ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[yg1968]

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.

I'll just note that you quote "up to" 3.4 tonnes and 14 m^3. If that's the language from the original, then that would simply to me imply an upper bound, or a rough ballpark they'd like. I think you could also mix-and-match payloads between operators: put denser payloads into Dragon, and save lighter, bulkier ones for Cygnus. (Just to pick a combination of the two existing vehicles.)

The RFI says that it should generally represent 55 to 70 m^3. It doesn't seem to be a hard requirement. But SpaceX would meet it anyways. They should also meet the payload requirement 5 x 3 mt = 15mt.

Delivery of 14,250 to 16,750 kilograms (kg) per year of pressurized cargo.
o The typical volume of the mass of cargo quoted above is 55 to 70 cubic meters (m3) which must be accommodated.

[deltaV]

NASA is unlikely to be happy if they have 70 m^3 of cargo to transport some year and SpaceX can only transport 55 m^3. If I were bidding I would aim for the high end of the stated ranges, not the low end.

[guckyfan]

My guess, they will offer Dragon with docking and a secondary pressurized volume with berthing in the trunk. That will easily fulfill all requirements of volume, weight, cargo dimensions and downmass as well as require only one type of Dragon for cargo and freight crew. Falcon 9 has the lifting capacity even with reusable first stage.

[manboy]

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.

This seems somewhat relevant.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/03-Walz_Cygnus_Beyond_Low-Earth_Orbit.pdf

https://ac.arc.nasa.gov/p5uwr8gcebb/?archiveOffset=1620000

[baldusi]

NASA stated they planned at least a couple of suppliers. NASA has that capability now with the Dragon/Cygnus combo. Specially with the Enhanced version flying on the Antares 130. So they have volumetric pressurized cargo going with Cygnus, heavy pressurized, unpressurized and down mass, with Dragon. If I had to make an assumption, Cygnus might be in the strongest position (save for the LV supply woes), since all the CCiCap participants will make bids very similar to the Dragon. Dragon has obviously some serious advantages: fully integrated and demonstrated, CBM and price.
The ATK proposal would have been great for a combined bid of crew and cargo. And my guess is that if their offer was more mature NASA would have allowed for a combined offering. But alas, it doesn't seems to be the case.

[Elmar Moelzer]

The problem, I see with Cygnus is that it does not do downmass. It will be interesting if other parties can beat SpaceX and Dragon in fulfilling of the requirements and in price.

[yg1968]

NASA stated they planned at least a couple of suppliers. NASA has that capability now with the Dragon/Cygnus combo. Specially with the Enhanced version flying on the Antares 130. So they have volumetric pressurized cargo going with Cygnus, heavy pressurized, unpressurized and down mass, with Dragon. If I had to make an assumption, Cygnus might be in the strongest position (save for the LV supply woes), since all the CCiCap participants will make bids very similar to the Dragon. Dragon has obviously some serious advantages: fully integrated and demonstrated, CBM and price.
The ATK proposal would have been great for a combined bid of crew and cargo. And my guess is that if their offer was more mature NASA would have allowed for a combined offering. But alas, it doesn't seems to be the case.

NASA hasn't said that it wants two suppliers. The RFI only says one or more suppliers. Nevertheless, it seems likely that NASA will choose two suppliers. The requirements are such that Orbital and SpaceX have a better chance of being selected than others. Maybe that is why some have stated that the proposal seems to be targeted for incumbents.

As far as SpaceX is concerned, we have no clue what Dragon 2 will look like and be capable of. We know that it will be able to land propulsively on land. But that's about all that we know.   

I am hoping that NASA will choose three suppliers: two CCiCap companies plus Orbital. But I don't know how realistic that is.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Hmm, I just realized that Dream Chaser theoretically has enough volume, but would it have enough upmass?

[yg1968]

It looks like Orbital will replace the AJ-26 with an ATK rocket engine. I am not sure how that will affect Orbital's chances for CRS2.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34580.msg1190335#msg1190335

[docmordrid]

The Liberty first stage with Antares stickers?  A new solid, maybe based on their Stratolaunch effort?

[yg1968]

A new solid, maybe based on their Stratolaunch effort?

From what I recall, Stratolaunch had the rights to the rocket that would be built for them. So it would have to be a different rocket.

[baldusi]

NASA stated they planned at least a couple of suppliers. NASA has that capability now with the Dragon/Cygnus combo. Specially with the Enhanced version flying on the Antares 130. So they have volumetric pressurized cargo going with Cygnus, heavy pressurized, unpressurized and down mass, with Dragon. If I had to make an assumption, Cygnus might be in the strongest position (save for the LV supply woes), since all the CCiCap participants will make bids very similar to the Dragon. Dragon has obviously some serious advantages: fully integrated and demonstrated, CBM and price.
The ATK proposal would have been great for a combined bid of crew and cargo. And my guess is that if their offer was more mature NASA would have allowed for a combined offering. But alas, it doesn't seems to be the case.

NASA hasn't said that it wants two suppliers. The RFI only says one or more suppliers. Nevertheless, it seems likely that NASA will choose two suppliers. The requirements are such that Orbital and SpaceX have a better chance of being selected than others. Maybe that is why some have stated that the proposal seems to be targeted for incumbents.

As far as SpaceX is concerned, we have no clue what Dragon 2 will look like and be capable of. We know that it will be able to land propuslively on land. But that's about all that we know.   

I am hoping that NASA will choose three suppliers: two CCiCap companies plus Orbital. But I don't know how realistic that is.

Well, I had a special interpretation of this QA (my italics):

24. Q: Would NASA consider 1 award?
A: The Government intends to award one or more contracts as a result of the CRS2 RFP to ensure assured access for cargo to the ISS. A decision to award to a single source will not be able to be determined until all offers are evaluated.

I don't believe they can get assured access with a single supplier. Any stand down means no access. While they are not saying it, I'm assuming that's it will be extremely difficult to have assured access without two different systems.
May be, they could if they have different Cargo and Crew and the Crew can work as a robotic capsule in case of need. But I don't know if they can do that. Specially with the 60 days LON.

[Lars_J]

The Liberty first stage with Antares stickers?  A new solid, maybe based on their Stratolaunch effort?

I don't think either option will be available in time for the presumed start of the CRS2 contracts. But I could be wrong.

[Prober]

It looks like Orbital will replace the AJ-26 with an ATK rocket engine. I am not sure how that will affect Orbital's chances for CRS2.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34580.msg1190335#msg1190335

nothing like that has been said

[MP99]

Some of the more interesting questions.

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.

I see SpaceX are back to considering launching from Kwajalein, again. 

cheers, Martin

[manboy]

The problem, I see with Cygnus is that it does not do downmass. It will be interesting if other parties can beat SpaceX and Dragon in fulfilling of the requirements and in price.

There's been a number of proposals that would give Cygnus a downmass capability.

[Elmar Moelzer]

The problem, I see with Cygnus is that it does not do downmass. It will be interesting if other parties can beat SpaceX and Dragon in fulfilling of the requirements and in price.

There's been a number of proposals that would give Cygnus a downmass capability.

And how much payload and volume do these cost?

[Jarnis]

The problem, I see with Cygnus is that it does not do downmass. It will be interesting if other parties can beat SpaceX and Dragon in fulfilling of the requirements and in price.

There's been a number of proposals that would give Cygnus a downmass capability.

And how much payload and volume do these cost?

My wild guess estimate: "A lot"

[watermod]

For the non-recoverable down-mass (f.e. trash) has there ever been consideration of some sort of trash compactor and a means to launch compressed bricks or bundles of bricks to the earth? 

[bad_astra]

Strange to see Kistler's name back on the list.