Quote from: Lar on 03/07/2013 05:38 amQuote from: Mongo62 on 03/07/2013 03:22 amQuote from: Joffan on 03/05/2013 05:25 pmI would expect, myself, that the price for downmass would be higher than that for upmass. If they are equal, NASA is getting a bargain.Just about any price for downmass must be mostly profit for SpaceX. How much does it actually cost them extra over what their expenses are with an empty Dragon being returned?Offhand my guess at the incremental costs for downmass are- slightly more propellant used in maneuvering on the way home (leaving the station, reentry, etc) ... probably pretty marginal- labor to safe the payloads (if any such safing is needed), unpack, repack for transport, etc- earthside transport costs not otherwise borne by NASAWhat did I miss?Higher heat shield wear if/when cargo Dragons start to get reused. Less time between heat shield replacements.
Quote from: Mongo62 on 03/07/2013 03:22 amQuote from: Joffan on 03/05/2013 05:25 pmI would expect, myself, that the price for downmass would be higher than that for upmass. If they are equal, NASA is getting a bargain.Just about any price for downmass must be mostly profit for SpaceX. How much does it actually cost them extra over what their expenses are with an empty Dragon being returned?Offhand my guess at the incremental costs for downmass are- slightly more propellant used in maneuvering on the way home (leaving the station, reentry, etc) ... probably pretty marginal- labor to safe the payloads (if any such safing is needed), unpack, repack for transport, etc- earthside transport costs not otherwise borne by NASAWhat did I miss?
Quote from: Joffan on 03/05/2013 05:25 pmI would expect, myself, that the price for downmass would be higher than that for upmass. If they are equal, NASA is getting a bargain.Just about any price for downmass must be mostly profit for SpaceX. How much does it actually cost them extra over what their expenses are with an empty Dragon being returned?
I would expect, myself, that the price for downmass would be higher than that for upmass. If they are equal, NASA is getting a bargain.
This might be case of not seeing the forest from the trees. Of course downmass has cost, because making a vehicle returnable has cost. That's why nobody else (ATV, HTV, Cygnus, Progress) is doing it. It is convenient for NASA that SpaceX's long term goals include crew transport, but that doesn't mean that Dragon's downmass capability comes "free".
Quote from: Jim on 03/07/2013 03:37 amQuote from: Mongo62 on 03/07/2013 03:33 amNASA would be stupid not to take full advantage of the available downmass capability.No, not at the expense of upmass. They get paid for from the the same pot of money. So you are saying that SpaceX has to bring 20mT of upmass cargo on 12 flights unless some of the flights are volume limited.
Quote from: Mongo62 on 03/07/2013 03:33 amNASA would be stupid not to take full advantage of the available downmass capability.No, not at the expense of upmass. They get paid for from the the same pot of money.
NASA would be stupid not to take full advantage of the available downmass capability.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/07/2013 01:19 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/07/2013 03:37 amQuote from: Mongo62 on 03/07/2013 03:33 amNASA would be stupid not to take full advantage of the available downmass capability.No, not at the expense of upmass. They get paid for from the the same pot of money. So you are saying that SpaceX has to bring 20mT of upmass cargo on 12 flights unless some of the flights are volume limited.No, I meant that NASA can't use up the contract limit just on downmass. It has to work out how it is going allocate downmass and upmass against the contract limit and minimums.
Do you think that SpaceX could end up getting the maximum amount of $3.1B because it is delivering both upmass and downmass return cargo?
Do you think that SpaceX could end up getting the maximum amount of $3.1B because it is delivering both upmass cargo and downmass return cargo?
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/07/2013 02:10 pmDo you think that SpaceX could end up getting the maximum amount of $3.1B because it is delivering both upmass cargo and downmass return cargo?No, there is still is OSC allocation of about $1.6B
Space X gets $1.6B and Orbital gets $1.9B for a total of $3.5B. But the $3.1B is the maximum amount for each contract individually (not for both companies). It's not clear from the contract if this includes amounts for additionnal flights or if it's for additional return cargo downmass, etc. (it might be both). I thought that you might know how the CRS contracts work because the contracts are not clear since they are heavily redacted.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/07/2013 04:35 pmSpace X gets $1.6B and Orbital gets $1.9B for a total of $3.5B. But the $3.1B is the maximum amount for each contract individually (not for both companies). It's not clear from the contract if this includes amounts for additionnal flights or if it's for additional return cargo downmass, etc. (it might be both). I thought that you might know how the CRS contracts work because the contracts are not clear since they are heavily redacted. Sorry, I was getting my billions mixed up. I believe the number of flights is the 20 already contracted and is fixed. The difference between current and max contract amounts is for items such as power for experiments, late installation, early removal and down mass.CRS was patterned after NLS I.
I would expect a call-off price for services, yes. I guess I had forgotten that the CRS award was that far back, and as a competitive tender I don't recall if there were any other offers of downmass, so SpaceX would have had to guess a little on their offer. But it was apparent even then that the other international partners were providing plenty of upmass, so I would still have thought the downmass would have a premium.
Quote from: Joffan on 03/07/2013 12:52 pmI would expect a call-off price for services, yes. I guess I had forgotten that the CRS award was that far back, and as a competitive tender I don't recall if there were any other offers of downmass, so SpaceX would have had to guess a little on their offer. But it was apparent even then that the other international partners were providing plenty of upmass, so I would still have thought the downmass would have a premium.Orbital (albeit, their offer was taken later), did offered to have a returnable version of Cygnus. They were told to concentrate on the disposable version. If you look at it, it might or might not have been a bad decision. They are getting one supplier with downmass capability (Dragon) and another with atmospheric disposal and plenty of pressurized module (Cygnus). Of course HTV does supply lots of pressurized, unpressurized and atmospheric disposal. But the retirement of the ATV does generates a logistical problem (on top of the Shuttle's).On the other hand, they might have thought that they would have had an American crewed vehicle by now that could supply alternative downmass (probably Ares I + Orion, or commercial crew). I don't know also, what life horizon for the ISS they were expecting when they told that to the ISS. May be they thought they were going to deorbit it by 2017, so it was not such a hit. As of now, if we take a reasonable 2025 as a deorbit date, they might have a downmass limitation until they have commercial crew. And if Dragon is chosen, they will have a single system risk for downmass. Even if Cargo Dragon and Dragonrider are kept as separate systems, thy will share lots of systems and the same LV.
I recall Elon being a bit miffed that SpaceX was paid less for their cargo trips than Orbital therefore doubtful that there was any intent to give NASA a 'sweet' deal.
The only thing that I am still not sure about is if Spacex can bring 12mT upmass and 12 mT downmass during its 12 flights and say that it has fulfilled its 20mT upmass and 3mT downmass obligations because it has exceeded the required combined total of 23mT (20mT +3mT). Shotwell implied that this was the case but I still don't know for sure if that is true.
INDEFINITE QUANTITY (FAR 52.216-22) (OCT 1995)(h) This is an indefinite-quantity contract for the supplies or services specified and effective for the period stated in Clause I.A.2. The quantities of supplies and services specified in the Schedule are estimates only and are not purchased by this contract.(i) Delivery or performance shall be made only as authorized by orders issued in accordance with Clause II.A.7, FAR 52.216-18, Ordering (Oct 1995). The Contractor shall furnish to the Government, when and if ordered, the supplies or services specified in the Schedule up to and including the quantity designated in the Schedule as the "maximum." The Government shall order at least the quantity of supplies or services designated in the Schedule as the "minimum."
Some notes from a presentation today:-1.1 qualification tank on structural stand in Texas will be rebuilt as next Grasshopper, with flight-like landing legs-First 1.1 vehicle ships from Hawthorne to Texas late March-After separation during its first launch, the 1.1 first stage will flip around using cold gas thrusters, and relight its engine to reenter more slowly. Then it will try to "land" on the ocean as practice for eventually landing back near the pad.-Underground test stand in Texas is currently for FH only, but could change.
Quote from: Jason1701 on 03/08/2013 03:55 amSome notes from a presentation today:-1.1 qualification tank on structural stand in Texas will be rebuilt as next Grasshopper, with flight-like landing legs-First 1.1 vehicle ships from Hawthorne to Texas late March-After separation during its first launch, the 1.1 first stage will flip around using cold gas thrusters, and relight its engine to reenter more slowly. Then it will try to "land" on the ocean as practice for eventually landing back near the pad.-Underground test stand in Texas is currently for FH only, but could change.Is there an audio or video recording of this presentation?