ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) 2012 - 2017

[woods170]

Extension of the CRS contract to December 2017 to cover the gap with CRS-2:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40059nasa-says-it-will-extend-private-iss-cargo-delivery-contracts-through-2017

In a note posted on an agency procurement website, NASA said (it) plans to extend the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts it gave Orbital and SpaceX in 2008 “for up to 24 months from December 2015 to December 2017.”

[Olaf]

With the designation USTV there are seven flights until December 2017 in the FPIP. Maybe that´s the number of the additional flights.

[AnalogMan]

Here are links to the original announcement:

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgibin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=159935
https://www.fbo.gov/index?id=cff80051d20c232523953c167a42b410

[guckyfan]

I have a question. It is stated extension without cost.

Does that mean the contracted launches are stretched over the extended period or that there are no price increases for additional launches per launch as the extension is a contractual option already?

[simonbp]

I'd guess the former, given both the delays by both CRS operators and the fact that the station crew will probably not grow again until 2017.

[AnalogMan]

NASA have announced their intention to extend both Orbital and SpaceX CRS contracts from December 2017 to December 2018.

"NASA/JSC intends to extend the existing Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts NNJ09GA02B, with Orbital Sciences Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Orbital, and NNJ09GA04B, with Space Exploration Technologies, hereinafter referred to as SpaceX for up to 12 months from December 2017 to December 2018 at no cost. Both contracts were awarded in December 2008 and have a not to exceed (NTE) contract value of 3.1B each."

Details here:
https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NASA/JSC/OPDC20220/NNJ15ZBG003R/listing.html

[woods170]

NASA have announced their intention to extend both Orbital and SpaceX CRS contracts from December 2017 to December 2018.

"NASA/JSC intends to extend the existing Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts NNJ09GA02B, with Orbital Sciences Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Orbital, and NNJ09GA04B, with Space Exploration Technologies, hereinafter referred to as SpaceX for up to 12 months from December 2017 to December 2018 at no cost. Both contracts were awarded in December 2008 and have a not to exceed (NTE) contract value of 3.1B each."

Details here:
https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NASA/JSC/OPDC20220/NNJ15ZBG003R/listing.html

Now, you don't do that unless you have a good reason for it. The most obvious being that NASA can afford to stretch this out thanks to HTV-8 and HTV-9 being added to the cargo-supply roster.
It probably also means that the start of CRS-2 flights will be delayed.

[baldusi]

NASA have announced their intention to extend both Orbital and SpaceX CRS contracts from December 2017 to December 2018.

"NASA/JSC intends to extend the existing Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts NNJ09GA02B, with Orbital Sciences Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Orbital, and NNJ09GA04B, with Space Exploration Technologies, hereinafter referred to as SpaceX for up to 12 months from December 2017 to December 2018 at no cost. Both contracts were awarded in December 2008 and have a not to exceed (NTE) contract value of 3.1B each."

Details here:
https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NASA/JSC/OPDC20220/NNJ15ZBG003R/listing.html

Now, you don't do that unless you have a good reason for it. The most obvious being that NASA can afford to stretch this out thanks to HTV-8 and HTV-9 being added to the cargo-supply roster.
It probably also means that the start of CRS-2 flights will be delayed.

Well, if they take theyr CRS-2 decision by Sept-2015, so I would guess they want to have three years between awards and performance. That does suggest a new entrant. It also nicely coincides with CST-100 IOC. Just saying.

[the_other_Doug]

It also possibly lets NASA spend less on a contract extension than on letting new contracts, using the differential to fill in commercial crew funding that's been cut.

I dunno if NASA can legally do that, but it would make sense.

[Rebel44]

It also possibly lets NASA spend less on a contract extension than on letting new contracts, using the differential to fill in commercial crew funding that's been cut.

I dunno if NASA can legally do that, but it would make sense.

IIRC, one of budget proposals moves CC to ISS part of NASA budget, which might allow NASA to move funds from related projects.

[yg1968]

NASA have announced their intention to extend both Orbital and SpaceX CRS contracts from December 2017 to December 2018.

"NASA/JSC intends to extend the existing Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts NNJ09GA02B, with Orbital Sciences Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Orbital, and NNJ09GA04B, with Space Exploration Technologies, hereinafter referred to as SpaceX for up to 12 months from December 2017 to December 2018 at no cost. Both contracts were awarded in December 2008 and have a not to exceed (NTE) contract value of 3.1B each."

Details here:
https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NASA/JSC/OPDC20220/NNJ15ZBG003R/listing.html

Now, you don't do that unless you have a good reason for it. The most obvious being that NASA can afford to stretch this out thanks to HTV-8 and HTV-9 being added to the cargo-supply roster.
It probably also means that the start of CRS-2 flights will be delayed.

NASA used the same wording for the first CRS extension to December 2017 but still ended up adding 3 flights. I think that they mean that the extension doesn't add any cost by itself. But the contracts have maximum values of $3.1B per contractor, so there is room for ordering additional flights under the existing contracts. 

[TrevorMonty]

Sunday's F9 failure makes it even more important for there to be a 3rd cargo vehicle/LV combination.
Especially as NASA anticipates that in coming years about 80 percent of supplies will be delivered by U.S.-based cargo services.

NASA does expect to loss the odd cargo flight even in future. As has been demonstrated losing 2 different vehicles within weeks of each other can happen. This is not totally surprising as Murphy's Law and rockets seem to go hand in hand.

[woods170]

Sunday's F9 failure makes it even more important for there to be a 3rd cargo vehicle/LV combination.
Especially as NASA anticipates that in coming years about 80 percent of supplies will be delivered by U.S.-based cargo services.

NASA does expect to loss the odd cargo flight even in future. As has been demonstrated losing 2 different vehicles within weeks of each other can happen. This is not totally surprising as Murphy's Law and rockets seem to go hand in hand.

With all due respect but I call BS on this one as well:
There is a third cargo vehicle/LV combination: Progress/Soyuz FG
Heck, there is even a fourth: HTV/H-IIB

Three of the four combination failed in the last eight months. Calling for an additional combo is not gonna solve the problem.
What are you gonna do when HTV/H-IIB comes crashing back to Earth? Call for the ATV production line to be re-opened?

Fixing the problem by adding yet another redundant system is not really fixing the problem. It is in fact looking for more failure modes.
The right way to fix the problem is to fix the problem with the existing systems and get those flying again.

[baldusi]

May I add, that the big risk of CRS-1 was using TWO new LV. If you count the H-IIB as a new vehicle the ISS has four cargo suppliers with three rather new LV. Which would imply that for CRS-2, they should use no new LV. Which is perfectly fine since by 2018 the LV should be quite a bit more proven. I'm still betting on 3xDragon/2xCygnus/CST-100 per year.

[JasonAW3]

I imagine that SNC is seeig this as an opprotunity to push the DreamChaser again.  The problem is, what are they going to use as an LV?

[baldusi]

I imagine that SNC is seeig this as an opprotunity to push the DreamChaser again.  The problem is, what are they going to use as an LV?

Problems are on using unproven systems and they believe that adding more programmatic risk will be an attractive alternative? Three failures in eight months with some LV that launch 10+/yr isn't just strange. It's a statistical outlier. They have been incredibly unlucky. Now they have to prioritize reliability above all else. And DreamChaser, even though it launches on Atlas V, can't offer that. Not without a very expensive development program and ten flights.

[TrevorMonty]

Any additional supply vehicle (DC ,CST100,Exoliner) is most likely to fly on Atlas.

[spacenut]

Too many people using Atlas will use up the RD-180's and Atlas is supposed to go away.  Since SpaceX uses in house components, I think they will get the problem fixed quickly.  Having no outside contractors helps speed up the analysis.  I predict they will have to problem solved in less than two months unlike Orbital, having to re-engine their rocket.  In SpaceX's defense, it wasn't their engines which narrows down the problem quickly. 

[arachnitect]

Too many people using Atlas will use up the RD-180's and Atlas is supposed to go away.  Since SpaceX uses in house components, I think they will get the problem fixed quickly.  Having no outside contractors helps speed up the analysis.  I predict they will have to problem solved in less than two months unlike Orbital, having to re-engine their rocket.  In SpaceX's defense, it wasn't their engines which narrows down the problem quickly. 

RD-180 is available for civilian use.

[baldusi]

Any additional supply vehicle (DC ,CST100,Exoliner) is most likely to fly on Atlas.

So you are trading LV risk for VV risk? LV failures don't mean ISS catastrophic failure risk.

[arachnitect]

cross post from OrbATK earnings call thread:

Orbital CEO: 2 missions added to ISS cargo resupply contract to occur between mid-2017 and early 2018. So contract now extends to Q2 2018.

I'm assuming this means 2 more flights in addition to the previous extension, so we now have missions 8e, 9, and 10?

edit The more I look at what was said and the schedules, the less certain I am about whether OrbATK has 2 or 3 additional missions. I think it's possible the "2 missions added" includes the previously announced "8e" which was already planned for "mid-2017." So we would have missions 4-7 covering the original contract and 8e and 9 added.