Draft and Final RFP for Gateway logistics/cargo services

[woods170]

Dragon is smaller than NASA really wanted for CRS, I don't see it being competitive for the Gateway missions...

Emphasis mine.

With all due respect but that statement is not rooted in fact. NASA, under COTS/CRS-1 issued only two high-level requirements which had any effect on spacecraft size:
- Minimum amount of pressurized cargo to be transported up to ISS.
- Minimum amount of cargo missions to be flown.

NASA did not require the COTS contractors to have their spacecraft be of a minimum size/weight. Had NASA really wanted the contractors' spacecraft to be of a certain minimal size than they would have issued a requirement for it. But NASA didn't.

I haven't read the new RFP closely, but it seems to me the above is true for Gateway cargo too, no specific requirement for minimal size of the spacecraft, so I don't see how Dragon can be uncompetitive when the size is not even in the requirement.

For CRS NASA only wrote requirements with regards to how much cargo had to be transported to ISS. But this minimum amount of cargo was not described PER mission, but as a total over a minimum number of missions.
Something in the order of 20,000 kg of cargo to be transported to ISS on a minimum number of 8 missions. That dictates the size of one's spacecraft to a certain extent.

However, the RFP for the Gateway logistics is different. It specifically stated a minimum amount of cargo PER mission. Namely 3,400 kg of pressurized cargo AND 1,000 kg of unpressurized cargo PER mission.
That required minimum amounts PER mission likely make current Dragon iterations (both Dragon 1 and Dragon 2) too small to fit the RFP requirements.

[JohnFornaro]

In a way, that would be like starting to drive across Death Valley and not topping off your radiator or filling up the gas tank.

If the person topping off your radiator insists that your vehicle must only take liquid helium as a coolant, that might not be insane.

Well, you're stretching the analogy to the breaking point.

[Negan]

Why would SpaceX bother with this distraction?

It's not a distraction. It's a payload for Chomper. 

Would be better to just use a Starship directly.

I hope that's exactly what happens, but if not, Chomper might add some advantages over Falcon. Since it would allow a modified Dragon to launch in a fairing, would give SpaceX a lot of leeway in adding pressurized space. They could simply extend the top of Dragon until they fulfill the payload requirement. They might even should be able to do the same using a Falcon fairing. Using Starship also opens up the possibility of testing the setup on the ISS without expending any hardware.

Edit: It also allows it to easily launch with bigger solar panels for better power generation. They could use big rectangular solar panels that have minimum deployment needs.

Edit: There's already a much more complex example of this already in service. It's the Soyuz orbital module.

[brickmack]

It's true that you could dock to ISS and have the crew transfer cargo, but that seems like a waste of astronaut time, and it seems less like providing NASA the service of moving cargo to Gateway if NASA employees (and a Cosmonaut or two for that matter) are doing part of the transport work

What about robotic transfer? Theres a few companies working on IVA robotics systems already, and I'd think cargo transfer (basically just "move this box from point A to point B") should be a lot easier than most other tasks they're looking at. Have an unmanned Dragon or Dream Chaser (sans expendable module) launch and dock directly to the PPE vehicle. No astronaut time needed, minimum of expendable hardware, and eliminating ISS from the equation means a different LEO staging orbit can be used (ISS is probably higher inclination and lower altitude than ideal)

[JEF_300]

It's true that you could dock to ISS and have the crew transfer cargo, but that seems like a waste of astronaut time, and it seems less like providing NASA the service of moving cargo to Gateway if NASA employees (and a Cosmonaut or two for that matter) are doing part of the transport work

What about robotic transfer? Theres a few companies working on IVA robotics systems already, and I'd think cargo transfer (basically just "move this box from point A to point B") should be a lot easier than most other tasks they're looking at. Have an unmanned Dragon or Dream Chaser (sans expendable module) launch and dock directly to the PPE vehicle. No astronaut time needed, minimum of expendable hardware, and eliminating ISS from the equation means a different LEO staging orbit can be used (ISS is probably higher inclination and lower altitude than ideal)

My first thought upon reading this was "that's crazy." But the more I think about... I'm starting to really like this idea. Robotic transfer, while difficult, is certainly possible and could be helpful to NASA too. And if you use it, you get a rather nice architecture, almost elegant. Neat.

[Robotbeat]

Or send a commercial astronaut up there to do cargo stowage, etc. May even be cheaper than developing a robotic IVA system.

[JEF_300]

It's true that you could dock to ISS and have the crew transfer cargo, but that seems like a waste of astronaut time, and it seems less like providing NASA the service of moving cargo to Gateway if NASA employees (and a Cosmonaut or two for that matter) are doing part of the transport work

What about robotic transfer? Theres a few companies working on IVA robotics systems already, and I'd think cargo transfer (basically just "move this box from point A to point B") should be a lot easier than most other tasks they're looking at. Have an unmanned Dragon or Dream Chaser (sans expendable module) launch and dock directly to the PPE vehicle. No astronaut time needed, minimum of expendable hardware, and eliminating ISS from the equation means a different LEO staging orbit can be used (ISS is probably higher inclination and lower altitude than ideal)

My first thought upon reading this was "that's crazy." But the more I think about... I'm starting to really like this idea. Robotic transfer, while difficult, is certainly possible and could be helpful to NASA too. And if you use it, you get a rather nice architecture, almost elegant. Neat.

Or send a commercial astronaut up there to do cargo stowage, etc. May even be cheaper than developing a robotic IVA system.

As if in response to our conversation, NASA Ames' Astrobee had its first test flight on station yesterday.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/ames/look-no-hands-nasa-s-first-astrobee-robot-bumble-starts-flying-in-space

Watch as Bumble ominously rotates 45 degrees to look into your soul!


Kidding aside, these things are pretty neat and are supposed to be able to move small cargo like tools, and even bigger stuff when working in pairs. It would take them quite a while to unpack a Dreamchaser, but they should be capable of it.

[Tywin]

I wonder if one of the PPE contractors will propose an Ion Cycler of some sort. Take your PPE design, have it pick up a pressurized cargo module and refuel in LEO, travel to the station over 3-6 months, and when it's done at the gateway, jettison the cargo module, return to LEO, and wait for a new shipment.

All of the Gateway PPE losing bidders are planning to propose this, though as I mentioned upthread it seems SNC is the only one with much of a shot (if any). Don't need to jettison the cargo module, a PPE-sized propulsion module can easily do a round-trip LEO-cislunar-LEO mission with a Cygnus PCM/Dream Chaser expendable module/similar without expending anything. Bringing the cargo module back allows return payload capacity (via docking at ISS and handing samples off to some crew/logistics vehicle there), and reduces hardware cost (not just the pressure vessel, but docking hardware as well), and probably wouldn't be a 1:1 mass savings anyway since there now need to be detachable reusable interfaces between those modules, and the pressure vessel can no longer be used as a structural element (as on SNC's PPE).

Transit time would probably be closer to 6 months each way than 3, based on previous studies of similarly-sized tugs with electric propulsion systems of comparable thrust and ISP. NASA requirement for the Gateway PPE was <100 days from launch to insertion at NRHO, but that was assuming a launch to at minimum a GTO-like trajectory, not starting in LEO. The first use of each unit could cut a lot of that outbound travel time out though, by launching directly to TLI (triple-reusable FH is easily big enough to throw any of the PPE concepts direct to TLI). So probably the first mission would be ~2 months from launch to first docking, then ~3 months at the Gateway for cargo transfer and whatever, ~6 months to return to LEO, 1 month at ISS for cargo transfer and refueling, ~6 months outbound, repeat.

What about a space tug, like Jupiter for transfer the cargo to the Gateway...maybe now is the time...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(spacecraft)

[TrevorMonty]

Flight rate is to low to justify Jupiter development costs. Would've viable for LEOs higher flight rate. May yet happen if we get commercial LEO stations.

[AnalogMan]

The presentation from the Industry Day Briefing for this RFP has been posted today:

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=760152fcd5b9965455a9cf8c86f6eb8d

Contains some technical info among all the contractual stuff.
(copy also attached)

[jongoff]

Flight rate is to low to justify Jupiter development costs. Would've viable for LEOs higher flight rate. May yet happen if we get commercial LEO stations.

A lot also depends on the size of cargo pod you deliver. Altius has looked a little at using something like our 75kg Bulldog servicing vehicle for delivering cargo pods, but that would be much smaller chunks than Jupiter (probably in the 200-500kg class). I think the trick would be finding a size where you could leverage a design that was useful for other stuff too, so that Artemis doesn't have to pay for the full development and fixed cost of the tug. But not throwing away a complex prox ops package/maneuvering vehicle every time has some real appeal to it.

We looked at a variant of tugs in the Refueling Element proposal we put together for Orbit Beyond for the HLS BAA Refueling Element study. As it is, they didn't select our base study, just two of the prototypes. That could mean that they didn't like the concept of tugs, or already had someone else with a tug-based idea.

~Jon

[jongoff]

Flight rate is to low to justify Jupiter development costs. Would've viable for LEOs higher flight rate. May yet happen if we get commercial LEO stations.

A lot also depends on the size of cargo pod you deliver. Altius has looked a little at using something like our 75kg Bulldog servicing vehicle for delivering cargo pods, but that would be much smaller chunks than Jupiter (probably in the 200-500kg class). I think the trick would be finding a size where you could leverage a design that was useful for other stuff too, so that Artemis doesn't have to pay for the full development and fixed cost of the tug. But not throwing away a complex prox ops package/maneuvering vehicle every time has some real appeal to it.

We looked at a variant of tugs in the Refueling Element proposal we put together for Orbit Beyond for the HLS BAA Refueling Element study. As it is, they didn't select our base study, just two of the prototypes. That could mean that they didn't like the concept of tugs, or already had someone else with a tug-based idea.

~Jon

It's too bad they're painting themselves into a corner with this RFP. Looking for something Cygnus sized, that does its own AR&D, has a 3yr lifetime on station, etc. Basically guaranteeing something that's going to cost a lot, and likely not have great pathways to lower cost in the future.

~Jon

[TrevorMonty]

The Cygnus is low risk.

[jarmumd]

It's too bad they're painting themselves into a corner with this RFP. Looking for something Cygnus sized, that does its own AR&D, has a 3yr lifetime on station, etc. Basically guaranteeing something that's going to cost a lot, and likely not have great pathways to lower cost in the future.

~Jon

I'm not following.  What would cost less and have better pathways to a lower cost? It seems like they are taking ISS commercial resupply and taking it to the next step.  Should be relatively incremental.

[Robotbeat]

Flight rate is to low to justify Jupiter development costs. Would've viable for LEOs higher flight rate. May yet happen if we get commercial LEO stations.

A lot also depends on the size of cargo pod you deliver. Altius has looked a little at using something like our 75kg Bulldog servicing vehicle for delivering cargo pods, but that would be much smaller chunks than Jupiter (probably in the 200-500kg class). I think the trick would be finding a size where you could leverage a design that was useful for other stuff too, so that Artemis doesn't have to pay for the full development and fixed cost of the tug. But not throwing away a complex prox ops package/maneuvering vehicle every time has some real appeal to it.

We looked at a variant of tugs in the Refueling Element proposal we put together for Orbit Beyond for the HLS BAA Refueling Element study. As it is, they didn't select our base study, just two of the prototypes. That could mean that they didn't like the concept of tugs, or already had someone else with a tug-based idea.

~Jon

It's too bad they're painting themselves into a corner with this RFP. Looking for something Cygnus sized, that does its own AR&D, has a 3yr lifetime on station, etc. Basically guaranteeing something that's going to cost a lot, and likely not have great pathways to lower cost in the future.

~Jon

Bingo.

[GWH]

I would expect the 3 year mission requirement to cause a lot of logistical headaches after year 1...

[brickmack]

The one promising thing here is theres a couple slides indicating pricing is the most important factor ("Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price."). Especially since this is just a draft RFP, I'd expect NASA will happily waive or relax requirements if someone has a drastically cheaper bid. The 3 year lifetime bit will probably be revised to "must stay the entire maximum duration of a crew expedition, with the ability to dock and undock entirely without human aid", and the payload capacity requirement would be revised to a yearly launch capacity (so could be spread over multiple launches as the contractor sees fit, like CRS)

[yg1968]

There is a Q&A document that has some interesting questions that seem relevant for Blue Origin and perhaps also SpaceX:

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=e36d42451470d2077a003ee7c5a0fce2

Question 2: When is the contractor required to have the one successful flight for CLIN 1 and three successful flights for CLIN 2?

Answer 2: The Common Launch Vehicle Configuration is required to meet the successful flight requirements before each CLIN 1, GLS Mission, or CLIN 2, Specialized Delivery Mission. A Common Launch Vehicle Configuration which has not yet flown may be proposed. In this situation, the Offeror shall include a credible solution which shows how the minimum successful flight requirements will be met.

Question 10: Can the one prior, or three prior, successful flight(s) of the commercial launch service be a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) flight or must it be a flight beyond LEO?

Answer 10: The one, or three, successful flight(s) requirement of the Common Launch Vehicle Configuration can be a LEO flight.

[freddo411]

It's too bad they're painting themselves into a corner with this RFP. Looking for something Cygnus sized, that does its own AR&D, has a 3yr lifetime on station, etc. Basically guaranteeing something that's going to cost a lot, and likely not have great pathways to lower cost in the future.

~Jon

I'm not following.  What would cost less and have better pathways to a lower cost? It seems like they are taking ISS commercial resupply and taking it to the next step.  Should be relatively incremental.

Did you read the top of the thread?   The NASA requirements for minimum size per missions are (listed above) are >> than what can be accommodated in existing cargo craft used for ISS.   The requirements are probably above what can be accommodated in a "stretched" version of existing cargo ships.   

These requirements are more prescriptive than necessary, and this is different than the original, highly successful commercial cargo contract.

To answer your question:

Less restrictive requirements would allow for cargo delivery using lightly modified existing cargo craft, which would be much, much less expensive then a new bespoke design.

[yg1968]

List of companies that attended the Industry Day includes SpaceX, ULA, Boeing, SNC, NGIS and Blue Origin:

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=ae9a145791e189d8761b129e1bb7cf1b

There is also a second Q&A document (questions are very specific):

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=a6b52fb9e167097cf8f91e4a4c64fe46