Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 02/24/2014 05:07 pmThe cost to SpaceX is roughly the same for each of these options, possibly in the order of $400M.NASA isn't providing any development funds for cargo - they already did that with the COTS program.Unless there is some deficit that NASA currently sees that needs to be addressed with the current cargo providers, I'm sure they would quite happy if they continued to use the current Orbital Sciences and SpaceX cargo transportation systems. Between the two of them they provide everything that the station needs, and if they need something else they can create a separate contract to handle that.And I'll state again that from my perspective if we're not LOWERING the overall cost to support the ISS, then we don't yet know enough to expand humanity out into space. And isn't that really the goal we all want?
The cost to SpaceX is roughly the same for each of these options, possibly in the order of $400M.
NASA prefers cargo vehicles to berth since some cargo items are larger than what can be accommodated through the docking adapter, for instance an M03 bag. If docking is proposed, the providers should consider methods of transferring cargo through the docking adapter.
Interesting that the contract is awarded in Feb 2015. NASA would really be taking a risk (again) to award a contract to a vendor whose cargo ship hasn't flown yet.
Aerojet RocketdyneAerospaceArrow AstriumATDLATKBarriosBlue OriginBoeingDraper LabKistler SSL-3 CincinnatiLockheed MartinOrbitalParagon Space Development CorporationSASSNCSpaceXTeledyne BrownUnited Launch AllianceUTAS
Slide 34 is interesting. It states the following:Quote from: presentationNASA prefers cargo vehicles to berth since some cargo items are larger than what can be accommodated through the docking adapter, for instance an M03 bag. If docking is proposed, the providers should consider methods of transferring cargo through the docking adapter.
Interested parties list has been posted:Quote from: Interested parties listAerojet RocketdyneAerospaceArrow AstriumATDLATKBarriosBlue OriginBoeingDraper LabKistler SSL-3 CincinnatiLockheed MartinOrbitalParagon Space Development CorporationSASSNCSpaceXTeledyne BrownUnited Launch AllianceUTAShttp://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/
6. Q:What schedule extension is possible? The proposed schedule is such that onlyincumbents can properly respond. Answering all the requirements and putting togethera response for a 9 year contract of a billion dollars or more takes more time. Is thistargeted to incumbents? A:The schedule for the procurement is in work and will be maintained and updatedas required on the CRS2 website. The final schedule is being developed,taking into account feedback received from industry during industry day.NASA is conducting a full and open competitionand is seeking industry input to have the maximum participationpossible. The CRS2 procurement is not targeted to incumbents.
8. Q: Has consideration been given to awarding CRS2 at the same time as Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap)?A: Yes, NASA has considered the schedules of both procurements and is actively working to ensure that the schedules for these two procurements are coordinated to allow the maximum participation from industry on both competitions. The schedule for the CRS2 procurement is in work and will be maintained and updated as required on the CRS2 website.
13. Q: Has consideration been given in using the same companies for commercial crew and cargo?A: The CRS2 competition will be a full and open competition and is independent of the commercial crew competition
20. Q: Will a company proposing a docking cargo system be disadvantaged compared to one that proposes a berthing cargo system? How much cargo going up would be limited for docking vs berthing?A: As stated in the Request for Information (RFI), there is a preference for berthing due to the dimensional limitations of the International Docking Adapter (IDA). There are ISS cargo items that must be transferred through an ISS berthing port and, as such, vehicles using the ISS berthing ports will be an integral part of the CRS2 resupply strategy. However, both docking and berthing are acceptable approaches. The CRS2 RFP will define the cargo that is limited to transfer through a berthing port.
16. Q: Is demonstration of ISS integration required before a proposer can be considered for award? What is needed for certification of new entrants?A: No, demonstration of ISS integration is not required before award. An initial ISS integration certification must be completed before any initial flight to ISS and the CRS2 RFP will define the requirements to be met for any potential offeror selected for award. An initial flight to ISS may allow limitations on types of cargo and mass carried and may entail the demonstration and/or verification of capabilities prior to approaching the ISS.
22. Q: Is there a limitation on location of launch sites? United States (U.S.) only?A: There is no statutory limitation on location of launch sites. However, payload processing facilities required must be available in close proximity to any launch site. Additional costs to NASA for processing payloads at various launch sites will be taken into account in the evaluation process. The CRS2 RFP will define the payload processing needs and evaluation approach.
Some of the more interesting questions.Quote16. Q: Is demonstration of ISS integration required before a proposer can be considered for award? What is needed for certification of new entrants?A: No, demonstration of ISS integration is not required before award. An initial ISS integration certification must be completed before any initial flight to ISS and the CRS2 RFP will define the requirements to be met for any potential offeror selected for award. An initial flight to ISS may allow limitations on types of cargo and mass carried and may entail the demonstration and/or verification of capabilities prior to approaching the ISS.
Quote22. Q: Is there a limitation on location of launch sites? United States (U.S.) only?A: There is no statutory limitation on location of launch sites. However, payload processing facilities required must be available in close proximity to any launch site. Additional costs to NASA for processing payloads at various launch sites will be taken into account in the evaluation process. The CRS2 RFP will define the payload processing needs and evaluation approach.
12.Q:For CRS2, why has NASA decided to create higher total upmass cargo delivery requirements, per launch, versus the original contracted delivery capabilities of the two incumbent launch service providers for CRS1? Seems like this could be viewed as limiting the possible launch vehicle systems to compete for CRS2.A:There have been three major changes in upmass needs since CRS1 was awarded. First, t he upmass requirements have increased for research and supporting a fourth crew member . Se cond, some of the upmass requirements provided as part of the contribution by our international partner vehicles have been met . N o additional vehicles are currently scheduled from these international partners . Third, the stockpile of supplies that were put on orbit before Shuttle retirement ha ve been consumed and the ISS program now has to fly all the supplies needed in a timely fashion. Therefore, in comparison to the CRS1 requirements, a higher total upmass delivery is required by the ISS program for the CRS2 procurement . The higher upmass per launch is necessary to insure that the additional required cargo can be brought to orbit on about the same number of cargo flights per year as the CRS1 contract requires. Each docking/berthing operation is a bi g impact to crew time and therefore research on ISS. Today, with crew flights and cargo flights necessary for both U . S . and Russian segment operations , an average of 14 flights come to the ISS each year. More than this will be a major impact to operations. The refore the desire to transport the identified upmass on no more than 5 cargo flights per year. NASA is conduct ing a full and open competition and is seeking 4 inputs from industry to determine the final requirements to enable the best value for the governme nt in meet ing the ISS resupply needs.
I suspect that Antares would have trouble with the mass requirement, so Orbital may need to use e.g. Stratolaunch instead.
That RFI requests up to 16.8 tonnes of pressurized upmass yearly with a volume of up to 70 m^3. The maximum allowed number of flights is 5 yearly, so this works out to 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3 per flight. A dragon has only 11 m^3 of pressurized volume (http://www.spacex.com/dragon), so a larger dragon is presumably required. I have no idea whether a F9 1.1 would be sufficient to haul an enlarged dragon to ISS. Cygnus has plenty of available volume (27 m^3) but has a mass capacity of only 2.7 tonnes (http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSystems/Publications/Cygnus_factsheet.pdf), so it appears to need upgrading as well. I suspect that Antares would have trouble with the mass requirement, so Orbital may need to use e.g. Stratolaunch instead.
But Stratolaunch isn't even close to being ready anytime soon, right? Or have I missed something? It seems unlikely that there is time to introduce a new LV for use with CRS2. Antares, F9, Altas V or Delta IV seem like the only launch vehicle options that are realistic.
Quote from: Lars_J on 04/29/2014 12:26 amBut Stratolaunch isn't even close to being ready anytime soon, right? Or have I missed something? It seems unlikely that there is time to introduce a new LV for use with CRS2. Antares, F9, Altas V or Delta IV seem like the only launch vehicle options that are realistic.You're right. Stratolaunch isn't expected to ready until 2018 and CRS2 starts in 2017.
That RFI requests up to 16.8 tonnes of pressurized upmass yearly with a volume of up to 70 m^3. The maximum allowed number of flights is 5 yearly, so this works out to 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3 per flight.A dragon has only 11 m^3 of pressurized volume (http://www.spacex.com/dragon), so a larger dragon is presumably required. I have no idea whether a F9 1.1 would be sufficient to haul an enlarged dragon to ISS.
