ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[Robotbeat]

Is Antares/Cygnus already out because
1. their stock of engines will not last until 2024, even at 2 flights per year and
2. no capability to bring back anything?

Orbital is already looking at alternates and/or getting the engine line restarted.  3 years is plenty of time to find a solution.

Well, besides that, Cygnus (especially advanced) has much more pressurized volume than any other domestic vehicle in the near-term.

[guckyfan]

Cygnus (especially advanced) has much more pressurized volume than any other domestic vehicle in the near-term.

It should not be hard for SpaceX to implement that solution of ATK to have a second pressurized pod.

[yg1968]

I am not sure how realistic it is but the best scenario would be for NASA to have three CRS2 providers. The two CCtCap winners plus Orbital.  The RFI doesn't seem to preclude this option as it speaks of having multiple providers.

[A_M_Swallow]

I'd love to see Biglow offering their space tug concept for affordable space access.

Off topic.

The Bigelow space tug is an inspace only vehicle.  It has neither the high thrust engines nor the thermal protection system (heat shield) needed to operate in an atmosphere.  It may however end up being a second customer for the CRS2 launch vehicles.

[ehan_light]

From my point of view neither Orbital nor SpaceX have currently a Product available to meet all NASA wishes.

The Dragon would have to launch too often (>5 times due to return/disposal cargo volume of 70 to 90 m3). Cygnus can't launch 14.25t in 5 flights, has currently no return and no unpressurized cargo transportation capability. The price of new NK-33s is (at least to me) unknown and potentially objectionably hight. And for Orbital the callange to provide L-24h late load capability at Wallops is in my opinion harder to achieve.

So I've given it some thought, considered the stated wishes of NASA and came up with the following scenario optimized for simplicity and low price. Please take it with a grain of salt as I've no professional experience in the aerospace industry.

Scenario with expendable F9 v1.1 - but it should be compatible with partly reusable F9/F9Rs

Orbital would assemble a bigger version of Cygnus
- max launch weight ~10t (Cygnus's launch weight is ~5.2t)
- Everything has to fit inside a standard Falcon payload fairing.
- Orbital procures again the pressurized cargo module (PCM) from Thales Alenia Space*. The diameter of the section would be the same as the one of the ATV (~4.5m). The inner volume aimed for 30-45m3 and strong enough to support 4-5t of cargo.
- Orbital develops and produces a bigger propulsion module.
- gets launched 2x per year on a F9/F9R
- price per mission: ~160-350** million USD

SpaceX would launch their Dragon 3 times per year with a price per mission of ~150-200 million USD.

Total cost without reusability: ~770-1300 million USD per year
And it gets potentially cheaper with the introduction & maturation of the reusable F9 first stage and reusable Dragon.

estimated cost are higher than today due to the following:
- SpaceX as a single launch provider would be asked to store some almost launch ready to launch reserve LVs at the Cape as a backup.
- "A Launch on Need (LON) capability is required within 2 months of the previous flight."
- quite fix/unflexible launch windows
- inflation

*they've already built the PCMs for the ATVs, so the manufacturing machines and experience might be still in the company.
**compared to the ATV it should be easier to manufacture as there are less liquid transfer lines required.

changelog: added "per year", spelling & phrasing improved, added "inflation"

[ehan_light]

And an other obvious reason for higher prices than today: - inflation

[Roy_H]

From the article:
"The document also notes the Agency expects to allocate between $1.0B and $1.4B per year to facilitate these services.

CRS2 outlines call for the delivery of 14,250 to 16,750 kilograms (kg) of pressurized cargo, along with 1,500 to 4,000 kg of unpressurized cargo per year."

So averaged, $1.2B for 15,000kg pressurized per year. With the expectation that this would take about 5 flights.

Does anyone know what percentage is just for food and clothing?

[manboy]

And an other obvious reason for higher prices than today: - inflation

Along with the need to pick up the slack caused by the retirement of ATV and HTV.

[DGH]

Is Antares/Cygnus already out because
1. their stock of engines will not last until 2024, even at 2 flights per year and
2. no capability to bring back anything?

Orbital is already looking at alternates and/or getting the engine line restarted.  3 years is plenty of time to find a solution.

Well, besides that, Cygnus (especially advanced) has much more pressurized volume than any other domestic vehicle in the near-term.

This is very important!
There are several areas dealing with volume in the RFI.
NASA wants 70-90 cubic meters of pressurized down volume per year.
It also wants this done in 4-5 missions.
In reality IMO this contact is designed to be largely split between Cygnus and Dragon.
2.5 mission for each a year meets all the requirements.
Also Orbital has 43 engines and another 12-18 it can purchase total 55-61 total.
For 20 original contract and 35 in the new contract the total is 55 the minimum it has available.
I would also expect both to try to increase their capability per launch.
So they could do their part in 2 launches.

[Robotbeat]

No reason they couldn't launch Cygnus on Falcon 9 or Atlas V (besides cost), either. So, I don't think anyone is sweating the engines. As far as I know, Cygnus is the only thing flying on Antares (which I will admit is a little surprising).

...and heck... Stratolaunch might be relevant by the end of the contract.

[yg1968]

And an other obvious reason for higher prices than today: - inflation

Along with the need to pick up the slack caused by the retirement of ATV and HTV.

HTV isn't being retired. Gesrt said that NASA wants more HTVs.

[Jim]

In reality IMO this contact is designed to be largely split between Cygnus and Dragon.

No, there can be more than just OSC and Spacex.

[Coastal Ron]

And an other obvious reason for higher prices than today: - inflation

A reason prices for CRS2 could be quoted lower from both OSC and SpaceX is that unlike with CRS1 when they bid, now they know what their operational costs are.  Usually for new service contracts you bid very conservatively, since you don't know how well things will work.  For CRS2 though they have lots of real experience and cost data to use for the bid.

For SpaceX, their costs could be dramatically lower if they are allowed to reuse the fleet of once-used cargo Dragon's that they'll have at the end of the CRS1 contract.  That would also allow them to focus on a slow buildup of the crew/multipurpose version of the Dragon.

I don't see SpaceX Falcon 9 reusability (i.e. Falcon 9R) factoring into this, since they likely won't have perfected it by the time they submit their bid.  If the ISS gets extended beyond 2024 though, use of Falcon 9R could drive down prices for a future CRS3 contract even more.

And that's what you would hope to see going forward, that the costs for supporting operations in space would GO DOWN, not up over time.  If costs only go up, then humanity will never be able to afford to expand out into space.

[yg1968]

I am guessing that SpaceX will maintain their CRS1 prices (per kg) for CRS2.

[yg1968]

No reason they couldn't launch Cygnus on Falcon 9 or Atlas V (besides cost), either. So, I don't think anyone is sweating the engines. As far as I know, Cygnus is the only thing flying on Antares (which I will admit is a little surprising).

...and heck... Stratolaunch might be relevant by the end of the contract.

I wonder if Orbital would be allowed to switch LVs in the middle of the contract. Although, I suppose that you could argue that is exactly what SpaceX did under CRS-1 with its upgraded F9. Incidentally, Culbertson said that Orbital is currently in negotiation with a customer for Antares.

[robertross]

I am guessing that SpaceX will maintain their CRS1 prices (per kg) for CRS2.

With only SNC's DC coming down the pipe for possible Cargo return capability, they may be in a better position to bring their prices up.

We need to remember that many companies, research institutes, and schools held back on developing large budget science projects that could be sent up to the ISS because the End-of Life for station was uncertain. With a potential 10 year future (or more), they may start asking for greater science time up there, and having robust 'up-mass' AND 'down-mass' capability for their experiments could be critical.

Plus there is only so much analysis that can be done on station, and that analysis would like require expensive test equipment (to develop, test, certify, and launch). It could be cheaper to just send the samples back down. It also frees up valuable astronaut time for other experiments, rather than it spent on analysis training.

[BrightLight]

I am guessing that SpaceX will maintain their CRS1 prices (per kg) for CRS2.

With only SNC's DC coming down the pipe for possible Cargo return capability, they may be in a better position to bring their prices up.

We need to remember that many companies, research institutes, and schools held back on developing large budget science projects that could be sent up to the ISS because the End-of Life for station was uncertain. With a potential 10 year future (or more), they may start asking for greater science time up there, and having robust 'up-mass' AND 'down-mass' capability for their experiments could be critical.

Plus there is only so much analysis that can be done on station, and that analysis would like require expensive test equipment (to develop, test, certify, and launch). It could be cheaper to just send the samples back down. It also frees up valuable astronaut time for other experiments, rather than it spent on analysis training.

I must have missed something - why would cargo version of Dragon not have down mass capabilities?

[clongton]

I am guessing that SpaceX will maintain their CRS1 prices (per kg) for CRS2.

With only SNC's DC coming down the pipe for possible Cargo return capability, they may be in a better position to bring their prices up.

We need to remember that many companies, research institutes, and schools held back on developing large budget science projects that could be sent up to the ISS because the End-of Life for station was uncertain. With a potential 10 year future (or more), they may start asking for greater science time up there, and having robust 'up-mass' AND 'down-mass' capability for their experiments could be critical.

Plus there is only so much analysis that can be done on station, and that analysis would like require expensive test equipment (to develop, test, certify, and launch). It could be cheaper to just send the samples back down. It also frees up valuable astronaut time for other experiments, rather than it spent on analysis training.

I must have missed something - why would cargo version of Dragon not have down mass capabilities?

The statement needs to be understood in it's context, namely that Dragon has down-mass capability. Then [besides Dragon] "With only SNC's DC coming down the pipe ...".

The intent was that Dragon will only share down-mass capability with one other provider; SNC.

[Robotbeat]

CST-100 would have down-mass capabilities. They may bid on CRS-2. But Dragon obviously is far ahead in this regard, since, um, they've already flown to ISS 4 times doing cargo up and down.

[yg1968]

CST-100 would have down-mass capabilities. They may bid on CRS-2. But Dragon obviously is far ahead in this regard, since, um, they've already flown to ISS 4 times doing cargo up and down.

We'll see what the selection criteria are but I suspect that they will be similar to CCtCap. If that is the case, price will be very important (as it should be). I suspect that SpaceX will come out on top because of prices again. But after SpaceX, the competition is wide open. Isn't competition, great?