Author Topic: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016  (Read 219005 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17417
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #540 on: 04/28/2018 04:55 pm »
Here is a useful chart from the OIG report:
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 04:58 pm by yg1968 »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8161
  • Liked: 6830
  • Likes Given: 2972
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #541 on: 04/28/2018 05:26 pm »
What were the per-kg costs for Shuttle delivering cargo payload again? Anyone know?
I join your question and ask how does shuttle compare to 7 crew and 20 ton cargo commercials?

The Shuttle could not deliver 20,000 kg of pressurized upmass to ISS. A fully loaded MPLM held more like 13,000 kg of cargo.

Shuttle also could not support 7 crew member rotations, since it could not stay docked for 6 months. Crew rotations were limited to the number of Soyuz seats available.

More details are in the attached study.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #542 on: 04/28/2018 05:46 pm »
The relevant paragraph.

"Under the existing CRS contracts awarded in 2008, Orbital ATK and SpaceX will deliver an estimated 93,800 kilograms of cargo to the ISS over 31 missions for a total cost of $5.93 billion. With the CRS-2 contracts, those two companies and Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) will transport 87,900 kilograms to the station on 21 missions for a projected cost of $6.31 billion."

CRS-1 average mission cost was $191M compared with $300M for CRS-2. Per kg costs are an eye watering $63,200/kg for CRS-1 and $71,800/kg for CRS-2.
So just to be completely clear here the payload has gone down 6.28% and the price has gone up 6.4% over 10 years.
But that $/Kg cost is 13.6% higher, an annual "inflation rate " of 1.283%
While US inflation had <1% inflation in 2014 and 2015 most of those years had annual inflation rates of > 1.5%
My issue was I thought the original contract award was very generous, if you didn't hand most of it out in the form of shareholder dividends.

If CRS-1 spanned 2010-2020 and CRS-2 Spans 2020-2024. The distance between the midpoints of 2015 of 2022 would be 7 years. The annualized inflation rate would be 1.8%.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17417
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #543 on: 04/28/2018 08:06 pm »
Another interesting chart with the CRS2 options:


Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12149
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18352
  • Likes Given: 12389
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #544 on: 04/28/2018 08:13 pm »
Looks like there will be 21 CRS2 missions:

Quote from: page 4 of the OIG Report
By the end of 2017, NASA had ordered 8 CRS-2 missions that followed this strategy; however, it is unclear whether the Agency will continue this pattern for the remaining 13 CRS-2 missions.
21 CRS-2 missions in case ISS ends in 2024. If ISS is extended to 2028 the number will be 37 missions. The really juicy figures are on pages 19 and 21 of the report.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17417
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #545 on: 04/28/2018 08:32 pm »
Looks like there will be 21 CRS2 missions:

Quote from: page 4 of the OIG Report
By the end of 2017, NASA had ordered 8 CRS-2 missions that followed this strategy; however, it is unclear whether the Agency will continue this pattern for the remaining 13 CRS-2 missions.
21 CRS-2 missions in case ISS ends in 2024. If ISS is extended to 2028 the number will be 37 missions. The really juicy figures are on pages 19 and 21 of the report.

I just saw that, here is the full quote from the OIG:

Quote from: page 19 of the OIG Report
Using current flight cadence projections, at least three missions could be competed through the CRS-2 contract’s existing competition requirements or the On-Ramp clause prior to the Station’s potential retirement in 2024. However, if the ISS is extended through 2028, NASA will have the opportunity to compete up to 19 additional cargo missions if four missions per year are assumed.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17417
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #546 on: 04/28/2018 08:37 pm »
Some interesting stuff on DC:

Quote from: page 20 of the OIG report
Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 08:42 pm by yg1968 »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8161
  • Liked: 6830
  • Likes Given: 2972
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #547 on: 04/28/2018 08:48 pm »
Some interesting stuff on DC:

Quote from: page 20 of the OIG report
Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #548 on: 04/28/2018 08:57 pm »
Some interesting stuff on DC:

Quote from: page 20 of the OIG report
Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).
Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

Ariane and HII-B should both be able to loft DC as well.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17417
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #549 on: 04/28/2018 09:10 pm »
More on DC:

Quote from: pages 27 and 28 of the OIG Report
Sierra Nevada’s plan to build a single Dream Chaser spacecraft for CRS-2 missions is a single point-of-failure that represents substantial technical and schedule risks for the ISS Program.[69] During a visit to Sierra Nevada in June 2017, company officials told us they had no plans to build a second Dream Chaser. In August 2017, ISS Program officials said Sierra Nevada was considering building a second Dream Chaser to be completed by 2021, but no decision had been made as of October 2017. In the event of a failure, Sierra Nevada officials told us in June 2017 that a second spacecraft could be built from spare parts without additional costs to NASA.

[69] For the first CRS-2 mission, the Dream Chaser will be required to demonstrate additional orbital maneuvers before approaching the ISS. Other cargo vehicles such as the Cygnus, European cargo spacecraft, and Japanese cargo spacecraft were allowed to berth with the ISS on their maiden flight after performing similar maneuvers.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 09:19 pm by yg1968 »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8161
  • Liked: 6830
  • Likes Given: 2972
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #550 on: 04/28/2018 09:28 pm »
Some interesting stuff on DC:

Quote from: page 20 of the OIG report
Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).
Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

Ariane and HII-B should both be able to loft DC as well.

Ariane 5 is not in that price range; Ariane 64 is expected to be, but would NASA accept a launch from a foreign facility for CRS-2?

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8931
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10282
  • Likes Given: 12020
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #551 on: 04/28/2018 09:39 pm »
Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

You are correct that the standard fairing may not work for Dream Chaser. But Musk recently said that stretched fairings can be an option - I wonder if that was a public appeal to Sierra Nevada?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17417
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #552 on: 04/28/2018 09:53 pm »
Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

You are correct that the standard fairing may not work for Dream Chaser. But Musk recently said that stretched fairings can be an option - I wonder if that was a public appeal to Sierra Nevada?

Not that I don't believe you but do you have a reference for that?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8161
  • Liked: 6830
  • Likes Given: 2972
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #553 on: 04/28/2018 10:01 pm »
Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

You are correct that the standard fairing may not work for Dream Chaser. But Musk recently said that stretched fairings can be an option - I wonder if that was a public appeal to Sierra Nevada?

Not that I don't believe you but do you have a reference for that?

Here:

Quote from: Elon Musk
Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963095860060934144

It would be pretty funny to see BFR launch DC...
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 10:02 pm by envy887 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17417
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #554 on: 04/28/2018 10:32 pm »
Some interesting stuff on DC:

Quote from: page 20 of the OIG report
Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).
Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

Ariane and HII-B should both be able to loft DC as well.

In their recent interview to Space News, the Ozmen (the owners of of SNC) specifically mentioned Blue Origin as well. They also said that a foreign launcher was possible under CRS2.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 10:33 pm by yg1968 »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8161
  • Liked: 6830
  • Likes Given: 2972
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #555 on: 04/28/2018 10:57 pm »
Some interesting stuff on DC:

Quote from: page 20 of the OIG report
Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).
Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

Ariane and HII-B should both be able to loft DC as well.

In their recent interview to Space News, the Ozmen (the owners of of SNC) specifically mentioned Blue Origin as well. They also said that a foreign launcher was possible under CRS2.

Do you mean in this article: http://spacenews.com/why-sierra-nevadas-owners-are-betting-big-on-dream-chaser/

I don't see anything about foreign launches.

They do say
Quote
We are working with many launch providers and they are coming up with very affordable new launch vehicles in the 2021 timeframe.

I'd read that as Vulcan and New Glenn. A64 and H3 are both expected in that timeframe, though.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8931
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10282
  • Likes Given: 12020
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #556 on: 04/28/2018 10:59 pm »
Falcon's fairing is too narrow on top. It's taper begins too early for DC+trunk.

You are correct that the standard fairing may not work for Dream Chaser. But Musk recently said that stretched fairings can be an option - I wonder if that was a public appeal to Sierra Nevada?

Not that I don't believe you but do you have a reference for that?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/963095860060934144

Quote
Elon Musk:
Under consideration. We’ve already stretched the upper stage once. Easiest part of the rocket to change. Fairing 2, flying soon, also has a slightly larger diameter. Could make fairing much longer if need be & will if BFR takes longer than expected.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17417
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #557 on: 04/28/2018 11:15 pm »
Do you mean in this article: http://spacenews.com/why-sierra-nevadas-owners-are-betting-big-on-dream-chaser/

I don't see anything about foreign launches.

They do say
Quote
We are working with many launch providers and they are coming up with very affordable new launch vehicles in the 2021 timeframe.

I'd read that as Vulcan and New Glenn. A64 and H3 are both expected in that timeframe, though.

Yes but there was also this article, a couple of days later:

http://spacenews.com/sierra-nevada-weighing-options-for-launching-future-dream-chaser-missions/

Quote
He [Sirangelo] noted that there are no requirements under its NASA contract that require those cargo missions to fly on U.S. vehicles, citing NASA’s use of European and Japanese cargo vehicles to resupply the ISS. “We think it’s certainly feasible,” he said, adding that there was interest in launching Dream Chaser on vehicles outside the U.S.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2018 11:19 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39296
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25306
  • Likes Given: 12134
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #558 on: 04/29/2018 12:09 am »
Some interesting stuff on DC:

Quote from: page 20 of the OIG report
Specifically, Sierra Nevada has committed to using Atlas V launch vehicles for its first two cargo resupply missions but the company is considering alternative launch vehicles currently under development to lower their costs for future NASA missions. Public statements from launch vehicle providers have proposed prices ranging from roughly $90 million to $120 million per launch. While the Atlas V is highly reliable with a 100 percent success rate after more than 70 launches, it has a list price of $175 million for the configuration needed for Sierra Nevada’s missions. Because Sierra Nevada’s cargo flights are procured under a fixed-price contract, any reduction in its launch costs accrue to Sierra Nevada’s benefit. However, the CRS-2 contract allows NASA to renegotiate mission pricing if a contractor uses an alternative vehicle. Any renegotiation would need to be finalized by early 2019 should Sierra Nevada plan to use an alternative launch vehicle for its third CRS-2 mission, which could occur as early as 2022. NASA’s CRS-2 contract with Orbital ATK has similar contract language to negotiate lower per-mission prices to reflect cheaper launch costs if the company uses ULA’s Vulcan launch vehicle instead of the Atlas V.

That configuration being Atlas V 552.

$90 million sounds suspiciously like the base Falcon Heavy price. $120 million sounds like one of the larger Vulcan Centaur 5 versions.

I think the only other options for Cargo DC are F9 expended (probably also around $90 million, but that has never been confirmed publicly) and Delta IV Heavy (which will never happen due to impending retirement and extremely high price).
Droneship-recovered Block 5 should have equivalent performance to 5-SRB Atlas V.

Fairing size may be fine with fairing mods already in the pipeline.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39418
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33045
  • Likes Given: 8752
Re: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016
« Reply #559 on: 04/29/2018 02:10 am »
The Shuttle could not deliver 20,000 kg of pressurized upmass to ISS. A fully loaded MPLM held more like 13,000 kg of cargo.

Assuming $500M for a Shuttle launch, that works out to $38,500/kg.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0