ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[manboy]

I don't see why they'd be forced to use the SIMAC design.

Because the corresponding docking adapters (IDAs) on ISS will use SIMAC.

Ah, you're right... there are petals on both sides...

It seems pretty short-sighted to me that the petals are non-removable.

Why? It all still has to go through the APAS hatch on the PMAs.

Also just a remainder, on the old version of NDS the passage diameter was 31 inches (800 mm) with the petals removed. With the petals it was 27 inches (685 mm).

[joek]

To put that in perspective with respect to cargo packaging (edit: drawing to scale, give or take a mm)...

[Robotbeat]

Thanks, Joek! EDIT: (and manboy)

It's too bad a better docking adapter couldn't be used instead, allowing perhaps the soft-docking mechanism to be temporarily removed. This would allow even larger cargo to be transfered using a docking port, allowing standardization of all the main spacecraft interfaces for both cargo and crew (other than ISS's necessarily larger berthing ports... although the Russians did just fine for decades with their relatively tiny docking ports for Soyuz, Progress, Mir, Salyut7, etc).

[Chris Bergin]

Very good thread. Going to write up a shortish article to cover this as a lot of people - myself included - go blind really fast when reading documents like RFIs.

[Prober]

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

or will Blue Origin be ready? 

[Robotbeat]

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

or will Blue Origin be ready? 

More likely to me than ATK.

[joek]

Very good thread. Going to write up a shortish article to cover this as a lot of people - myself included - go blind really fast when reading documents like RFIs.

RFI is worth a read.  Short and concise with very little boilerplate (and thanks again to AnalogMan for the catch).

[Coastal Ron]

IMHO, the ability to deliver cargo through the hatch is going to mean the end of Cargo Dragon, allowing SpaceX to focus on just one variant for the next version of Dragon. I could easily see them proposing to do crew flights with new-build Dragon capsules and then cargo flights with reused Dragons, as a low-risk way of building up reusable flight hours.

I don't think Cargo Dragon's are going away, especially if SpaceX is able to reuse the ones they are using from the current CRS contract (12 total, only used once).  Since the CRS2 contract calls for frequent flights per year, that would mean SpaceX would have to build a larger fleet of Crew Dragon's than if all they needed to fly Crew Dragon's for was just for Commercial Crew.

But once they get the ability to land on land perfected, SpaceX may indeed decide to standardize on one type of vehicle.  But even if they do standardize on the crew version, they can still change out the hatch from NDS to CBM, and remove seats.

[Chris Bergin]

Article on this. What you already know, per this thread, with a sprinkling of other things out of L2.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/nasa-iss-resupply-options-through-2024/

[simonbp]

But once they get the ability to land on land perfected, SpaceX may indeed decide to standardize on one type of vehicle.  But even if they do standardize on the crew version, they can still change out the hatch from NDS to CBM, and remove seats.

True, but if I remember right, most of the cargo delivered by Dragon so far was much smaller than the berthing port (i.e. wasn't full-sized racks). It may be worth it for SpaceX to surrender the big cargo to Orbital and standardize on one Dragon version.

And the docking and berthing procedures and hardware are very different, so it's not just a matter of swapping out a docking port for a CBM.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Any guesses on who, other than SpaceX/OSC/Boeing/SNC, have some chance of winning with a completely new spacecraft?

[dror]

I'd love to see Biglow offering their space tug concept for affordable space access.

[Robotbeat]

Any guesses on who, other than SpaceX/OSC/Boeing/SNC, have some chance of winning with a completely new spacecraft?

Blue Origin.

[Hauerg]

Is Antares/Cygnus already out because
1. their stock of engines will not last until 2024, even at 2 flights per year and
2. no capability to bring back anything?

Seems like NASAS allow use of docking (with the disadvantage when transferring large objects) to keep SpaceX from winning this by default.

CST-100 and DC are far from flight ready while Dragon has a history.

NASA might want to select two suppliers, but will they really do it if the price difference is "ridiculous" (should F9R succeed)?

And first planned flight in 2017 means a really fast selection process is necessary. Getting me some popcorn.

[MikeAtkinson]

Remember this is a RFI (not a RFP), NASA are looking to find what capabilities the different companies involved might have ready by 2017. The requirements for the RFP might be different as a result, though probably not significantly different in my opinion.

[yg1968]

Article on this. What you already know, per this thread, with a sprinkling of other things out of L2.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/nasa-iss-resupply-options-through-2024/

Good article! It covers all of the main points of the RFI.

[JBF]

Is Antares/Cygnus already out because
1. their stock of engines will not last until 2024, even at 2 flights per year and
2. no capability to bring back anything?

Orbital is already looking at alternates and/or getting the engine line restarted.  3 years is plenty of time to find a solution.

[Chris Bergin]

Article on this. What you already know, per this thread, with a sprinkling of other things out of L2.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/nasa-iss-resupply-options-through-2024/

Good article! It covers all of the main points of the RFI.

Thanks very much! This thread helped a lot!

[clongton]

Thanks, Joek! EDIT: (and manboy)

It's too bad a better docking adapter couldn't be used instead, allowing perhaps the soft-docking mechanism to be temporarily removed. This would allow even larger cargo to be transferred using a docking port, allowing standardization of all the main spacecraft interfaces for both cargo and crew (other than ISS's necessarily larger berthing ports... although the Russians did just fine for decades with their relatively tiny docking ports for Soyuz, Progress, Mir, Salyut7, etc).

From the lessons learned department: perhaps a standard requirement for future stations? But if it gets proposed in some fashion in the RFI, it might find a place in the RFP as a system offering. This would allow Boeing to enter the foray with CST-100 and their SIMAC.

[arachnitect]

Just want to express my (very mild) frustration with the name "CRS2"

It defies search engines since everyone and their brother refers to Spx-2 as CRS-2.

Better choices in my book:

-CRS 2017

-CRS FO ("follow on")

-CRS B

-Or perhaps CRS II

Thank you, that is all.