Anyone got any ideas on how SNC is going to load the CRS Dreamchaser?Guessing they will load the vehicle and attach module horizontally, close up and rotate the vehicle on it's tail with the CBM hatch on the bottom. Before encapsulation in a fairing. How very strange.
Each Dream Chaser itself will be expensive. Reusing it many times along with a minimal refurbishment cost is likely where the peanuts happen. I can imagine that SNC would very much not like to lose one on launch. Doing so means all those reuses for that vehicle don't happen and another expensive vehicle needs to be built. That may be why they are selecting the most reliable vehicle they can even though there is greater expense. Though I'm not sure the Falcon is that much worse in reliability than the Atlas.
Ironically, something more like an HL42 would end up being more appropriate. Specially on a Vulcan 56x.
...By my estimation, SNC needs to be able to offer 2x DC per year for less than $1.1B to have any chance (and I feel that's being generous). They really need to get under $1B to compete.I think they can win at $950M per year (2 flights). Can they get that low? I don't know. I think it's achievable, but barely.
Quote from: baldusi on 11/14/2015 03:10 pmThis is a very good point. SNC has shown a willingness to scale the DC design down for Stratolaunch, and given that NASA had worked on the 42% larger design it would presumably be even easier. You'd save the weight of the fairing, and retain the ability to tow some unpressurized cargo in the stage adapter. I wonder if you could even fit a CBM on the back; probably not. Trash would have to be brought all the way home - just like Dragon 2.Given that they opted for the current proposal (developing an entirely new throw-away module plus folding fins), I'd guess that scaling turns out to be not that easy after all? Plus they may be hoping that a flying cargo DC - courtesy of CRS2 - makes the subsequent development of a crewed DC a manageable task.
...they may be hoping that a flying cargo DC - courtesy of CRS2 - makes the subsequent development of a crewed DC a manageable task.
Quote from: arachnitect on 11/09/2015 12:05 am...By my estimation, SNC needs to be able to offer 2x DC per year for less than $1.1B to have any chance (and I feel that's being generous). They really need to get under $1B to compete.I think they can win at $950M per year (2 flights). Can they get that low? I don't know. I think it's achievable, but barely.They'll probably need to do better than $950M/yr. CRS-2 budget estimated at an average of $1.0-1.4B/yr (NASA IG-14-031). That number is inclusive, not just payment to providers.I can't see NASA stretching the budget to include Dream Chaser. Then again, maybe the proposals came in less than expected so NASA feels there is room. Or maybe they came in higher than expected and DC is being offered at a price that's hard to refuse.
2x DC + 2x Dragon is affordable at those prices. Depending on Dragon costs, they could add a third Dragon every year or two.It's riskier and more expensive than the incumbents for sure, but it does offer NASA a way to hit the upmass goals in 5 or fewer flights as requested. And maybe SNC was able to persuade NASA that the low-G accelerated return is worth paying for?I'm not a big fan of SNC and DC, but I'm trying to keep an open mind and see if they have a path to an award at all.
The CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price of the number of standard missions required for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass (50% of annual 15000kg requirement). Which means--all other things equal--DC's 5500kg upmass doesn't get any points over, e.g., a competitor who can lift 3750kg: both require two missions.
It's only natural that NASA would be more conservative with commercial crew than CRS because astronaut lives are at stake.
The CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price of the number of standard missions required for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass (50% of annual 15000kg requirement). Which means--all other things equal--DC's 5500kg upmass doesn't get any points over, e.g., a competitor who can lift 3750kg: both require two missions.[1] However, it would mean DC has an advantage over competitors who can lift less than 3750kg, as they would require at least three missions to DC's two (again, assuming all other things equal).
I'm looking at section VII.C of the RFP and am confused.First of all, is selection necessarily based on this number? I thought selection was based on actual proposed prices in the matrix at I.A.3. My understanding is that this "price at 50% upmass" is just the baseline the government is evaluating to document that prices are "fair and reasonable."Also, it appears that the number of missions is prorated based on capacity, but multiplied by the unit price for the whole number of missions that would be required. E.G:If SNC were offering 1 mission per year at (say) $600M, and 2 missions per year at $500M ea. (and assuming 5000kg. pressurized upmass).7500/5000 = 1.5 x $500M = $750M(see attached image).
Quote from: joek on 11/14/2015 11:36 pmThe CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price of the number of standard missions required for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass (50% of annual 15000kg requirement). Which means--all other things equal--DC's 5500kg upmass doesn't get any points over, e.g., a competitor who can lift 3750kg: both require two missions.NASA will be evaluating based on multiyear program requirements, not per anum requirements.
Quote from: deltaV on 11/15/2015 01:23 amIt's only natural that NASA would be more conservative with commercial crew than CRS because astronaut lives are at stake.There are failures of cargo vehicles that could lead to LoC.