It may be that they can't fulfill their full contract, but I'm sure they'd consider that a better bet than pushing something out that isn't ready. The push should be the future, and to me that means hoping to get a portion of the CRS2 contract (in tandem with SpaceX). Being ready for that should be the #1 goal.
Quote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 08:49 pmIt may be that they can't fulfill their full contract, but I'm sure they'd consider that a better bet than pushing something out that isn't ready. The push should be the future, and to me that means hoping to get a portion of the CRS2 contract (in tandem with SpaceX). Being ready for that should be the #1 goal.If they can't fulfill their CRS-1 contract, they aren't going to get a CRS-2 contract
Quote from: Jim on 11/01/2014 08:51 pmQuote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 08:49 pmIt may be that they can't fulfill their full contract, but I'm sure they'd consider that a better bet than pushing something out that isn't ready. The push should be the future, and to me that means hoping to get a portion of the CRS2 contract (in tandem with SpaceX). Being ready for that should be the #1 goal.If they can't fulfill their CRS-1 contract, they aren't going to get a CRS-2 contractBut that would be up to NASA to decide, no?And NASA already has a substantial investment in getting Orbital to the point of ISS re-supply, with limited options in the near term, so perhaps contract re-negotiation could be in order.
But for the record, I think Orbital will figure out how to get the rest of their CRS1 missions done.
CRS Go-Forward PlanThe company’s senior managers have begun developing a comprehensive plan to maintain the cargo supply line between Earth and the International Space Station, fulfilling Orbital’s commitment to NASA for the delivery of supplies for the astronaut crew, necessary equipment for the operation and maintenance of the station, and scientific experiments conducted aboard the orbiting laboratory. Details about Orbital’s approach for completing future missions under its Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract with NASA will be made public in the near future.
Quote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 09:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 11/01/2014 08:51 pmQuote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 08:49 pmIt may be that they can't fulfill their full contract, but I'm sure they'd consider that a better bet than pushing something out that isn't ready. The push should be the future, and to me that means hoping to get a portion of the CRS2 contract (in tandem with SpaceX). Being ready for that should be the #1 goal.If they can't fulfill their CRS-1 contract, they aren't going to get a CRS-2 contractBut that would be up to NASA to decide, no?And NASA already has a substantial investment in getting Orbital to the point of ISS re-supply, with limited options in the near term, so perhaps contract re-negotiation could be in order.I agree with Jim. If CRS2 has pretty much the same requirements as the current CRS1 contract, then if Orbital can't complete their CRS1 contract why would anyone think they could handle the CRS2 contract?And from a business standpoint, why would you put your faith in a company that has not been able to fulfill a contract you already have with them? You wouldn't.But for the record, I think Orbital will figure out how to get the rest of their CRS1 missions done.
Everything in public domain points to them using a different engine for CRS2 contract so any failure due to AJ26 shouldn't count against them.
Plus tender is not just about LV but also the Cygnus which has proved its self. ISS is more precious than any cargo, having a reliable flight proven cargo vehicle is a huge plus for Orbital.
Quote from: Jim on 11/01/2014 08:51 pmQuote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 08:49 pmIt may be that they can't fulfill their full contract, but I'm sure they'd consider that a better bet than pushing something out that isn't ready. The push should be the future, and to me that means hoping to get a portion of the CRS2 contract (in tandem with SpaceX). Being ready for that should be the #1 goal.If they can't fulfill their CRS-1 contract, they aren't going to get a CRS-2 contractYou seem very sure of that.The only thing that would stop them flying the current Antares again is if it is AJ26 problem that can't be resolved. Any other possible failings of LV should be solvable.Everything in public domain points to them using a different engine for CRS2 contract so any failure due to AJ26 shouldn't count against them. Plus tender is not just about LV but also the Cygnus which has proved its self. ISS is more precious than any cargo, having a reliable flight proven cargo vehicle is a huge plus for Orbital.
Quote from: Prober on 11/01/2014 08:00 pmIn another thread Dan thought of using Arianne if ULA isn't able to free up a core or two. Sure, Arianne has issues of its own, and has a spare Soyuz-ST that could be used for Cygnus, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34129.msg1268946#msg1268946a Win Win for both firms.No, it has to be a US rocket
In another thread Dan thought of using Arianne if ULA isn't able to free up a core or two. Sure, Arianne has issues of its own, and has a spare Soyuz-ST that could be used for Cygnus, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34129.msg1268946#msg1268946a Win Win for both firms.
Well I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible.
Quote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 09:39 pmWell I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible. I thought the intent of the CRS1 extensions was to buy MORE flights to fill the gap between the scheduled CRS1 missions and the beginning of CRS2?
Well I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible. Of course NASA would want assurances before that cut off point, but I see more than enough time to fly a re-designed Antares, rather than fielding an entirely new spacecraft, perhaps building a new launch pad (if required), and meeting NASA's ISS requirements (including 1 flight with prox ops).I see Orbital still using Antares, albeit likely with a new engine. (And personally I'd call it the Phoenix, understandably, but they likely won't change the name, and let's not start a naming game on this thread)
Quote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 09:39 pmWell I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible. Of course NASA would want assurances before that cut off point, but I see more than enough time to fly a re-designed Antares, rather than fielding an entirely new spacecraft, perhaps building a new launch pad (if required), and meeting NASA's ISS requirements (including 1 flight with prox ops).I see Orbital still using Antares, albeit likely with a new engine. (And personally I'd call it the Phoenix, understandably, but they likely won't change the name, and let's not start a naming game on this thread)The standard sized Cyngus probably also can fit on Stratolaunch. OSC is developing the rocket so it would make sense to go ahead and design a payload interface for their own vehicles.
Quote from: gongora on 11/01/2014 11:54 pmQuote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 09:39 pmWell I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible. I thought the intent of the CRS1 extensions was to buy MORE flights to fill the gap between the scheduled CRS1 missions and the beginning of CRS2?Not according to what I found:https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cff80051d20c232523953c167a42b410&tab=core&_cview=0
Quote from: robertross on 11/02/2014 01:30 amQuote from: gongora on 11/01/2014 11:54 pmQuote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 09:39 pmWell I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible. I thought the intent of the CRS1 extensions was to buy MORE flights to fill the gap between the scheduled CRS1 missions and the beginning of CRS2?Not according to what I found:https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cff80051d20c232523953c167a42b410&tab=core&_cview=0The wording in that is really strange. The CRS contracts already went to the end of 2016, and both Orbital and SpaceX are scheduled to do their final flights under the original contract in late 2016. There is a one year gap because CRS2 isn't scheduled to start until 2018, so they need to buy another 4-5 flights in 2017. I think that posting really is to buy the additional 2017 flights, just hard to understand what all the bureaucratic language is actually saying.
I believe the key point is the first paragraph (bold mine):"NASA/JSC intends to extend the existing Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts NNJ09GA02B, with Orbital Sciences Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Orbital, and NNJ09GA04B, with Space Exploration Technologies, hereinafter referred to as SpaceX for up to 24 months from December 2015 to December 2017 at no cost. Both contracts were awarded in December 2008 and have a not to exceed (NTE) contract value of 3.1B each."