ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[yg1968]

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.

[dror]

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  ?

[Billium]

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.

[Star One]

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.

[Robotbeat]

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.

[ChrisWilson68]

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.

[ChrisWilson68]

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.

[Robotbeat]

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.

[ChrisWilson68]

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.

[Robotbeat]

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.

[Nomadd]

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.

[yg1968]

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.

[Space Ghost 1962]

...
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.

[AncientU]

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?

[Razvan]

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.

[arachnitect]

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.

[watermod]

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.

[Star One]

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.

[baldusi]

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:

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.

[gongora]

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.