ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[AnalogMan]

Posted today:

NASA Seeks U.S. Industry Feedback on Options for Future Space Station Cargo Services
February 21, 2014

Over the past two years, NASA and its American industry partners have returned International Space Station resupply launches to U.S. soil, established new national space transportation capabilities and helped create jobs right here on Earth. More than 250 miles overhead, hundreds of science experiments not possible on Earth are being conducted by an international team of astronauts, enabled by these new cargo delivery and return services.

In January, the Obama Administration announced plans to extend the life of the space station through at least 2024 – marking another decade of discoveries to come that will benefit Earth while increasing the knowledge NASA needs to send astronauts to an asteroid and Mars.

NASA has issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking industry feedback on options to meet the future needs of the International Space Station for cargo delivery of a variety of new science experiments, space station hardware and crew supplies.

› View the Request For Information

The International Space Station is a convergence of science, technology and human innovation that demonstrates new technologies and makes research breakthroughs not possible on Earth. The space station has had crew members continuous on board since November 2000. In that time, it has been visited by more than 200 people and a variety of international and commercial spacecraft. The space station remains the springboard to NASA's next great leap in exploration, including future missions to an asteroid and Mars.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-seeks-us-industry-feedback-on-options-for-future-space-station-cargo-service


Link to Request For Information (RFI) and basic details:
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=159700

General Information
    Solicitation Number:     NNJ14ZBG007L
    Posted Date:     Feb 21, 2014
    FedBizOpps Posted Date:     Feb 21, 2014
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act Action:     No
    Original Response Date:     Mar 21, 2014
    Current Response Date:     Mar 21, 2014
    Classification Code:     18 -- Space vehicles
    NAICS Code:     481212

Contracting Office Address
     
    NASA/Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas, 77058-3696, Mail Code: BG

Description
     
    NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) seeks information from industry to assist in addressing the Agency’s need for a follow on capability for the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS1) to the International Space Station (ISS). The information will facilitate NASA in its acquisition planning for future procurements.

    The primary purpose of this Request For Information (RFI) is to inform industry of NASA’s resupply service requirements and to collect information on key parameters that would help NASA refine and mature the follow on acquisition plan for procuring safe, cost effective, timely, and reliable ISS research and cargo resupply, disposal, and return services.

    This document is for information and planning purposes and to allow industry the opportunity to verify reasonableness and feasibility of the requirement, as well as promote competition. Prospective offerors are invited to submit written responses to the RFI. When responding reference NNJ14ZBG007L. Please see attached RFI for further details at:

    http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/RFI-CRS2-022014-v2.docx

    Questions concerning this RFI shall be submitted via email to Omar Collier at [email protected]. Electronic submission of the responses is due close of business March 21, 2014 to [email protected]. Questions and responses shall reference this RFI. Please limit responses to 20 pages or less.

    This RFI is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government, nor will the Government pay for the information submitted in response. Respondents will not be notified of the results.

RFI document attached as a pdf  for those unable to read Word format.

[yg1968]

Here are some of the highlights of the RFI:

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/

RFI – Commercial Resupply Services (CRS2) to the ISS [...]

Period of Service

NASA requires this service from 2017 through 2024. NASA may elect to have one contract or multiple contracts to meet the requirements.

Funds Available to Procure the Service

NASA’s budget to procure this service is anticipated to be between $1.0B and $1.4B per year. If the described services cannot be provided as defined within this budget range, NASA requests feedback on options to procure the required upmass and downmass for the defined budget. Identify which services would need to be modified or removed to stay within the available budget. For example, propose a different number of flights per year that still meets the required upmass and downmass required.

Capabilities Required of the Service [...]

-Delivery of 14,250 to 16,750 kilograms (kg) per year of pressurized cargo.
-Delivery of 1,500 to 4,000 kg per year of unpressurized cargo comprised of 3 to 8 total items per year.
-Return/disposal of up to 14,250 to 16,750 kg per year of pressurized cargo.
-Disposal of 1,500 to 4,000 kg per year of unpressurized cargo comprised of 3 to 8 total items per year.
-Ground support services will be required for the end-to-end ISS resupply mission.

Operational Concept Envisioned for the Service [...]

Services are required to be provided in 4 to 5 missions per year and the capabilities described above are required to be distributed across the year.

[Confusador]

Here's the bit I found most notable:

ISS will maintain the capability to support a berthing and a docking capability as physical interfaces to the ISS.  Service providers must be compatible with both prime and backup attachment ports.  Berthing will be to a Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM).  Docking will be to the new ISS Docking Adapter (IDA).  If providers propose utilizing a docking capability to provide the cargo services, the provider should include a description and schedule associated with incorporating a docking system into their design.  NASA prefers cargo vehicles to berth since some cargo items are larger than what can be accommodated through the docking adapter, for instance an M03 bag.  If docking is proposed, the providers should consider methods of transferring cargo through the docking adapter. 

So they're definitely leaving it open for the Commercial Crew folks to submit designs with no (external) changes to the vehicle - should make it interesting.

[yg1968]

Good find. This suggests that CRS-2 will be open to new participants such as Boeing and SNC.

[joek]

Thanks for posting this AnalogMan.  A couple other items of note:
1. "The ability to access unpressurized cargo at L-24h is required to allow for removal of optics covers and similar items."  (is that currently a requirement?)
2. "A Launch on Need (LON) capability is required within 2 months of the previous flight." (previous flight from another provider or from same provider?)

Although, the RFI is not very clear on this, it seems that the budget of betweeen $1B to $1.4B per year would essentially be the same as it is under CRS-1.
...

I think you overestimated the number of flights and $ per year for CRS-1 (not 4+4/yr over 3 years, but more like 3+2/yr over 4-5 years). Ignoring inflation, NASA appears to be budgeting more for CRS-2; at $1.0-1.4B/yr and 4-5 flights/yr, that is $200-350M per flight, which would be significantly higher than the current CRS-1 average of ~$175M/flight.

[manboy]

Posted today:

NASA Seeks U.S. Industry Feedback on Options for Future Space Station Cargo Services
February 21, 2014

Over the past two years, NASA and its American industry partners have returned International Space Station resupply launches to U.S. soil, established new national space transportation capabilities and helped create jobs right here on Earth. More than 250 miles overhead, hundreds of science experiments not possible on Earth are being conducted by an international team of astronauts, enabled by these new cargo delivery and return services.

In January, the Obama Administration announced plans to extend the life of the space station through at least 2024 – marking another decade of discoveries to come that will benefit Earth while increasing the knowledge NASA needs to send astronauts to an asteroid and Mars.

NASA has issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking industry feedback on options to meet the future needs of the International Space Station for cargo delivery of a variety of new science experiments, space station hardware and crew supplies.

› View the Request For Information

The International Space Station is a convergence of science, technology and human innovation that demonstrates new technologies and makes research breakthroughs not possible on Earth. The space station has had crew members continuous on board since November 2000. In that time, it has been visited by more than 200 people and a variety of international and commercial spacecraft. The space station remains the springboard to NASA's next great leap in exploration, including future missions to an asteroid and Mars.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-seeks-us-industry-feedback-on-options-for-future-space-station-cargo-service


Link to Request For Information (RFI) and basic details:
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=159700

General Information
    Solicitation Number:     NNJ14ZBG007L
    Posted Date:     Feb 21, 2014
    FedBizOpps Posted Date:     Feb 21, 2014
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act Action:     No
    Original Response Date:     Mar 21, 2014
    Current Response Date:     Mar 21, 2014
    Classification Code:     18 -- Space vehicles
    NAICS Code:     481212

Contracting Office Address
     
    NASA/Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston Texas, 77058-3696, Mail Code: BG

Description
     
    NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) seeks information from industry to assist in addressing the Agency’s need for a follow on capability for the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS1) to the International Space Station (ISS). The information will facilitate NASA in its acquisition planning for future procurements.

    The primary purpose of this Request For Information (RFI) is to inform industry of NASA’s resupply service requirements and to collect information on key parameters that would help NASA refine and mature the follow on acquisition plan for procuring safe, cost effective, timely, and reliable ISS research and cargo resupply, disposal, and return services.

    This document is for information and planning purposes and to allow industry the opportunity to verify reasonableness and feasibility of the requirement, as well as promote competition. Prospective offerors are invited to submit written responses to the RFI. When responding reference NNJ14ZBG007L. Please see attached RFI for further details at:

    http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/RFI-CRS2-022014-v2.docx

    Questions concerning this RFI shall be submitted via email to Omar Collier at [email protected]. Electronic submission of the responses is due close of business March 21, 2014 to [email protected]. Questions and responses shall reference this RFI. Please limit responses to 20 pages or less.

    This RFI is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government, nor will the Government pay for the information submitted in response. Respondents will not be notified of the results.

RFI document attached as a pdf  for those unable to read Word format.

Finally! I've been waiting for this announcement for years.

[sublimemarsupial]

Although, the RFI is not very clear on this, it seems that the budget of betweeen $1B to $1.4B per year would essentially be the same as it is under CRS-1.

SpaceX's CRS contract: 4 flights per year x $133.3M = $533M ($1.6B for 12 flights under CRS-1)
Orbital's CRS contract: 4 flights x $237.5M per year = $950M ($1.2B for 8 flights under CRS-1)

Total would be $1.483B per year assuming 4 flights per year for each of these two providers (should they be selected for CRS-2).

Have the CRS contracts changed from their original values? I thought SpaceX had $1.6 B for 12 flights and Orbital was $1.9 B for 8 flights, not $1.2 B.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/CRS-Announcement-Dec-08.html

[Comga]

Thanks for posting this AnalogMan.  A couple other items of note:
1. "The ability to access unpressurized cargo at L-24h is required to allow for removal of optics covers and similar items."  (is that currently a requirement?)
2. "A Launch on Need (LON) capability is required within 2 months of the previous flight." (previous flight from another provider or from same provider?)

Although, the RFI is not very clear on this, it seems that the budget of betweeen $1B to $1.4B per year would essentially be the same as it is under CRS-1.
...

I think you overestimated the number of flights and $ per year for CRS-1 (not 4+4/yr over 3 years, but more like 3+2/yr over 4-5 years). Ignoring inflation, NASA appears to be budgeting more for CRS-2; at $1.0-1.4B/yr and 4-5 flights/yr, that is $200-350M per flight, which would be significantly higher than the current CRS-1 average of ~$140M/flight.

I agree that this is more money per year, but how much per kg?
CRS-1 was for for up to 20 tons each (40 tons total) over 3 or 4 years for up to $3.5B. Thats ~ $88M/ton
CRS-2 appears to be 14-17 tons per year for $1.1B-$1.4B .  That's ~$64M-$100M/ton
That doesn't reflect much savings for what could be fully developed and proven systems, but isn't a massive increase.
If Dragon can carry up 2-3 tons per flight that's $125-$300M/flight.  That does seems to extend to the high side.
On the speculative side, if SpaceX gets's their reusable cost down to even a few times the projected $7M these prices would seem to be very high.

[yg1968]

Have the CRS contracts changed from their original values? I thought SpaceX had $1.6 B for 12 flights and Orbital was $1.9 B for 8 flights, not $1.2 B.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/CRS-Announcement-Dec-08.html

Yes, $1.9B for 8 flights. Sorry for the typo. The rest of my numbers actually took into account $1.9B (not $1.2B).

[yg1968]

Thanks for posting this AnalogMan.  A couple other items of note:
1. "The ability to access unpressurized cargo at L-24h is required to allow for removal of optics covers and similar items."  (is that currently a requirement?)
2. "A Launch on Need (LON) capability is required within 2 months of the previous flight." (previous flight from another provider or from same provider?)

Although, the RFI is not very clear on this, it seems that the budget of betweeen $1B to $1.4B per year would essentially be the same as it is under CRS-1.
...

I think you overestimated the number of flights and $ per year for CRS-1 (not 4+4/yr over 3 years, but more like 3+2/yr over 4-5 years). Ignoring inflation, NASA appears to be budgeting more for CRS-2; at $1.0-1.4B/yr and 4-5 flights/yr, that is $200-350M per flight, which would be significantly higher than the current CRS-1 average of ~$175M/flight.

I was assuming 4 or 5 flights per provider per year. So if you have two providers, you would have 8 to 10 flights per year.  $1.4B divided by 8 flights gives you $175M per flight which is essentially the same price per flight than CRS-1. But I might be wrong about this. I don't find the RFI very clear on this.

[joek]

I think that they mean 4 or 5 flights per provider per year. So if you have two providers, you would have 8 to 10 flights per year.  $1.4B divided by 8 gives you $175M per flight which is essentially the same price per flight than CRS-1.

They mean 4-5 flights/year total (not per provider).  As stated:

Services are required to be provided in 4 to 5 missions per year and the capabilities described above are required to be distributed across the year.

[yg1968]

I think that they mean 4 or 5 flights per provider per year. So if you have two providers, you would have 8 to 10 flights per year.  $1.4B divided by 8 gives you $175M per flight which is essentially the same price per flight than CRS-1.

They mean 4-5 flights/year total (not per provider).  As stated:

Services are required to be provided in 4 to 5 missions per year and the capabilities described above are required to be distributed across the year.

Actually, you are probably right. But that is a bit surprising. There is 18 CRS-1 flights from the beginning of 2014 until the end of 2016 for an average of 6 flights per year. So the number of CRS flights per year would slightly decrease. With the addition of a 7th astronaut on ISS, I would expect cargo needs to increase.

[manboy]

This was also interesting.

"Mission mated capability must be 45 to 75 days."

I think that they mean 4 or 5 flights per provider per year. So if you have two providers, you would have 8 to 10 flights per year.  $1.4B divided by 8 gives you $175M per flight which is essentially the same price per flight than CRS-1.

They mean 4-5 flights/year total (not per provider).  As stated:

Services are required to be provided in 4 to 5 missions per year and the capabilities described above are required to be distributed across the year.

With the addition of a 7th astronaut on ISS, I would expect cargo needs to increase.

Probably not by much.

[Robotbeat]

A big, fat giant-Cygnus (ie MPLM-sized) on an Atlas V may be pretty competitive. That's a lot of cargo...

Very interesting. Lots of room for combining Crew and Cargo. Seems to give both SpaceX and Orbital a fair shot at this.

[joek]

A big, fat giant-Cygnus (ie MPLM-sized) on an Atlas V may be pretty competitive. That's a lot of cargo...

Only for pressurized up and down disposal, assuming current Cygnus configuration.  Still need pressurized up- and -down,  and unpressurized up.  Unless someone proposes a "do it all" solution, likely we'll see at least two vehicles, if not two providers.

[Robotbeat]

Dragon itself is good for large down-mass... But it's a little small for that much cargo. What if SpaceX proposed MCT (perhaps launched on Falcon heavy at first) for the later years as a possible on-ramp? That'd have plenty of pressurized volume... You could send up and return a bunch of full racks and possibly even unpressurized cargo, just like during Shuttle...

Okay, that was a little indulgent of me.

But Dragon, though very well-suited to pressurized down-mass, isn't well-suited to bulky pressurized up mass, though with a stretched trunk and v1.1, it should be capable of a lot of total up mass.

[Comga]

[snip]

Very interesting. Lots of room for combining Crew and Cargo. Seems to give both SpaceX and Orbital a fair shot at this.

But doesn't including external payloads mean that SpaceX is the only qualified bidder for at least that part of the contract?  (Assuming JAXA can't compete with additional HTVs.)

I do know of a payload on which NASA has spent $100M that has no ride in the current planning.  Plus there are several battery units listed for future flights that would have gone on HTVs.

[Robotbeat]

No, Cygnus can be flown in an unpressurized variant.

[joek]

No, Cygnus can be flown in an unpressurized variant.

Not at present.

[docmordrid]

Or Boeing could team with ATK for a variant of the Liberty Logistics Module.