And yes, that ISS was primarily designed to be built and serviced by a vehicle roughly the size and mass of Starship kind of proves my point for me.
It doesn't surprise me SpaceX is interested in free flyer contract money. NG has been demonstrating Cygnus' capability to be used as a free flyer. Dragon XL is similar to Cygnus and so should be able to offer the same capability.I'd be remiss to not mention CNBC's lack of love for cargo Dream Chaser. I know Starliner should enter service sooner but as of right now both are spacecraft that will be available in the near future.
Quote from: Joseph Peterson on 03/27/2021 08:21 pmIt doesn't surprise me SpaceX is interested in free flyer contract money. NG has been demonstrating Cygnus' capability to be used as a free flyer. Dragon XL is similar to Cygnus and so should be able to offer the same capability.I'd be remiss to not mention CNBC's lack of love for cargo Dream Chaser. I know Starliner should enter service sooner but as of right now both are spacecraft that will be available in the near future.It shouldn't suprise you. They tried selling cargo Dragon as a free flying lab many years ago. DragonLab never went anywhere. Too soon perhaps, but it could be that commercial space research can't/couldn't pay for Dragon launches without NASA funding.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/30/2021 04:36 amAnd yes, that ISS was primarily designed to be built and serviced by a vehicle roughly the size and mass of Starship kind of proves my point for me. No it doesn't because, and this may astound you, even despite being of similar size and mass, the Orbiter was a very different vehicle than Starship. To point out just one issue: while the Shuttle was docked with the ISS, responsibility for orientation control of the combined spacecraft was shared between the Shuttle and the Station. Because Starship is about the same size and mass as the Shuttle, it's reasonable to assume that the same would have to be true of Starship, a different vehicle, using a different propellant, to power thrusters in a very different layout, that was designed with no consideration of things like where the ISS solar arrays would be in relation to thrusters. The Shuttle didn't have this problem because this issue was known and designed around from the beginning of design work on (what would become) ISS way back in the 80s. And even then, they still ran into problems with the combined Shuttle-Station from time to time.Starship can't just dock to the ISS for the same reason you can't just replace the EUS with the New Glenn upper stage or strap 2 SLS SRBs onto a SuperHeavy, or any other crazy idea of Lego rocketry. Integration. When two vehicles dock in orbit, they become one vehicle. If they weren't designed to do that, then that new vehicle won't fly correctly. And when there are human lives involved, the risk is intolerable.
Quote from: JEF_300 on 03/30/2021 06:58 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/30/2021 04:36 amAnd yes, that ISS was primarily designed to be built and serviced by a vehicle roughly the size and mass of Starship kind of proves my point for me. No it doesn't because, and this may astound you, even despite being of similar size and mass, the Orbiter was a very different vehicle than Starship. To point out just one issue: while the Shuttle was docked with the ISS, responsibility for orientation control of the combined spacecraft was shared between the Shuttle and the Station. Because Starship is about the same size and mass as the Shuttle, it's reasonable to assume that the same would have to be true of Starship, a different vehicle, using a different propellant, to power thrusters in a very different layout, that was designed with no consideration of things like where the ISS solar arrays would be in relation to thrusters. The Shuttle didn't have this problem because this issue was known and designed around from the beginning of design work on (what would become) ISS way back in the 80s. And even then, they still ran into problems with the combined Shuttle-Station from time to time.Starship can't just dock to the ISS for the same reason you can't just replace the EUS with the New Glenn upper stage or strap 2 SLS SRBs onto a SuperHeavy, or any other crazy idea of Lego rocketry. Integration. When two vehicles dock in orbit, they become one vehicle. If they weren't designed to do that, then that new vehicle won't fly correctly. And when there are human lives involved, the risk is intolerable. I can say that the Russian segment was not designed to operate in conjunction with the Space Shuttle.If SpaceX were tasked with docking Starship with ISS, they could probably make the required mods to enable the mission. That particular job would be an order of magnitude easier than getting Starship to land successfully.
...Especially since Starship docking is not a service the ISS has any use for.
Quote from: JEF_300 on 03/31/2021 12:24 am...Especially since Starship docking is not a service the ISS has any use for.And why is that? It'd offer WAY more cargo (not to mention crew) capability than Dragon and potentially for significantly less expensive.
The CLD FAQ posted upthread is very clear that NASA expects capacity requirements post-ISS to decrease, not increase.
NASA posted a CLD Draft Announcement today, along with notice that a "CLD Virtual Pre-Proposal Conference" in response to this announcement will be held on May 26, 2021.Link: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/625331e3b0804fe9998c520f40c59da7/viewCopy of announcement also attached (the first few pages give an overview of the project).
2.2.2 Crew Service GoalsService goals for accommodation of crew:• Accommodations on CLD of at least two crew.• Continuous crew presence on CLD (this can be an evolutionary capability).• Flexible frequency of crew rotation, including occasional crew stays of six months, one year, or longer.• The CLD will provide crew accommodations (food, hygiene, medical, exercise, etc.).2.2.3 Payload and Facility Service Goals• Able to accommodate internal pressurized payloads and facilities o Able to accommodate Middeck Locker Equivalents (MLE) to accommodate heritage payloads. New payloads can be built to participant’s interface requirements. o Able to accommodate payloads and facilities that are larger than MLEs.• Able to accommodate approximately six external unpressurized payloads, oriented as one ram, one wake, two nadir, and two zenith.2.2.4 “Stretch” Service GoalsIn addition to evaluating the overall CLD goals listed above, NASA will also evaluate proposed CLD concepts for their ability to provide the following ancillary service capabilities listed here. Implementation of these goals should not impact the CLD’s primary goal to provide the services described in the sections above in a safe, reliable, and cost-effective manner. Optional or evolutionary approaches to support these goals can be proposed along with approximate development costs.2.2.4.1 Exploration Analog ServicesCapability to perform exploration analog missions on the CLD to simulate deep space transportation conditions with environmental and acoustic isolation of a crew from other CLD activity and dedicated use of customer-furnished exploration test beds. Key components for consideration include:• Up to 4 crew members• Crew volume of approximately 100 cubic meters• Isolation, both in terms of environmental and sensory, from any other CLD activities• In-situ sample processing & analysis of blood, urine, saliva, omics, chemistry, cytometry• Mission duration of 30 days to one year or more• Potential test beds: o ECLSS o Food system with cold stowage o Exercise equipment o Medical equipment2.2.4.2 Artificial/Partial Gravity ServicesCapability to perform up to human-scale artificial gravity research such as to simulate Moon and/or Mars surface gravity for experiments or as a countermeasure to the effects of microgravity on crew health and performance.
3.2.1 Duplicative FundingNASA will not fund participant CLD efforts to the extent such funding duplicates payments made by the U.S. Government to the participant, pursuant to another U.S. government contract or agreement, for the same purpose.
I wonder what they meant by "Continuous crew presence" can be "an evolutionary capability".
Continuous human presence. (Participants may propose ramping up capabilities in response to projected markets but concepts which have continuous human presence or culminate in continuous human presence will be of higher value to NASA.)
Also I wonder what this Duplicative Funding section is for, I don't remember seeing similar section in other RFPs, something they added because of some Congressional mandate?
Also I wonder what this Duplicative Funding section is for, I don't remember seeing similar section in other RFPs, something they added because of some Congressional mandate?Quote3.2.1 Duplicative FundingNASA will not fund participant CLD efforts to the extent such funding duplicates payments made by the U.S. Government to the participant, pursuant to another U.S. government contract or agreement, for the same purpose.
For purposes of the proposal, participants shall assume Phase II service contract award at the beginning of FY26 and transition of NASA utilization from ISS to CLD over the FY29-30 period.
NASA anticipates a total of up to $400 million spread over fiscal years 2022 through 2025 to be available for funding the agreements. This amount is expected to fund two to four agreements. The amount of funding allocated to a participant offered a Funded Space Act Agreement will be solely at NASA’s discretion.
McAlister: can't say how much we will spend on cmrcl LEO destinations, but better be significantly less than $3.2 B/year for ISS. Our outyear budgets assume we'll save 50% by buying cmrcl services. But I'm not willing to commit to what we'll spend in phase 2 [of this chart]
However, for companies to access sufficient capital to field a commercial space station, NASA must lean forward as much as it can to reassure industry that it will be a robust and ongoing customer. NASA’s desire to continuously fly two crew members in LEO and perform 200 investigations per year is a good start. If NASA can incorporate such a commitment into the initial CLD SAAs and potentially include additional crew and investigations in the future, such actions will position the private sector for success.Change is inevitable, but it is also beneficial and necessary for institutions, ideas and even individuals to survive and thrive. The environment in LEO is changing and American capabilities must also change to meet tomorrow’s challenges. China is wisely investing in crewed LEO operations and making strong diplomatic overtures to build a global coalition for its space program. To avoid ceding LEO to China, the U.S. must lean into its traditional strengths, specifically, entrepreneurialism and innovation, both of which are driven by the freedom and diversity that are the twin pillars of American society.Taking the concept of a commercial space station from idea to reality will require a concerted effort from all of us. NASA, Congress, the executive branch and industry must all work quickly and in unison. Together, we can build a bridge that will allow America to safely and successfully cross over the space station gap, on a path toward a future of peace and prosperity in LEO and beyond for the U.S. and all of humanity to enjoy.
