Author Topic: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024  (Read 418409 times)

Offline MDDevice

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
  • Canada
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #600 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

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15309
  • Liked: 5754
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #601 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.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2015 04:12 pm by yg1968 »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 682
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #602 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%]
 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35721
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19879
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #603 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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35721
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19879
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #604 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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 682
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #605 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.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2015 04:42 pm by arachnitect »

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #606 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.
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #607 on: 03/14/2015 04:44 pm »
If fuel depots ever eventuate, the tug could be used for docking fuel tanks.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4412
  • Liked: 2269
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #608 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.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2324
  • Likes Given: 2832
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #609 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.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35721
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19879
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #610 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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35721
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19879
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #611 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.)
« Last Edit: 03/14/2015 05:25 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4412
  • Liked: 2269
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #612 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).

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35721
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19879
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #613 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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4412
  • Liked: 2269
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #614 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.)

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 2262
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #615 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.

Offline Steam Chaser

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #616 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).

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 682
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #617 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

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7423
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2324
  • Likes Given: 2832
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #618 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. ;)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35721
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19879
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #619 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.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2015 06:10 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0