ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[Coastal Ron]

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...   

[ChrisWilson68]

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.

[ChrisWilson68]

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.

[TrevorMonty]

I like Jon's idea more than my Dream Chaser speculation. (just 4 u Danderman no acronyms)

[llanitedave]

Maybe it will be a vehicle powered by their compact fusion reactor!   

[jongoff]

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

[rcoppola]

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

[Sesquipedalian]

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.

[arachnitect]

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.

[Blackstar]

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

[Star One]

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.

[baldusi]

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.

[woods170]

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.

[jongoff]

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

[Coastal Ron]

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.

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.

[Blackstar]

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.

[arachnitect]

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.

[jongoff]

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

[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.

[yg1968]

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