Commercial Crew Spacecraft Competition

[baldusi]

Lobo, do you really think that in this reduced budget environment NASA will use two suppliers for crew and cargo if it's more expensive than two for cargo and one for crew? In particular, SpaceX will have a very strong business case. I don't think they will be able to afford a second crew carrying supplier. In fact, I don't think any country in the world had two simultaneous crew rated vehicles at the same time.
And don't forget that most payload is volume limited in CRS, and Cygnus has lots of volume. DC would be permanently volume limited, and CST-100 might need a an extended SM. In particular, if they want a good USD/kg, and since Atlas V is so powerful, and the incremental cost of adding solids is so little, they would need a lot of volume to carry it. This would also mean that CST Cargo would fly very little. Probably once per year. That's not good for scales.
Antares is quite a bit less powerful than Atlas V, but it's also a lot cheaper, and Cygnus doesn't have to carry the extra weight of a returnable vehicle. It does overlaps a bit with HTV (current Cygnus can't bring up full rack). But it's very cost effective. In fact, my WAG is that a second CRS contract would allow OSC to develop a more powerful US+fairing and use a wider PCM for less than what it would take to Boeing to convert CST to robotic cargo and adapt it to Atlas V. That would probably allow them to get even better pricing. Or spend nothing on R&D and make a really low bid.
My point, is that the crew capable vehicles have to carry a lot of dead weight for return. And Atlas V is a very expensive/powerful LV. The only way to compete, is to increase volume to get the best USD/kg. Both DC and CST are very difficult to extend their pressurized volume. And they carry the "deadweight" of their returnable parts. CST could be made lighter and disposable, but it's the wrong form for a disposable vehicle, and it would be so different that it would be a new development.

[MikeAtkinson]

Starting from the expected end date of CRS and working backward allowing time for long lead items, leads to the date that any follow-on contract will have to be negotiated. My guess is that this will be some time in 2014.

If I'm right about that date then the CRS contract will have to be in place a before commercial crew contract could be made. This is one reason I think that crew and cargo will be kept separate.

The other reason is that frequency of access and return is just as important as cargo mass or volume. Relatively cheap frequent cargo flights are the best way to achieve this, both cargo Dragon and Cygnus will be cheaper per flight than any likely prospective cargo version of CST-100 or DC on Atlas.

[baldusi]

I think they could push it in 2015. The current CRS is well behind schedule. What I'm wondering is if they would need to do a full and oppen competition or just extend the contracts.
If the ISS is extended beyond 2020, when would that decision be made? If the do CRS in 2014 and the extension decision goes to 2015 or 2016, NASA would have to do the extension assuming just 3 or 4 years of service, nos 8 to 10. Few years of extra service is a good argument for extension. How long took CRS from the call of proposals to CRS-1? Six years? Its already late for 2018!
What they could do, would be to extend it by a year or so, just enough to know if the ISS is going to las to 2020/25/28 and then do a second round of CSR-2

[joek]

Starting from the expected end date of CRS and working backward allowing time for long lead items, leads to the date that any follow-on contract will have to be negotiated. My guess is that this will be some time in 2014.

If I'm right about that date then the CRS contract will have to be in place a before commercial crew contract could be made. This is one reason I think that crew and cargo will be kept separate.

The other reason is that frequency of access and return is just as important as cargo mass or volume. Relatively cheap frequent cargo flights are the best way to achieve this, both cargo Dragon and Cygnus will be cheaper per flight than any likely prospective cargo version of CST-100 or DC on Atlas.

Maybe.  CRS is an IDIQ contract (Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity). Within certain constraints, NASA may order as much or as little as they want from whoever they want.  That is the same model used for NLS (NASA Launch Services).  The CRS contract period is through Dec 31 2015.  The "Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after December 31, 2016" (NB: "not required", which does not preclude).  Note also that CRS has an on-ramp provision for new providers as does NLS.

Prior to Dec 31 2015 NASA will likely issue an RFP for "CRS II", at which time any and all will be welcome.  If it follows the NLS contract model, that will grant only the right to bid on specific NASA CRS task orders.  And even if a provider misses that 2015 (or whenever) window, on-ramp provisions allow for them to subsequently compete for CRS services.  In short, I wouldn't put a lot of weight on those dates as to who may or may not be in the running in then (or after) or the relevance to CCiCap/CTS.

[baldusi]

Joek,
  CRS-I also included COTS. For a CRS-II, would NASA be obligated to offer a similar program to prospective competitors? Because else, it would be sort of a win by default.
  I can only think of CST-100 to compete with Dragon. But they would have to develop the whole robotic approach, the CBM and have the extra cost of Atlas V. I simply don't see how could they compete on price. In other words, I don't see anybody who wouldn't have to spend a few hundred millions just to be able to compete on CRS-II.

[Jim]

Joek,
  CRS-I also included COTS. For a CRS-II, would NASA be obligated to offer a similar program to prospective competitors? Because else, it would be sort of a win by default.

No, COTS was a one time unique project.  There is no requirement for it.

[baldusi]

Joek,
  CRS-I also included COTS. For a CRS-II, would NASA be obligated to offer a similar program to prospective competitors? Because else, it would be sort of a win by default.

No, COTS was a one time unique project.  There is no requirement for it.

So, if there is a single existing commercial supplier NASA can't offer money to develop an alternative? Or is just that it's not required?

[happyflower]

I am a Dream Chaser fan simply because its one beautiful spaceship. But beyond that doesn't DC have other advantages to the other capsules? For example isn't the DC the "easiest" on the human body? If so, wouldn't it be best suited for space tourism? What about bringing back an injured astronaut? How about being able to land in a much wider range of locations than the capsules?

[Jim]

Joek,
  CRS-I also included COTS. For a CRS-II, would NASA be obligated to offer a similar program to prospective competitors? Because else, it would be sort of a win by default.

COTS shouldn't have included launch vehicles in the first place

No, COTS was a one time unique project.  There is no requirement for it.

So, if there is a single existing commercial supplier NASA can't offer money to develop an alternative? Or is just that it's not required?

[yg1968]

Joek,
  CRS-I also included COTS.

CRS-1 does not include COTS. COTS and CRS were completely independant of each other. For example, Planet Space submited a bid for CRS despite not being a COTS winner. CRS-2 (if there is one) would be open to new entrants.

[joek]

For a CRS-II, would NASA be obligated to offer a similar program to prospective competitors? Because else, it would be sort of a win by default.

As Jim & yg1968 said, COTS & CRS (as CCP & CRS) were separate programs, at least from a funding-contract-bid-award perspective.  Whether NASA would (or would be permitted to) institute another COTS-like program likely depends on a number of factors...

Simply to increase the number of suppliers?  IMHO unlikely. Although there may be future conditions that msy justify another such effort.  Highly speculative but possible reasons might include:
1. Demand increases to the point existing providers cannot meet NASA's needs.
2. Existing suppliers have problems, drop out and we end up with zero or one.
3. New capabilities are required which cannot be met by existing providers.
4. ...?

[Lobo]

I am not sure why SpaceX would compete against itself. I also doubt that Orbital would want to use the Falcon 9 for its spacecraft given that it already has Antares.

Yea, that would seem odd.  Orbital makes Antares and Cygnus, so I doubt they'd switch to F9 after all of that development they've invested.

[Lobo]

Lobo, do you really think that in this reduced budget environment NASA will use two suppliers for crew and cargo if it's more expensive than two for cargo and one for crew? In particular, SpaceX will have a very strong business case. I don't think they will be able to afford a second crew carrying supplier. In fact, I don't think any country in the world had two simultaneous crew rated vehicles at the same time.

Baldusi,

First, I mean that NASA would keep just two suppliers period, that could do  both commercial crew and cargo contracts.  Not two for crew and two for cargo (4 total).  Then both systems are backed up by the other one.  If there’s a problem with one, the other one could do both cargo and crew in the interim until that problem is resolved.

Secondly, would I think that NASA would take the –more- expensive option of two choices, regardless of the budget environment?  Yea, it wouldn’t surprise me at all.  At least for the visible, capitol programs that are easy to see, I’ve really never seen NASA take the more sustainable and affordable routes.  (Maybe in small scale things that don’t get much visibility they have a better track record) From Apollo to STS to CxP to Altair to SLS, they seem to take the most expensive possible way forward each time.  They had the budget to take the most expensive way forward with Apollo, but have always been budget limited since then.   Wouldn’t surprise me all that much if they tried to support all 3 commercial crew providers as well as 2 commercial cargo providers, and periodically flew just Orion on SLS up to the ISS to boot.  ;-)
Yes, I am being facetious here.  But in general, they do seem to miss opportunities to cost share and save money and stream line quite consistently.

And don't forget that most payload is volume limited in CRS, and Cygnus has lots of volume. DC would be permanently volume limited, and CST-100 might need a an extended SM. In particular, if they want a good USD/kg, and since Atlas V is so powerful, and the incremental cost of adding solids is so little, they would need a lot of volume to carry it. This would also mean that CST Cargo would fly very little. Probably once per year. That's not good for scales.
Antares is quite a bit less powerful than Atlas V, but it's also a lot cheaper, and Cygnus doesn't have to carry the extra weight of a returnable vehicle. It does overlaps a bit with HTV (current Cygnus can't bring up full rack). But it's very cost effective. In fact, my WAG is that a second CRS contract would allow OSC to develop a more powerful US+fairing and use a wider PCM for less than what it would take to Boeing to convert CST to robotic cargo and adapt it to Atlas V. That would probably allow them to get even better pricing. Or spend nothing on R&D and make a really low bid.
My point, is that the crew capable vehicles have to carry a lot of dead weight for return. And Atlas V is a very expensive/powerful LV. The only way to compete, is to increase volume to get the best USD/kg. Both DC and CST are very difficult to extend their pressurized volume. And they carry the "deadweight" of their returnable parts. CST could be made lighter and disposable, but it's the wrong form for a disposable vehicle, and it would be so different that it would be a new development.

Now here you bring up some good points.  Yes, if NASA downselected the entire commercial program to just two providers that could do either crew or cargo, like CST-100 and Dragon, they would be pressurized volute limited.  I suppose what I don’t know, is how large of pressurized volumes are there in need of for ISS cargo?  What sort of regular pressurize cargo is needed that Dragon or CST-100 couldn’t fit?  I was assuming the larger cargo would be unpressurized, and thus could fit in the trunk of Dragon. 
But if there is a need for pressurized cargo larger that what CST-100 or Dragon could do without a redesign of the capsule, then it seems like it would make sense to cancel Dragon and just keep Cygnus.  Small pressurized downmass can still go down via the commercial crew provider, and non-returnables would be placed in Cygnus for disposal upon reentry.  Then just have the one cargo provider and the one crew provider.

[baldusi]

What I meant was that if Cargo Dragon + Cygnus + 1 Crew Provider is significantly cheaper than two suppliers that can do either, it's quite probable that they'll do the former. In the end, Soyuz is a crew back up.
ATV is retiring and neither Progress nor HTV can bring up significantly more cargo. If you look at projections, the 3 Dragons + 2 Cygnus per year might not be enough to fully utilize the ISS. Both OSC and SpaceX could send at least one more mission per year, but USD/kg will rule the day. Don't forget that Enhanced Cygnus will have 27m³ of pressurized volume.
NASA can afford to have the crewed spacecraft grounded for an investigation, and still rely on the Soyuz not to have to decrew the station. But they do need the full cargo capacity.
What's more, to have cheap and redundant cargo capability is almost "free" with Dragon/Cygnus (i.e. no development or certification money). While adding a second Crew supplier means more many, and adapting it again to Cargo, means more money yet.
Again, disposable cargo carriers have great USD/kg. And also tend not to be volume limited.

[guckyfan]

The Dragon spacecraft could be made to carry much more pressurized cargo, too. They are alredy working on a bigger trunk. Make that trunk pressurized and give it its own berthing mechanism. When the Dragon is unloded, disconnect, have it flipped over by the robotic arm and berth the dumb pressurized trunk for much more cargo. The temperature control could be much more basic than for the Dragon if that makes things easier. Sensitive cargo would be in the Dragon, less sensitive stuff in the trunk.

Weight would be of little concern with Falcon 9 1.1 and the trunk should be quite cheap.

Then fly whatever is needed. Unpressurized if needed, otherwise pressurized. When Dragon flies manned unpressurized cargo would go with the manned flight.

[douglas100]

Certainly it could be done. A pressure vessel could be mounted inside the current trunk. But it wouldn't be just a "dumb tank." It would need its own berthing mechanism and environmental controls. So I'm not sure about "quite cheap."

Other vehicles already cover this kind of service. It's not clear that a pressurised trunk is needed for current ISS requirements.

[Dappa]

The Dragon spacecraft could be made to carry much more pressurized cargo, too. They are already working on a bigger trunk. Make that trunk pressurized and give it its own berthing mechanism. When the Dragon is unloaded, disconnect, have it flipped over by the robotic arm and berth the dumb pressurized trunk for much more cargo. The temperature control could be much more basic than for the Dragon if that makes things easier. Sensitive cargo would be in the Dragon, less sensitive stuff in the trunk.

Who said that SpaceX is already working on a bigger trunk? Last I heard they could make a bigger trunk, if there is a requirement for it.

[guckyfan]

Who said that SpaceX is already working on a bigger trunk? Last I heard they could make a bigger trunk, if there is a requirement for it.

I think I read it on this forum. It makes sense too. I would think that some vacuum experiments may require larger structures than could fit into the present trunk. How much space is required for VASIMR?

However if they are not working on it yet the statement that they can is enough to support my proposed additional pressurized cargo module.

[baldusi]

Present trunk is little more than an aluminum structure. What you propose is more complex than a MLPM. We don't know if Dragon has enough control authority to fly with such a thing attached, the process is more than cumbersome, too. If you want a lot of pressurized volume, the disposable crafts rule. If you still want it to return, you should go with a blunt object, not a cone. Look at t/space proposal.

[guckyfan]

Present trunk is little more than an aluminum structure. What you propose is more complex than a MLPM. We don't know if Dragon has enough control authority to fly with such a thing attached, the process is more than cumbersome, too. If you want a lot of pressurized volume, the disposable crafts rule. If you still want it to return, you should go with a blunt object, not a cone. Look at t/space proposal.

I cannot agree with any of your points. There is a mass known that Dragon can handle in total, as pressurized load as well as load in the trunk. That's a lot of load and I don't propose to exceed that so there is no issue in handling. It is up to SpaceX to see if that load can be increased, dependent on a lot of factors.

Why would the added ability be more complex than MPLM? OK, the present function of the trunk, solar array and cooling panels need to be kept. But what would be added is just a pressure container and a berthing mechanism.

And why would it be cumbersome to add just one additional action by the robot arm?

Yes it would be in total more complex than Cygnus, because it can do more than Cygnus, returning freight to earth.

Other vehicles already cover this kind of service. It's not clear that a pressurised trunk is needed for current ISS requirements.

I agree, it might not be needed, when Cygnus is flying. But it would be able to replace it if required.