and position them very well if the station gets extended to 2028. Not to mention that they might prevent SNC and LM from getting some of this pie.
This is my current expectation, any thoughts?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/21/2015 07:54 pm
Baldusi, you misunderstand my point.  I'm not comparing OrbATK to SpaceX, I am comparing them to Boeing, Lockheed, and SNC.  The fact that they could (in the event of a failure) switch to Atlas V is less palatable than just using Atlas V to begin with.  I think this is a negative.
May be I didn't made myself clear. I named SpaceX because of the Falcon 9/Dragon close integration. With the option to switch, if I do the risk estimation like any hedge fund would do, I might well get less overall risk than Dragon, more risk than CST-100 Cargo, and the Jupiter proposal has more events and is an unproven system with an unproven concept (even though each independent capability is proven). I would guess that the Dream Chaser Cargo proposal might be more risky than Cygnus, if taken from that point of view.
But, as Chris requested, let's move the discussion. This is the table I've arranged of the current situation.
SpacecraftLVService MaturityRisksPriceOther Considerations
DragonGood (but slow to integrate to other).Most ProvenFalcon 9 stand down.Probably BestCurrent workhorse/Crewed synergies
CygnusUnproven (already integrated to best LV).ProvenAntares IIProbably medium high, but better than low frequency JupiterCBM and disposal.
CST-100Most reliableUnproven, best mainLittle.Probably higher than Dragon and DCno CBM???/Crewed Synergies
Dream ChaserMost reliable
Jupiter/ExolinerMost reliableMost risky conops, less matured design, top integratorTechnological and conops risksProbably expensive without extensive use.Scalable, only other with no return capability.
I disagree about your characterization of the cost of Exoliner. It could easily be competitive with Cygnus on a per-flight basis and even be the cheapest option per mass and pressurized volume period if it got just 1 flight or so per year through 2024. You save a LOT of money by not having to build a new spacecraft each flight, enough to make up for Atlas V's higher cost. And, of course, the higher per-flight payload helps a lot.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: daveklingler on 03/22/2015 02:18 am
I disagree about your characterization of the cost of Exoliner. It could easily be competitive with Cygnus on a per-flight basis and even be the cheapest option per mass and pressurized volume period if it got just 1 flight or so per year through 2024. You save a LOT of money by not having to build a new spacecraft each flight, enough to make up for Atlas V's higher cost. And, of course, the higher per-flight payload helps a lot.

I have a funny feeling that LockMart's bid per payload might be comparable to Boeing's, especially considering that LockMart is essentially integrating the products of several subs, who are in turn integrating the products of several subs, who are...gosh, I wonder how far it goes.

The higher per-flight payload might be irrelevant, unless you're talking about volume, which could be a big plus.  The fact that LM will have to do very little development could have an effect on pricing, but probably won't.

I think CRS2 is already incredibly successful.  Every single proposal represents a big step forward in capability from CRS1, which in and of itself has somewhat revolutionized the space industry.  Orbital's proposal is probably the most boring mundane, well, okay, secondmost*, and even that's exciting when one considers the evolutionary missions Orbital has talked about for Cygnus. 

*I suppose I haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about the cargo CST-100.  But it, too, is a step forward.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: dror on 03/28/2015 03:26 pm

I think that not developing a space tug earlier shows lack of insight by nasa, as it could have saved money while advancing science. Therefore I said Id love to see it happen now


Nonsense.  NASA [h]as no need for such a device based on launch frequency.   Science missions don't need it and ISS is complete.

I think LM has a good thing going here, but Jim said it's nonsense  ;)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: gongora on 04/17/2015 04:54 am
Wasn't the contract award planned for June before?  It's showing as Sept. 16 now.  Quite a delay.

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp)
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: JBF on 04/17/2015 10:55 am
Wasn't the contract award planned for June before?  It's showing as Sept. 16 now.  Quite a delay.

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp)

That just changed, when I looked earlier this week it was still June.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/17/2015 05:19 pm
Wasn't the contract award planned for June before?  It's showing as Sept. 16 now.  Quite a delay.

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp)

That just changed, when I looked earlier this week it was still June.

Given how many responses that NASA has gotten for CRS-2 (5 that we know of) it is probably prudent of them to take more time to decide. With the CRS-1 extension there shouldn't be any detriment to taking more time.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 04/17/2015 10:32 pm
Wasn't the contract award planned for June before?  It's showing as Sept. 16 now.  Quite a delay.

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp)

That just changed, when I looked earlier this week it was still June.

Given how many responses that NASA has gotten for CRS-2 (5 that we know of) it is probably prudent of them to take more time to decide. With the CRS-1 extension there shouldn't be any detriment to taking more time.

Here is their explanation for the delay:

Quote from: NASA
4/16/15 Updated the Milestone Schedule Award date due to additional time required to evaluate proposals.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/18/2015 05:40 am
Bad news for SNC. Even if they win it'll be hard to rebuild a team a year after the announcement of CC awards led to layoffs.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/24/2015 03:17 am
I can see each provider offering various prices depending on LV and reuse.
For start Boeing, LM and SNC will be flying on Atlas initially (2018) but by 2020 should be able to use the Vulcan with >$65m  launch cost reduction.
In case of SpaceX they could be offering F9E and F9R at reduced price if booster recovery is working. There maybe another price reduction if Dragon V2 can land on land as it should be fully reusable.

 ULA are not making Vulcan pricing public till June, I would expect LM and Boeing to know its pricing but SNC may have to wait till June. This may have something to do with delaying CRS decision.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/24/2015 04:08 am
I can see each provider offering various prices depending on LV and reuse.
For start Boeing, LM and SNC will be flying on Atlas initially (2018) but by 2020 should be able to use the Vulcan with >$65m  launch cost reduction.
In case of SpaceX they could be offering F9E and F9R at reduced price if booster recovery is working. There maybe another price reduction if Dragon V2 can land on land as it should be fully reusable.

 ULA are not making Vulcan pricing public till June, I would expect LM and Boeing to know its pricing but SNC may have to wait till June. This may have something to do with delaying CRS decision.

I don't think that's it.  I think that would be a serious violation of procurement rules.

The way these kinds of procurements work is that there's a deadline for submissions of bids and companies aren't allowed to change their bids after that.  They have to submit binding bids at that point.  Allowing some companies to change their bids after the deadline would be a major breach of the rules.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/24/2015 05:10 am
Can the Atlas users offer two prices one for Atlas another for Vulcan when it is available?.

Alternatively they price on Atlas and pocket difference when using Vulcan.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Lar on 04/24/2015 06:35 am
I can see each provider offering various prices depending on LV and reuse.
For start Boeing, LM and SNC will be flying on Atlas initially (2018) but by 2020 should be able to use the Vulcan with >$65m  launch cost reduction.
In case of SpaceX they could be offering F9E and F9R at reduced price if booster recovery is working. There maybe another price reduction if Dragon V2 can land on land as it should be fully reusable.

 ULA are not making Vulcan pricing public till June, I would expect LM and Boeing to know its pricing but SNC may have to wait till June. This may have something to do with delaying CRS decision.

I don't think that's it.  I think that would be a serious violation of procurement rules.

The way these kinds of procurements work is that there's a deadline for submissions of bids and companies aren't allowed to change their bids after that.  They have to submit binding bids at that point.  Allowing some companies to change their bids after the deadline would be a major breach of the rules.


I didn't interpret what TrevorMonty said that way.. Rather I interpreted it as NASA is waiting  (at least in part) so that all bidders know Vulcan pricing and can factor it into their bids... not that SNC was going to change the bid.  Are the bids all IN though? If they're all IN then my theory is spurious. Unless NASA let everyone have another chance to revise... if everyone gets that chance it's not a violation, is it?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Patchouli on 04/24/2015 07:27 am
Bad news for SNC. Even if they win it'll be hard to rebuild a team a year after the announcement of CC awards led to layoffs.

It depends if they kept key members of their team in place then it should be relatively easy to rebuild the team and pick up where they left off.

What's interesting is how capable both DCCS and Jupiter are as they approach what the ATV offered in capacity.

Jupiter though the con-ops may look risky looks to be a serious contender though SNC's vehicle is a dark horse in this competition since it ls LV agnostic and very capable.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: AnalogMan on 04/24/2015 10:52 am
I can see each provider offering various prices depending on LV and reuse.
For start Boeing, LM and SNC will be flying on Atlas initially (2018) but by 2020 should be able to use the Vulcan with >$65m  launch cost reduction.
In case of SpaceX they could be offering F9E and F9R at reduced price if booster recovery is working. There maybe another price reduction if Dragon V2 can land on land as it should be fully reusable.

 ULA are not making Vulcan pricing public till June, I would expect LM and Boeing to know its pricing but SNC may have to wait till June. This may have something to do with delaying CRS decision.

I don't think that's it.  I think that would be a serious violation of procurement rules.

The way these kinds of procurements work is that there's a deadline for submissions of bids and companies aren't allowed to change their bids after that.  They have to submit binding bids at that point.  Allowing some companies to change their bids after the deadline would be a major breach of the rules.


I didn't interpret what TrevorMonty said that way.. Rather I interpreted it as NASA is waiting  (at least in part) so that all bidders know Vulcan pricing and can factor it into their bids... not that SNC was going to change the bid.  Are the bids all IN though? If they're all IN then my theory is spurious. Unless NASA let everyone have another chance to revise... if everyone gets that chance it's not a violation, is it?

All proposals were submitted by or on December 2, 2014.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: abaddon on 04/24/2015 02:04 pm
The simplest explanation is that the number and variety of the bids makes it more challenging for NASA to evaluate them all in time.  So they simply need more time to do their due diligence.  Honestly, this is a great "problem" to have.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Rebel44 on 04/24/2015 07:49 pm
....
In case of SpaceX they could be offering F9E and F9R at reduced price if booster recovery is working. There maybe another price reduction if Dragon V2 can land on land as it should be fully reusable.

If SpaceX can land Dragon 2 on land, they would be able to provide quick access to research samples, which AFAIK is on of things that NASA would like to have.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Rebel44 on 04/24/2015 07:51 pm
Bad news for SNC. Even if they win it'll be hard to rebuild a team a year after the announcement of CC awards led to layoffs.

It depends if they kept key members of their team in place then it should be relatively easy to rebuild the team and pick up where they left off.

What's interesting is how capable both DCCS and Jupiter are as they approach what the ATV offered in capacity.

Jupiter though the con-ops may look risky looks to be a serious contender though SNC's vehicle is a dark horse in this competition since it ls LV agnostic and very capable.

Really valuable people would be likely to leave "sinking ship", unless given extra incentives to stay.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Rebel44 on 04/24/2015 07:56 pm
All proposals were submitted by or on December 2, 2014.

And even if they knew announced price and availability date for Vulcan, before submitting offers, it would be risky to depend on that info - damn near every project is late and over budget.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: docmordrid on 04/25/2015 11:00 pm
All proposals were submitted by or on December 2, 2014.

And even if they knew announced price and availability date for Vulcan, before submitting offers, it would be risky to depend on that info - damn near every project is late and over budget.

Speaking of Vulcan economics....

SFN.... (http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/22/ula-needs-commercial-business-to-close-vulcan-rocket-business-case/)

Quote
The Vulcan rocket must fly at least 10 times per year to keep factory and launch crews operating at the efficiencies needed to reach ULAs price goal of $100 million per mission,

Space News.... (http://spacenews.com/evolution-of-a-plan-ula-execs-spell-out-logic-behind-vulcan-design-choices/#sthash.Igr6Zzfi.dpuf)

Quote
So far, ULAs board has limited its approval of Vulcan-related investments to quarterly increments. "We have made no long-term commitments on the funding of a new rocket, and are currently assessing all options," said Sterling, the Boeing spokesman.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 04/28/2015 05:24 pm
Would today's Progress anomaly tilt the balance in favor of awarding three CRS-2 contracts, if they would otherwise award two?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 04/28/2015 05:50 pm
Would today's Progress anomaly tilt the balance in favor of awarding three CRS-2 contracts, if they would otherwise award two?

I don't think it will change too much. This isn't the first Progress to fail.

If anything, I think it might discourage the selection officials from going with a strategy where one vehicle flies much less frequently than the the other. They might decide that never having more than a few months between dissimilar vehicles is important to them, and more important than having 3 separate systems. In other words a scenario where you have 5 Dragon flights per Cygnus/Jupiter could be off the table despite being otherwise advantageous.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 04/28/2015 06:32 pm
Would today's Progress anomaly tilt the balance in favor of awarding three CRS-2 contracts, if they would otherwise award two?

No, because only Progress can do prop.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: kevinof on 04/28/2015 06:38 pm
Yes but they can always change the exiting terms (with agreement) or issue a new one to bring in this capability. All depends on how much of a problem they see the limitation of one vehicle providing this service.

Would today's Progress anomaly tilt the balance in favor of awarding three CRS-2 contracts, if they would otherwise award two?

No, because only Progress can do prop.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 04/28/2015 06:46 pm
Yes but they can always change the exiting terms (with agreement) or issue a new one to bring in this capability. All depends on how much of a problem they see the limitation of one vehicle providing this service.

Would today's Progress anomaly tilt the balance in favor of awarding three CRS-2 contracts, if they would otherwise award two?

No, because only Progress can do prop.

I don't think anyone has a system that can refuel the Russian side or realistically be adapted to do so. If NASA decides they want some measure of propulsion redundancy (can't fully replace Russian functions without a major effort), it probably makes more sense to have the Comm. Crew vehicles take on that responsibility.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Patchouli on 04/28/2015 07:31 pm


I don't think anyone has a system that can refuel the Russian side or realistically be adapted to do so. If NASA decides they want some measure of propulsion redundancy (can't fully replace Russian functions without a major effort), it probably makes more sense to have the Comm. Crew vehicles take on that responsibility.

In theory Jupiter and DCCS could be modified to perform the task or refueling but it probably would require use of a lot of Russian parts or licensing their IP.
For expediency it likely would mean using many of the same components changed as little as possible in a cargo pod.
Just getting the different systems to talk to each other would be a major engineering challenge in it's own right.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 04/28/2015 08:39 pm
Would today's Progress anomaly tilt the balance in favor of awarding three CRS-2 contracts, if they would otherwise award two?

No, because only Progress can do prop.

Why focus on prop?  Progress can carry a lot of things besides propellant: water, food, clothing, scientific experiments, spare parts, etc.  For all of these types of cargo it is useful to have dissimilar redundancy.

I will refer you to Space_Pete's comment:

This is now not good at all - ATV gone, Cygnus grounded, and I suspect a Progress grounding while an investigation is performed. Luckily we have an HTV this year, else Dragon would have to shoulder it all.

If NASA had chosen three vehicles for CRS-1, then there would not be so much pressure on Dragon.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: JBF on 04/28/2015 08:41 pm
If NASA had chosen three vehicles for CRS-1, then there would not be so much pressure on Dragon.

NASA didn't have the money for 3 different ones.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Patchouli on 04/28/2015 09:55 pm
Only two were ready at

If NASA had chosen three vehicles for CRS-1, then there would not be so much pressure on Dragon.


Spacehab's Arctus and SS/L's tug seemed like workable solutions that could have been ready on schedule.
But funding was short at the time and there was a tendency for the contest to favor new space companies esp if they could offer a huge cost reduction.
In retrospect Spacex was a long shot that paid off esp considering they also got a new rocket with domestic engines in the deal.
Now I'd consider companies like Spacex and SNC low risk since they have proven to have staying power.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Jim on 04/28/2015 10:18 pm

Now I'd consider companies like Spacex and SNC low risk since they have proven to have staying power.



There is no data to support such a claim wrt SNC.  They have yet to spend serious money.


Spacehab's Arctus and SS/L's tug seemed like workable solutions that could have been ready on schedule.


that claim is also unsupported
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: yg1968 on 04/28/2015 10:38 pm
If NASA had chosen three vehicles for CRS-1, then there would not be so much pressure on Dragon.

NASA didn't have the money for 3 different ones.

Plus, COTS didn't start out as a replacement for Shuttle. In any event, they have the money now. So I wouldn't be surprised if three providers get selected. 
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 04/28/2015 11:03 pm
Unless NASA selects only Dragon and CST-100 for CRS-2 (not at all likely) they will have a fleet of at least 3 vehicles capable of going to station.

In a truly desperate logistics scenario, reduced crew and pressing a CC vehicle into cargo service could keep the station running.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: baldusi on 04/28/2015 11:14 pm
I'M betting on 3 x Dragon + 2 x Cygnus + 1 x CST per year.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/28/2015 11:14 pm
Yes but they can always change the exiting terms (with agreement) or issue a new one to bring in this capability. All depends on how much of a problem they see the limitation of one vehicle providing this service.

Only the Russian segment (vice US Segment) can provide active station keeping, and therefore only vehicles docked with the Russian segment can transfer propellant to station. Russia is the one in charge of managing its segment, so unless they would agree to it NASA cant solicit for Russian segment services.

Visiting vehicles have previously provided active station keeping services, but in the case of the shuttle it was very briefly or in the case of ATV it was designed to do so for a long time. Both still had the Russian segment augmenting them.

Leveling ATV requirements to develop an independent active control is just not needed, there is fuel in the FGB and the SM (plus the Progress still on orbit) this will give the Russians plenty of time to figure out what the issue is and fix it.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: nadreck on 04/28/2015 11:18 pm
Unless NASA selects only Dragon and CST-100 for CRS-2 (not at all likely) they will have a fleet of at least 3 vehicles capable of going to station.

In a truly desperate logistics scenario, reduced crew and pressing a CC vehicle into cargo service could keep the station running.

They need redundant station boost capability and even more so redundant station thruster fuel delivery.  If one is going to postulate a day when ISS exists without any Russian support, then this should be a priority.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: arachnitect on 04/28/2015 11:46 pm
Unless NASA selects only Dragon and CST-100 for CRS-2 (not at all likely) they will have a fleet of at least 3 vehicles capable of going to station.

In a truly desperate logistics scenario, reduced crew and pressing a CC vehicle into cargo service could keep the station running.

They need redundant station boost capability and even more so redundant station thruster fuel delivery.  If one is going to postulate a day when ISS exists without any Russian support, then this should be a priority.

maybe, but it won't happen via the upcoming CRS-2 award.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Patchouli on 04/29/2015 12:04 am
Unless NASA selects only Dragon and CST-100 for CRS-2 (not at all likely) they will have a fleet of at least 3 vehicles capable of going to station.

In a truly desperate logistics scenario, reduced crew and pressing a CC vehicle into cargo service could keep the station running.

I don't think the CST-100 is worth the money it's costing and even a ferry variant of Orion might be a better deal.
All that's needed is a lite variant that rides an EELV ironically this could be a faster and cheaper solution though only because most of the R&D is already paid for.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/29/2015 02:39 am
CST-100 can do reboost, at least according to Boeing's marketing material from a while back.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: fgonella on 04/29/2015 07:19 am
Exoliner is ATV derived. Could Thales build both CBM exoliners and a few with Russian docking like ATV for refueling/reboost duty?
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 07:59 am
I'M betting on 3 x Dragon + 2 x Cygnus + 1 x CST per year.

Well, since we don't really know anything about the pricing of any of the bids, any guesses will be highly speculative at best.

My speculation is Dragon, Cygnus, and Jupiter.  I can't see CST having much going for it.  It's not a large amount of cargo, so Cygnus and Jupiter should beat it on price per unit of cargo (mass or volume).  And NASA just doesn't need that much downmass.  They can easily cover it with Dragon, which they're already using and which should be cheaper than CST-100 (the crew version of Dragon is a lot cheaper than the crew version of CST-100).  Jupiter probably gives the best value per unit of cargo, plus it has some side benefits NASA might like for the future.  But Jupiter is a risk (schedule risk, mostly), so I see NASA keeping Cygnus as insurance.

Still, like I said, highly speculative.  We don't know the details of the bids, and we don't know exactly what the people making the selection will value most.

Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 08:06 am
Bad news for SNC. Even if they win it'll be hard to rebuild a team a year after the announcement of CC awards led to layoffs.

It depends if they kept key members of their team in place then it should be relatively easy to rebuild the team and pick up where they left off.

I don't think it's just a few key people and lots of others who are easy to replace.  Hiring a team of quality people takes a lot of time.

Jupiter though the con-ops may look risky looks to be a serious contender though SNC's vehicle is a dark horse in this competition since it ls LV agnostic and very capable.

Dream Chaser isn't particularly capable in ways that matter to the criteria NASA laid out in the CRS 2 solicitation.  And being launch vehicle agnostic also doesn't help with any of the criteria NASA gave for the CRS 2 selection.  Even if Dream Chaser was already fully-developed, I think it would be at a disadvantage compared to the others.  But Dream Chaser isn't already developed, it's a billion dollars or more away from that.  That makes it virtually impossible for it to compete effectively on price.

The only way Dream Chaser wins is if NASA gives lots of awards and gives them one for sentimental reasons.  Which could happen, but I don't think it's likely at all.
Title: Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 08:15 am
I can see each provider offering various prices depending on LV and reuse.
For start Boeing, LM and SNC will be flying on Atlas initially (2018) but by 2020 should be able to use the Vulcan with >$65m  launch cost reduction.
In case of SpaceX they could be offering F9E and F9R at reduced price if booster recovery is working. There maybe another price reduction if Dragon V2 can land on land as it should be fully reusable.

 ULA are not making Vulcan pricing public till June, I would expect LM and Boeing to know its pricing but SNC may have to wait till June. This may have something to do with delaying CRS decision.

I don't think that's it.  I think that would be a serious violation of procurement rules.

The way these kinds of procurements work is that there's a deadline for submissions of bids and companies aren't allowed to change their bids after that.  They have to submit binding bids at that point.  Allowing some companies to change their bids after the deadline would be a major breach of the rules.


I didn't interpret what TrevorMonty said