CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Lurker Steve]

Combine crew and cargo contracts, then having two suppliers is entirely feasible.

None of the prospective crew vehicles are optimized for cargo. Also, I thought we didn't want crew and cargo delivered on the same launch.

When the cargo contract comes up for renewal, everyone is free to compete. I still think the Cygnus makes the best pure cargo ship, although I would like to see a full size CBM hatch. Of course, a second provider that is able to supply some down-mass is necessary, unless that down mass is provided in addition to ferrying the crew back to Earth. How much of the Dragon down mass is going to be just trash ?

[baldusi]

Combine crew and cargo contracts, then having two suppliers is entirely feasible.

NASA will have to do a second CRS bidding process. But I seriously doubt that any CCS launched with an Atlas will be able to compete on price. And Dc doesn't seems to be able to fit an CBM, either. And I'm not sure CST-100 can retrofit an unpressurized compartment given where they've put their OMS. Ironically, the most likely candidate to make a good offer there would be... Liberty II. 

[Lobo]

Combine crew and cargo contracts, then having two suppliers is entirely feasible.

<like>  This.

That creates a bit of a problem for DC fans though.  At least the first version of DC won't be a very good cargo carrier I don't think.  Or at least I've heard.  I think the docking port is of limited width compared to the CBM, and it's internal volume isn't very efficient for cargo.  But maybe a cargo variant of DC with a expendable CBM fixture on the aft rather than a docking port, and stripping out everything in the pressurized volume...who knows, maybe it could work adequately.  Or a cargo bay instead of a pressurized interior for unpressurized cargo?  I believe DC will be able to fly and rendezvous with the ISS autonomously, so I would think they could do an uncrewed cargo variant of it.

Also makes it tough for OSC, as they'd need a brand new space ship for crews. 

That leaves SpaceX and Boeing as the two most likely dual-supply service providers. 
Although, an interesting thing would be a team-up between Boeing and OSC for that combo contract.  Or SNC and OSC for a combo contract.  One gets the contract, and subcontracts the other to provide the service which they can't, rather than developing that capability on their own.  Especially since OSC's cargo capabilities will already exist.  Not sure how cost-efficient that would be though.  Might be cheaper for Boeing to make a cargo version of the CST-100 CSM, or SNC to try to make a cargo variant of DC.  If SNC could, then they'd just have like two crew DC's, and two cargo DC's in their fleet, and they would be fully reusable OV's with supposedly not much required in processing between flights.

[baldusi]

Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.

[Lobo]

Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.

Once current contracts expire, what's to keep NASA from issuing new RFQ's, with the requirement that the bidder can supply both X-Crew capability and Y-cargo capability?  They can't cancel existing contracts, but they could change future contract requirements, couldn't they?
Issue two combined contracts in maybe 2015 or 2016 when the first commercial crew contracts will meed to be issued, and I believe that's the end of these first commercial cargo contracts.  I think they expire in 2015 and will need to be replaced with a Commercial Cargo-2 contract for 3-4 more years.
Or push it off further, and make the commercial cargo-2 contracts and commercial crew-1 contracts expire at the same time, in which case all will be replaced with issuance of two "Combined Commercial Cargo and Crew-1" RFB's.  And they'd probably be designed around two specific providers NASA would have in mind and indend to get the contracts, although it's technically an "open" bid.  And they'd have probably already been in talks with the two intended suppliers to write the RFB in such a way that they can bid it, and make a reasonable profit margin at the same time. 

In that same vein, anyone have an idea of what DC's total upmass and downmass capabilities are with the initial OV, or might be with a variant optimized for cargo work?  I've had a hard time finding specifics on that.  If it can deliver 6 crew with some associated mass (pressure suits, personal effects), than I'll think it's upmass would be about 1mt at least??

That's not much, but a variant which had all the ECLSS systems removed, along with the Human-machine-interface (HMI) controls, seats, etc removed.  Maybe even the windows and other things I can't think of right now, maybe they could get that up some?  Especially if they put a few Atlas SRB's on the Atlas V that was launching that cargo DC?  Why not?  Maybe DC could be made into an effective cargo carrier?  Have the cargo rack straps arranged around the inside of the pressurized chamber in DC and just load it from the front to back, and unload it in the reverse at the ISS.

[Robotbeat]

Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.

If that's the only feasible way to get two crew providers, why the heck can't they combine? (And I agree OSC's solution is good for cargo.)

[baldusi]

Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.

If that's the only feasible way to get two crew providers, why the heck can't they combine? (And I agree OSC's solution is good for cargo.)

Because they already have made the specs for crew with CCiCAP. If you where to change the rules of the contest they won't be ready for 2016, probably only to 2019. And as stated above, the contestants have made technical decisions that might need a different approach for cargo. Boeing might have designed the RCS system differently, DC might have chosen a different LV, etc.
The specs are different and the needs are different. And in any case, you only care about total cost. They might allow mixed proposals for crew and cargo. But if somebody offers a cheaper cargo services, how do you justify to pay more for a service? What if A offers cheaper cargo than C, B cheaper Crew than C and A+B is less than C+C?
Let's not forget that there's a real need for pressurized cargo athmospheric disposal. Who's going to offer that? Currently only HTV and Cygnus can do it, and none of the current CCiCAP can do it.

[rcoppola]

Perhaps I overlooked the initial reasoning, but why exactly should we want Cargo and Crew under one contract?

Each service has different system and mission requirements. Crew and/or Cargo should be selected on the best available service providers.

If a service provider happened to construct their systems in such a way that they can effectively leverage their cargo service for future crew service resulting in a very competitively priced crew capability... then, to the victor go the spoils.

I know it's fun to play legos and redesign systems as we wish but the reality is:

NASA is not going to pay for the DC to be a cargo hauler.
CST-100 was not designed to compete for Cargo re-supply, nor will NASA pay for it to do so.

[Lobo]

Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.

If that's the only feasible way to get two crew providers, why the heck can't they combine? (And I agree OSC's solution is good for cargo.)

Because they already have made the specs for crew with CCiCAP. If you where to change the rules of the contest they won't be ready for 2016, probably only to 2019. And as stated above, the contestants have made technical decisions that might need a different approach for cargo. Boeing might have designed the RCS system differently, DC might have chosen a different LV, etc.
The specs are different and the needs are different. And in any case, you only care about total cost. They might allow mixed proposals for crew and cargo. But if somebody offers a cheaper cargo services, how do you justify to pay more for a service? What if A offers cheaper cargo than C, B cheaper Crew than C and A+B is less than C+C?
Let's not forget that there's a real need for pressurized cargo athmospheric disposal. Who's going to offer that? Currently only HTV and Cygnus can do it, and none of the current CCiCAP can do it.

Isn’t CCiCAP only liable for the initial crew contract?  Like CRS was?  And when CRS-1 is over, NASA could opt to issue no more contracts for commercial cargo?  (not that that would make much sense).  I think CRS-1 only goes through 2016. 
If so inclined, couldn’t they offer a 2 or 3 year Commercial contract to the winner(s) of CCiCAP, and then a similar CRS-2 contract, which would expire about the time of the first commercial crew contract, and then issue RFB for combines contracts?

Maybe they could offer an option RFB for suppliers that can provide it, for some price less than a commercial crew and commercial cargo cost separately?  And if someone can meet it, they actually get both contracts?  It’s a win for NASA, because they can save some money by the fact of offering the RFB if they get some combined discount.  The Supplier wins because they get both contracts, rather than having to bid both separately and maybe only get one.  Not quite as much margin, but more volume.

Maybe it wouldn’t gain as much as it seems, just seems if there are two or three crew and two cargo contracts, that’s 4 to 5 different suppliers all launching like one or two launches per year.  Seems about the most inefficient way to do it.  We want fewer LV’s and spacecraft launching more often to get costs down.

And as cool as commercial crew and cargo is (and it is), it’s a little frustrating to think about a scenario where a Block 1 LEO Orion CSM that can launch on an Atlas single stick LV is launching right after Shuttle is retired to supply both crew and cargo services to ISS.  Would have been nice to see a robust flight rate for NASA’s new flagship spacecraft overall.   The Orion service module on a disposable MPLM launched on the Atlas-5xx variants could supply both volumous cargo capability and pressurized atmospheric disposal, like a larger version of Cygnus.  And an unmanned Orion for pressurized cargo downmass.
And that same single stick Atlas-55x with a  new WBC upper stage could loft the full BLEO Orion to LEO for a 1.5 architecture of some kind if that was still determined to be the path forward after Shuttle was retired. 
How much wasted 5-seg and J2X development could have been saved just going that route, not to mention the time lost….
This was all the original plan in ESAS by the way for ISS support, just they chose Ares 1 instead of EELV.  But they chose an LV starting from scratch rather than one already flying.

But I degress…

The commercial crew and cargo is interesting to see, but it just seems like it stems from a serious of bad decisions, rather than being a “good” decision in un itself.  The best way to handle the situation derived from bad decisions and bad politics maybe’s a better way to say it. 

[Robotbeat]

So nobody thinks the commercial crew folks have considered cargo requirements? Dragon, a vehicle whose purpose for coming into existence was to eventually bring humans to orbit, seems to be doing a pretty good job at cargo service. Progress (which is based on Soyuz) served for several decades (and still does!) as a cargo vehicle, uses a docking system which is more cumbersome to get stuff through than NDSS. And the mini-CBM on Cygnus (significantly smaller than the one on Dragon, by the way) isn't too different in diameter from NDSS.

I guarantee you that /every/ commercial crew contender has given serious thought to cargo logistics as well.

EDIT: NDS is indeed significantly bigger than the probe-and-drogue system that Progress has used for logistics since the 1970s.

[Elmar Moelzer]

So nobody thinks the commercial crew folks have considered cargo requirements? Dragon, a vehicle whose purpose for coming into existence was to eventually bring humans to orbit, seems to be doing a pretty good job at cargo service. Progress (which is based on Soyuz) served for several decades (and still does!) as a cargo vehicle, uses a docking system which is more cumbersome to get stuff through than NDSS. And the mini-CBM on Cygnus (significantly smaller than the one on Dragon, by the way) isn't too different in diameter from NDSS.

I guarantee you that /every/ commercial crew contender has given serious thought to cargo logistics as well.

EDIT: NDS is indeed significantly bigger than the probe-and-drogue system that Progress has used for logistics since the 1970s.

I agree!

[erioladastra]

Isn’t CCiCAP only liable for the initial crew contract?  Like CRS was?  And when CRS-1 is over, NASA could opt to issue no more contracts for commercial cargo?  (not that that would make much sense).  I think CRS-1 only goes through 2016. 
If so inclined, couldn’t they offer a 2 or 3 year Commercial contract to the winner(s) of CCiCAP, and then a similar CRS-2 contract, which would expire about the time of the first commercial crew contract, and then issue RFB for combines contracts?

----------------------

CCiCAP is not liable for any crew contract.  iCAP just gets them thru CDR.  Optional milestones, which may never get selected, might get you to a crewed test flight.

[joek]

To add to what erioladastra said...

A. For CRS:

1. If NASA places the order before the end of 2015 for delivery before the end of 2016, then providers must (subject to contract minimums, maximums, etc.) honor the order.

2. If NASA places the order before the end of 2015 for delivery after the end of 2016, then providers may, subject to mutual agreement with NASA (subject to contract minimums, maximums, etc.) honor the order.

3. There is an on-ramp provision "... to provide NASA with a mechanism to recompete due to the loss of an existing ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) supplier or to procure a vehicle service that is not currently being provided within the scope of this contract during the period of performance ...", existing providers are allowed to submit new proposals.

B. For CTS:

1. NASA stated that "... any commercial provider who is successful in achieving CTS Certification, the Phase 2 contract will include, as options, a nominal number of crewed missions to the ISS following successful CTS Certification.".  We'll have to wait and see what "nominal" means.

C. In short:

1. For the foreseeable future--at least through start of crew services to ISS in 2017 and probably for 1-2 years beyond--assuming everything goes well, CRS and CTS are likely to remain separate.

2. The exception may be a nominal reduction in the need for CRS to provide pressurized up- and down-mass.  The old CCT/IDC requirements state a minimum requirement of 100kg of cargo, a Glacier, and 100kg for each empty seat.  If the spacecraft is capable of 7 crew and NASA uses 4, that's ~400kg of pressurized cargo/flight.

3. Attempting to push CRS and CTS together any time in the foreseeable future IMHO would put both programs at unacceptable risk.  This is new territory for the providers and NASA; give it a few years.

[woods170]

<snip>
And the mini-CBM on Cygnus (significantly smaller than the one on Dragon, by the way)...
<snip>

Minor nit: There is no such thing a mini-CBM. The CBM (Common Berthing Mechanism) on both Cygnus and Dragon are exactly the same size. However, it is the CBM hatch that is smaller on Cygnus.

[Lar]

Crew Dragon will still have a trunk, right? Any technical restrictions on using some of the trunk volume for unpressurized cargo? Does the added weight of ECLSS mean the trunk has no mass available for cargo?

[Borklund]

I believe Elon said at a talk or during an interview not too long ago that crew Dragon would not have a trunk and solar panels but instead just have way bigger batteries.

[baldusi]

So nobody thinks the commercial crew folks have considered cargo requirements?

They might have, but now they are quite focused on providing crew services. And even NASA had to think a lot about what they meant by man rating. All this has generated a very specific and custom designs.
CST-100 could probably work just as good as a Dragon, with a CBM, and a new service module. In fact, they seem to have almost all their RCS save the pusher escape system on the sides, so they might have thought about it.
Dream Chaser, seems more designed for Crew. A CBM doesn't seems to fit there, and the length and width might pose quite an interference problem if it were modified for being handled. And I can't see how to add unpressurized module. I mean, they could add a whole MLPM besides the DC, but it would block the propulsion modules. I ignore about Blue Origin's New Space Vehicle, but it doesn't seems to have a a way to put a CBM, since the NDS was on the side. Ironically, ATK's Liberty had the best proposal for cargo. Although I doubt it's cost and maturity.
But all of them have been designed and optimized for crew at this stage. That means having a pilot do the approach and docking. It's also the reason you have to put a CBM. I don't think NASA would allow automatic docking to the APAS-like on the USOS side. So now they would have to design all the new avionics and approaching software, plus the ISS interaction to get in the grapple box. And now there's no COTS money.
But the true issue is the LV. You don't use Atlas V because it's cheap, you use it because it's as reliably a LV as they come (which is important way more important for crew than for cargo). The New World Observatory papers stated that an Atlas V 501 cost 140M. Take in consideration that costs have gone up dramatically, and those where 2007 prices. What's more, these vehicles use the Centaur x 2, which uses two of the most expensive item on the Atlas V, the RL10. I would not be surprised if the 402 is about 170M today. Which is more than the whole Dragon mission. And each Cygnus mission costs 190M. There's one way to compete with them. But that would require to use a 431, or find a way to use a 551 (which would need a custom "fairing" upto the capsule adapter). Then you make a big craft that can double the payload of either Cygnus or Dragon. So you can compete on USD/kg. But that would mean half the missions and bigger spacecraft, too.
The other issue of optimizing for cargo (launching on Atlas V) is that you have to put a lot of volume, while optimizing for crew you worry about evacuation, ECLSS, etc. After they did a low of optimizing for crew, retrofitting cargo gets more difficult.

Dragon, a vehicle whose purpose for coming into existence was to eventually bring humans to orbit, seems to be doing a pretty good job at cargo service. Progress (which is based on Soyuz) served for several decades (and still does!) as a cargo vehicle, uses a docking system which is more cumbersome to get stuff through than NDS.

USOS and ROS are two different worlds. The Russian side is designed and optimized for the cone and probe. The USOS is designed and optimized for the CBM. They might work, but the whole approach system is the NASA requirement for Cargo.
What's more, Progess has a flight history that allows it to be grandfathered on a lot of issues. The commercial companies now only lack that history and track record, but the whole point of commercial is a hands off approach that goes totally against the sort of insight that every partner would ask to allow that type of docking. Think more in ATV's terms.

And the mini-CBM on Cygnus (significantly smaller than the one on Dragon, by the way) isn't too different in diameter from NDS.

Again, the CBM diameter is the same, is a smaller hatch. The true issue of CBM vs NDS is the approach (berthing vs docking).

I guarantee you that /every/ commercial crew contender has given serious thought to cargo logistics as well.

Of course they have given it thought. But they are trying to get a contract under the CCiCAP rules, and those rules, as stated above, makes you optimize differently.

[baldusi]

BTW, if they had decided to start with COTS-D, as HMXHMX has stated, it could have been a whole different game. If they had started with proposals to do crew and cargo, then we might have seen some very different designs and proposals. Personally, I would have loved an HL-42 on an Atlas Heavy (do the numbers, it's not that ridiculous).
But I guess they thought it was a danger to the CxP, and the ISS was going to be ditched by 2017 anyways ( ). So that's where we are today.
The nice thing is that once commercial companies offer cargo and crew services to the ISS, they will have "proven" the method. NASA won't be able to get back to the monolithic model. What's more, they are correcting for what I see as a cultural problem of NASA, where they like to do bet-the-farm programs and stop developing systems by 30years.
COTS and CCDev/CCiCAP has changed a bit that logic. They did "small" investments and actually invested first on subsystems, then on whole systems, while the rest of the Directorate kept doing what it's supposed to do.

[Zed_Noir]

USOS and ROS are two different worlds. The Russian side is designed and optimized for the cone and probe.

What would prevent SpaceX from buying a Russian docking system and swap out the current CBM system on the Dragon with it. Thus able to docked on the ROS. Provide the Russians are willing to sale.

[Robotbeat]

If it's the difference between only having one crew provider and having two, it makes far more sense to combine crew and cargo. Not only does it share costs, but it also greatly increases safety, since a randomly introduced design/process problem is more likely to be caught on a non-life-critical cargo flight than a crew flight.