So from what I understand this is just an automatic extension of the original contract and the 2nd contract is still up for consideration past 2017. Just making sure I am summarizing correctly. Also right now we call missions CRS SpX(some number) what would the 2nd ones be called?
I wonder if the extension specifies a Dragon v1 vehicle or if SpaceX could use a cargo variant of Dragon v2?
In the last OrbATK conference call Thompson said they already had a signed contract for CRS-1 extension, but wouldn't give details.I guess it's just the one Cygnus.
Quote from: arachnitect on 03/04/2015 01:14 amIn the last OrbATK conference call Thompson said they already had a signed contract for CRS-1 extension, but wouldn't give details.I guess it's just the one Cygnus.Considering that their system is currently grounded and will require a major redesign I'm surprised they are getting even one additional launch. Until their replacement vehicle is tested I'd think their future launches to ISS should be frozen.
Quote from: StuffOfInterest on 03/04/2015 02:07 amQuote from: arachnitect on 03/04/2015 01:14 amIn the last OrbATK conference call Thompson said they already had a signed contract for CRS-1 extension, but wouldn't give details.I guess it's just the one Cygnus.Considering that their system is currently grounded and will require a major redesign I'm surprised they are getting even one additional launch. Until their replacement vehicle is tested I'd think their future launches to ISS should be frozen.There is the Atlas V back up option.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 03/04/2015 02:54 amQuote from: StuffOfInterest on 03/04/2015 02:07 amQuote from: arachnitect on 03/04/2015 01:14 amIn the last OrbATK conference call Thompson said they already had a signed contract for CRS-1 extension, but wouldn't give details.I guess it's just the one Cygnus.Considering that their system is currently grounded and will require a major redesign I'm surprised they are getting even one additional launch. Until their replacement vehicle is tested I'd think their future launches to ISS should be frozen.There is the Atlas V back up option.But at what cost, and how often can they go to that well before they lose money by doing it?
1.9 billion i ll say again billion for 20 k tons of cargo
Quote from: docmordrid on 03/04/2015 02:59 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 03/04/2015 02:54 amQuote from: StuffOfInterest on 03/04/2015 02:07 amQuote from: arachnitect on 03/04/2015 01:14 amIn the last OrbATK conference call Thompson said they already had a signed contract for CRS-1 extension, but wouldn't give details.I guess it's just the one Cygnus.Considering that their system is currently grounded and will require a major redesign I'm surprised they are getting even one additional launch. Until their replacement vehicle is tested I'd think their future launches to ISS should be frozen.There is the Atlas V back up option.But at what cost, and how often can they go to that well before they lose money by doing it?Atlas is cheaper than you think. Antares is more expensive than you think.
Quote from: StuffOfInterest on 03/04/2015 02:07 amQuote from: arachnitect on 03/04/2015 01:14 amIn the last OrbATK conference call Thompson said they already had a signed contract for CRS-1 extension, but wouldn't give details.I guess it's just the one Cygnus.Considering that their system is currently grounded and will require a major redesign I'm surprised they are getting even one additional launch. Until their replacement vehicle is tested I'd think their future launches to ISS should be frozen.The extension of the CRS contract was done before Antares blew up. The number of extra flights is completely unrelated to the launch failure. It is NASA who decides what the additional service should be: emphasis on upmass, or emphasis on down-mass, or a mix of the two.Also:NASA is buying a service, not a specific launcher or even a specific system. Testing is not the responsibility of NASA and it is most certainly not up to NASA to call for freezing the flights. It was Orbital's choice to suspend flights.Edit: Oh crud, now I've done it: discussing Cygnus/Antares in the SpaceX section. Who set up this thread here? Oh wait....
Any topic or public info on CRS 2 SpaceX vehicle?My conservative logic gives me a simplified Dragon 2 with the big berthing port. But Orbital will offer almost 3 times it's pressurized volume, so 2018 might be time to make a bigger pressure vessel for an enhanced cargo Dragon ::), something around 20-25m3 that in the future could be used for an upgraded BEO crewed Dragon.
Any topic or public info on CRS 2 SpaceX vehicle?My conservative logic gives me a simplified Dragon 2 with the big berthing port. But Orbital will offer almost 3 times it's pressurized volume, so 2018 might be time to make a bigger pressure vessel for an enhanced cargo Dragon , something around 20-25m3 that in the future could be used for an upgraded BEO crewed Dragon.
Quote from: Jimmy Murdok on 03/04/2015 08:38 pmAny topic or public info on CRS 2 SpaceX vehicle?My conservative logic gives me a simplified Dragon 2 with the big berthing port. But Orbital will offer almost 3 times it's pressurized volume, so 2018 might be time to make a bigger pressure vessel for an enhanced cargo Dragon , something around 20-25m3 that in the future could be used for an upgraded BEO crewed Dragon.Any of those things is going to be a bunch of engineering work and that takes time, money, and risk. Proposing anything for CRS 2 that adds time, money, and/or risk is probably going to hurt them.Elon said he expected Dragon 1 to continue flying cargo for at least several years after Dragon 2 enters service. I don't see much reason to think that plan has changed. SpaceX is most likely to make the most money from CRS2 by continuing to fly Dragon 1.Besides, SpaceX has plenty to do on making Dragon 2 safe and cost-effective for crew, making first stage re-use cost-effective, and making Falcon Heavy cost-effective. Plus, in their spare time, colonizing Mars. :-)
I have no insight, but I'm not sure how big of an issue the difference in volume is between Cygnus and Dragon 1 as they have complementary capabilities. NASA needs something that can return cargo to Earth and Cygnus can't do that. So the potential competitors to SpaceX are CST-100, Liberty, Dream Chaser and whoever else offering to return cargo to Earth.
Quote from: Jimmy Murdok on 03/04/2015 08:38 pmAny topic or public info on CRS 2 SpaceX vehicle?My conservative logic gives me a simplified Dragon 2 with the big berthing port. But Orbital will offer almost 3 times it's pressurized volume, so 2018 might be time to make a bigger pressure vessel for an enhanced cargo Dragon , something around 20-25m3 that in the future could be used for an upgraded BEO crewed Dragon.I have no insight, but I'm not sure how big of an issue the difference in volume is between Cygnus and Dragon 1 as they have complementary capabilities. NASA needs something that can return cargo to Earth and Cygnus can't do that. So the potential competitors to SpaceX are CST-100, Liberty, Dream Chaser and whoever else offering to return cargo to Earth.
Quote from: averagespacejoe on 03/03/2015 11:14 pmSo from what I understand this is just an automatic extension of the original contract and the 2nd contract is still up for consideration past 2017. Just making sure I am summarizing correctly. Also right now we call missions CRS SpX(some number) what would the 2nd ones be called?Yes sir. CRS contract. CRS extension. Then on to CRS2.PS This is part one of two for an update on Commercial vehicles. The second one is on Commercial crew and was going to be part of this article, but I felt it best to do two articles to keep their specific.
Have they published the price tag yet? Hope SpaceX can get their price inflation adjusted
ASA/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.
Quote from: king1999 on 03/04/2015 12:57 amHave they published the price tag yet? Hope SpaceX can get their price inflation adjusted When the intension to extend was announced last year, it was said that the extension was made at no cost to NASA. I am guessing that means at "no additional costs" to NASA as the original contract already provided for the possibility of additionnal missions (the maximum for each contract was $3.1B). See the following synopsis:https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cff80051d20c232523953c167a42b410&tab=core&_cview=0Quote from: synopsisASA/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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/07/2015 01:22 pmQuote from: king1999 on 03/04/2015 12:57 amHave they published the price tag yet? Hope SpaceX can get their price inflation adjusted When the intension to extend was announced last year, it was said that the extension was made at no cost to NASA. I am guessing that means at "no additional costs" to NASA as the original contract already provided for the possibility of additionnal missions (the maximum for each contract was $3.1B). See the following synopsis:https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cff80051d20c232523953c167a42b410&tab=core&_cview=0Quote from: synopsisASA/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.3 additional SPX missions would put the contract value at $3.0B just under the $3.1B NTE.Orbital Contract value would increase to ~$2.14B from $1.9B.
3 additional SPX missions would put the contract value at $3.0B just under the $3.1B NTE.Orbital Contract value would increase to ~$2.14B from $1.9B.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/07/2015 01:40 pm3 additional SPX missions would put the contract value at $3.0B just under the $3.1B NTE.Orbital Contract value would increase to ~$2.14B from $1.9B.Wouldn't 3 additional missions put SpaceX around $2.0B?
“NASA has ordered three additional flights with SpaceX in the extension period,” said Stephanie Schierholz, a NASA spokesperson. “NASA has ordered one additional flight with Orbital in the extension period.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/03/07/nasa-orders-missions-to-resupply-space-station-in-2017/Quote“NASA has ordered three additional flights with SpaceX in the extension period,” said Stephanie Schierholz, a NASA spokesperson. “NASA has ordered one additional flight with Orbital in the extension period. Not that there was really any doubt, but there's the confirmation.I don't get why NASA doesn't announce this. They have a press conference if someone cleans a closet at MAF or some high school kids built a cubesat. This is not a small deal and a lot of people follow all things ISS (or Spacex) closely.
Quote from: arachnitect on 03/07/2015 11:55 pmhttp://spaceflightnow.com/2015/03/07/nasa-orders-missions-to-resupply-space-station-in-2017/Quote“NASA has ordered three additional flights with SpaceX in the extension period,” said Stephanie Schierholz, a NASA spokesperson. “NASA has ordered one additional flight with Orbital in the extension period. Not that there was really any doubt, but there's the confirmation.I don't get why NASA doesn't announce this. They have a press conference if someone cleans a closet at MAF or some high school kids built a cubesat. This is not a small deal and a lot of people follow all things ISS (or Spacex) closely.Yes, politicians do indeed do that, so it is interesting in this case.However this is not a new contract, just an extension of the current CRS contract. From our own archives here at NASASpaceFlight:“CRS is a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Commercial, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) procurement. This acquisition is a multiple award contract for a minimum guarantee dollar value for 20 metric tons (MT) of upmass.Since it's an IDIQ contract they could keep extending it if they wanted, but obviously they are looking to make sure they are getting the best value as the cargo industry matures, which is why they are re-competing with the CRS-2 contract.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/08/2015 02:16 amQuote from: arachnitect on 03/07/2015 11:55 pmhttp://spaceflightnow.com/2015/03/07/nasa-orders-missions-to-resupply-space-station-in-2017/Quote“NASA has ordered three additional flights with SpaceX in the extension period,” said Stephanie Schierholz, a NASA spokesperson. “NASA has ordered one additional flight with Orbital in the extension period. Not that there was really any doubt, but there's the confirmation.I don't get why NASA doesn't announce this. They have a press conference if someone cleans a closet at MAF or some high school kids built a cubesat. This is not a small deal and a lot of people follow all things ISS (or Spacex) closely.Yes, politicians do indeed do that, so it is interesting in this case.However this is not a new contract, just an extension of the current CRS contract. From our own archives here at NASASpaceFlight:“CRS is a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Commercial, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) procurement. This acquisition is a multiple award contract for a minimum guarantee dollar value for 20 metric tons (MT) of upmass.Since it's an IDIQ contract they could keep extending it if they wanted, but obviously they are looking to make sure they are getting the best value as the cargo industry matures, which is why they are re-competing with the CRS-2 contract.I know it's a "contract extension" but NASA bought four whole space missions, it's sort of a big deal.Everybody who's been following ISS closely knew that something like this was coming. Why not just put out a 200 word press release once the contracts are finalized. Instead it slowly leaks out in OrbATK press conferences and the FPIP charts we get here on NSF, then the press has to call up NASA and ask about it.The info has to get out one way or another, it would be so much more efficient for them to type up a quick press release once the contracts are signed.
I know it's a "contract extension" but NASA bought four whole space missions, it's sort of a big deal.
The info has to get out one way or another, it would be so much more efficient for them to type up a quick press release once the contracts are signed.
For Orbital ATK's additional Cygnus resupply flight, Orb-8E, does the "E" in the mission name mean that Cygnus could stay at the ISS for more than one month?
Quote from: longdrivechampion102 on 03/08/2015 10:00 pmFor Orbital ATK's additional Cygnus resupply flight, Orb-8E, does the "E" in the mission name mean that Cygnus could stay at the ISS for more than one month?Originally there were going to be 8 delivery missions from Orbital. After the failure, Orbital cancelled a mission (they would fly more cargo on each mission). Now they've been awarded an additional mission, so they're back to 8 missions.The "e" is to differentiate the newly awarded mission from previously planned and cancelled Orb-8.
I thought the E referred to the Extended Cygnus, since the new rocket will fly an extended vessel to deliver more payload per launch. This one would also deliver more than originally planned.
Quote from: Mariusuiram on 03/09/2015 03:52 amI thought the E referred to the Extended Cygnus, since the new rocket will fly an extended vessel to deliver more payload per launch. This one would also deliver more than originally planned.No, or every other mission from Orb-4 onward would also have the E suffix.There is precedent for missions to be given a suffix if they are replanned but reuse a previous numeric designation. Post-Challenger, several missions were given the R suffix (for "reflight" or "replanned") such as STS-26R to distinguish them from the earlier planned missions which had used the same numbers.
