Author Topic: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016 (Read 202275 times)

yg1968 · « **Reply #40 on:** 01/14/2016 07:11 pm »

Quote from: NovaSilisko on 01/14/2016 07:08 pm

Didn't we get similar supposedly-well-informed reports that Boeing had lost out on Commercial Crew? I'm waiting for the official announcement.

Yes but that was weeks before the award.

jgoldader · « **Reply #41 on:** 01/14/2016 07:13 pm »

And I'm running a bloody meeting during the announcement...

I hope there's a recording of the stream available later!

abaddon · « **Reply #42 on:** 01/14/2016 07:13 pm »

Also from the article:

Quote

NASA isn’t expected to announce the contracts’ dollar amounts on Thursday but rather to disclose which companies it has chosen to provide the next phase of cargo transport to low-earth orbit.

Not surprising, but disappointing. Wonder when we will learn the details.

yg1968 · « **Reply #43 on:** 01/14/2016 07:15 pm »

Quote from: jgoldader on 01/14/2016 07:13 pm

And I'm running a bloody meeting during the announcement...

I hope there's a recording of the stream available later!

John44 usually records such events. It will also likely be posted by NASA on its YouTube Channel.

a_langwich · « **Reply #44 on:** 01/14/2016 07:15 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 01/14/2016 06:51 pm

Quote from: nadreck on 01/14/2016 05:57 pm
Hmm, I wonder if anyone's bid included a bid for contingency or expedited scheduling, that is, a price to add in a new mission at short notice to cover a failure like any of the 3 we saw in the not so distant past.

Isn't that what this part of the RFP is talking about?
Quote
2.6   LAUNCH ON NEED (LON)
A Launch On Need (LON) capability should be provided in the event there is an interruption in the provision of cargo services from any of the providers through the life of the contract.
The Contractor should meet the following technical capabilities to satisfy LON:
(a)   Able to be called up after the Contractor’s initial CRS2 flight,
(b)   Able to launch within two months after launch of a planned CRS2 mission,
(c)   Accommodate up to the full complement of pressurized cargo that had been planned for the next mission, as applicable to the standard mission, , including standard powered payloads and standard late load for launch and return,
(d)   The next planned launch following a LON can be as early as 2 months from completion of the LON mission,
(e)   In any 12 month period, accommodate one (1) LON mission in addition to the planned flight rate.

Wow, that's tough. Was that required for all bidders, or an optional capability which could be bid?

That should be a significant cost, because there's no way the hardware could be assembled in 2 months. There would have to be assembled a spare flight unit, and stored in case it was needed.

Does either SpaceX or Orbital have the storage space to maintain a launch-on-need spare, and maintain their regular processing flow besides? I know SpaceX has done a fast turnaround with a CRS/Dragon flight and a commercial payload, but for this they'd need a CRS/Dragon processing facility, a CRS/Dragon read-waiting facility, AND the commercial payload processing too. And the flexibility to launch a CRS flight, then stiff whoever was next in line, and launch another CRS flight, and then potentially have yet another CRS flight after that! Has Orbital launched on a two month cadence?

I can believe ULA might have enough facilities for this, but that still means SNC would have to buy a separate Atlas V 551 or 541 and have it sitting around in a very expensive storage shed. And would ULA delay a national security payload for CRS, or SNC?

gongora · « **Reply #45 on:** 01/14/2016 07:20 pm »

I'm not entirely sure how to interpret that language but it kinda sounds like the order might be 2 months after that company's next scheduled mission? I don't think there could be any reasonable expectation of actually launching a mission 2 months after being notified by NASA.

yg1968 · « **Reply #46 on:** 01/14/2016 07:22 pm »

It's a LON if somebody else has a failure. You can't have a LON if its your own accident.

IMO, the only way to meet this requirement is to have a spare capsule.

clongton · « **Reply #47 on:** 01/14/2016 07:24 pm »

Will there be a live stream somewhere?
Edit: http://www.nasa.gov/nasatv

yg1968 · « **Reply #48 on:** 01/14/2016 07:25 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 01/14/2016 07:24 pm

Will there be a live stream somewhere?

NASA TV.

Joaosg · « **Reply #49 on:** 01/14/2016 07:34 pm »

T-30min, i should start listening to some SpaceX webcast music.

Garrett Reisman tweeted about the announcement, i'm guessing that SpaceX is in.

https://twitter.com/astro_g_dogg/status/687677913869737984

Brovane · « **Reply #50 on:** 01/14/2016 07:35 pm »

Quote from: a_langwich on 01/14/2016 07:15 pm

Wow, that's tough. Was that required for all bidders, or an optional capability which could be bid?

That should be a significant cost, because there's no way the hardware could be assembled in 2 months. There would have to be assembled a spare flight unit, and stored in case it was needed.

Does either SpaceX or Orbital have the storage space to maintain a launch-on-need spare, and maintain their regular processing flow besides? I know SpaceX has done a fast turnaround with a CRS/Dragon flight and a commercial payload, but for this they'd need a CRS/Dragon processing facility, a CRS/Dragon read-waiting facility, AND the commercial payload processing too. And the flexibility to launch a CRS flight, then stiff whoever was next in line, and launch another CRS flight, and then potentially have yet another CRS flight after that! Has Orbital launched on a two month cadence?

I can believe ULA might have enough facilities for this, but that still means SNC would have to buy a separate Atlas V 551 or 541 and have it sitting around in a very expensive storage shed. And would ULA delay a national security payload for CRS, or SNC?

SpaceX should have a high enough launch cadence that they can shuffle around payloads and launch on need within 2-months of it being requested. It isn't the first time that payloads have been shuffled around. The fact that they are starting to recover 1st stage cores makes it even easier.

Lars-J · « **Reply #51 on:** 01/14/2016 07:50 pm »

Quote from: a_langwich on 01/14/2016 07:15 pm

Wow, that's tough. Was that required for all bidders, or an optional capability which could be bid?

That should be a significant cost, because there's no way the hardware could be assembled in 2 months. There would have to be assembled a spare flight unit, and stored in case it was needed.

No need for a spare unit, you just need to be able to accelerate the readiness of your *next* spacecraft to launch earlier, and start building another one. (Presumably you have some sort of production line)

abaddon · « **Reply #52 on:** 01/14/2016 07:51 pm »

Anyone got an over/under on how many SLS plugs we're going to need to sit through before the award announcements?

Star One · « **Reply #53 on:** 01/14/2016 07:54 pm »

Perhaps DC can be stuck on a Falcon that might drive their costs down further and it is supposed to be adaptable to a variety of launchers.

Jimmy Murdok · « **Reply #54 on:** 01/14/2016 07:56 pm »

I ~~expect~~ would love a Dragon XL Cargo with 5,X m diameter. But I expect a D2 cargo variant.
Orbital stays, they have great cargo stuff. Hope to see at least either Dream Chaser (for crewed reasons) or Jupiter Exoliner (reuse vision) completing as innovative solutions.