Place your bets for CRS2

[Political Hack Wannabe]

So, make your picks

I am assuming a 2 winner scenario as we had last time, thus everyone gets 2 picks, so pick 2.

If people wish to justify their picks, or wish to give odds, or explain why they think that there will be more than 2 winners, feel free

[arachnitect]

From another thread:

... I see three possible scenarios:

1. 3-4 Dragon + 1-2 Cygnus per year. [80% likelihood]

2. 4 Dragon + 1 "Jupiter-Exoliner" every year. [12%]

3. ~3 Dragon + 1-2 Cygnus + 1 cargo CST-100 per year [8%]
 

[Endeavour_01]

So, make your picks

I am assuming a 2 winner scenario as we had last time, thus everyone gets 2 picks, so pick 2.

If people wish to justify their picks, or wish to give odds, or explain why they think that there will be more than 2 winners, feel free

I think that Dragon is a no-brainer for the returnable craft. It has 5 successful missions under its belt and at least from where I am sitting it looks like CST-100 cargo doesn't offer any advantages over Dragon besides a reboost capability. As much as I love Dream Chaser there is too far to go and too much risk of schedule slip to pick it.

The competition for the disposable craft will be far more intense. Cygnus is the incumbent but Jupiter offers more advantages for CRS-2 (more down/upmass, reusability of the bus, cheaper possibly). I say that Jupiter will win in a squeaker.

If I had to give odds I would say:

Dragon (80%) vs. CST-100 cargo (15%) vs. Dream Chaser (5%)

Jupiter/Exoliner (51%) vs. Cygnus (49%)

(Note: These odds assume only 2 can be chosen (1 returnable and 1 disposable). There is a non-zero probability that 3 might be chosen. In that case it will be probably be a mixture of Dragon and CST-100 for the returnable with either Cygnus or Jupiter alone as the disposable option.)

[nadreck]

I voted Dragon/Jupiter

Now the caveat here is pricing, Jupiter needs to come in around the price of the Cygnus (maybe up to 20% more to be a 50/50 chance). However that is total pricing for the # of Jupes and Exos needed to fill the contract. I also hope to see Jupes sold to a number of customers, heck maybe even SpaceX buys one!

I don't see CST-100 edging out Dragon, but again pricing here, if CST-100 was less than Cygnus/Jupiter it might replace them but I just can't see it hitting that price range or being anywhere near as cheap as Dragon.

I see it as >50% chance for my pick, >10% it is Dragon/Cygnus again, >10% it is Dragon/CST-100, <10% chance of DC being  in the mix and <10% chance of Dragon not being in the mix.

[jongoff]

I went with Dragon/Jupiter.

Dragon has heritage and will probably be the cheapest in $/kg if you care about getting the hardware back, and I think Jupiter will surprise people and be the cheapest option for disposable cargo (which also matters).

Though I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see a third contract as well.

~Jon

[RonM]

I think NASA will stick with Cygnus and Dragon, so that's my vote.

I wouldn't be surprised if they picked Jupiter over Cygnus. Jupiter has a lot of potential as a space tug and I'd like to see it fly, but it maybe too expensive for CRS2. That extra capability goes beyond the CRS2 requirements. Then again, NASA lately seems to be promoting commercial space beyond just its needs, so we'll have to wait and see what happens.

[EgorBotts]

Took the bet for Dragon / Jupiter (even without reading other feedbacks). Chose Jupiter for the "new concept" and the fact NASA likes to have at least one "Old lady" provider.
For the second one I was about to choose SNC over SpaceX, but told myself the administration probably wouldn't go for two completely new designs with major hardware to develop, which the DreamChaser is: a beautiful (IMO) concept with a lot of work ahead. Dragon on the other hand will be flying high for at least one year in 2018.

[spacenut]

When will this contract be awarded?

[the_other_Doug]

I voted Dragon and Jupiter, but I, too, think that's too limited.  I actually believe that NASA wants Jupiter developed less as a basic cargo vehicle, but more for crewed BLEO support and "orbital tug" operations in LEO.  Developing it initially as a cargo supply vehicle for ISS gives Jupiter a funded mission with which it can be designed and built, and once that's done upgrades and reconfigurations can be done to make it suitable for other uses.

Again, Dragon will continue and will likely be the one downmass cargo option.  It makes more sense for SpaceX to keep flying the proven cargo Dragon and continue their development of Dragon V2 than for Boeing to suddenly split off a new design group, manufacturing line (many things will be quite different in a cargo CST-100 than in the manned version, I bet), etc., to create a cargo version of something they haven't finished building a single complete model of yet.

Which leaves us with OrbitalATK.  My thought is that Cygnus will get a nod for a few of the CRS2 missions to reward them for fulfilling their CRS1 contractual obligations after what can only be described as a disaster that affected them all the way down to the level of their business model.  I also think it makes sense to retain a mature cargo spacecraft that can be launched on several different launch vehicles, and OrbitalATK's Cygnus may well have a significant role in the BLEO support module competitions.  From that aspect, it makes a lot of sense to keep them flying the Cygnus up to the point that NASA is ready (and has funding) to start putting out RFPs for ARM and other crewed BLEO missions.

So, it works out that Dragon gets the downmass cargo flights, Cygnus gets some of the upmass-only flights and Jupiter gets the remaining upmass-only flights.  This also lets them have the Cygnus ready (as it's already a mature spacecraft, regardless of which LV it flies on) early in the CRS2 mission sequence, to allow for schedule slips in getting Jupiter ready to fly.  Design the mission sequence such that you have a certain number of guaranteed flights and then an extension date, at which time you might downselect to Dragon and either Cygnus or Jupiter.

Or you might not.  Depends on how expensive Jupiter ends up being to fly, and how expensive the new Antares is going to be once it starts flying.  As has been noted before, if only SpaceX has an affordable price going into the future, you might end up using Bigelow inflatables as trash receptacles and revert to a system where you only fly cargo Dragons with downmass capabilities and use BEAM-like modules as disposable trash containers.

[JasonAW3]

I'm thinking that the contract will likely be awarded to two new designs, most likely ones that provide both in space disposal and Return To Earth.

This would allow SpaceX and Boeing to Concentrate on the Manned Space Flight while whom ever get's teh contracts could concentrate on their vehicles.

Cygnus, while they had a good run, with the explosion of their launch vehicle, this brings their reliability into question

[arachnitect]

When will this contract be awarded?

Theoretically? June. "Some time this summer" is probably a better guess.

[Oli]

I think the CRS2 requirements clearly favor a bigger vehicle than Cygnus.

On wiki it says:

delivery of approximately 14,000 to 17,000 kg (31,000 to 37,000 lb) per year 55 to 70 m3 (1,900 to 2,500 cu ft) of pressurized cargo in four or five transport trips

So I'd say 2xJupiter/Exoliner + 3xDragon.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Jupe Liner and Dragon for me, although I'm feeling that Cygnus + Dragon is slightly more likely.

Screw it, I'm determined to live in whatever parallel universe Jupiter gets approved in. 

[AncientU]

Dragon (offered as D-1 and D-2, land landing, offered on new and/or reused F9 cores) and Cygnus (two stretched payload sizes, offered on at least two launch vehicles). 

[Jimmy Murdok]

Cargo Dragon in XL version with 25m3 in a new pressure vessel (same shape) and vertical landing. Musk is too proud to present same stuff 9 years later.

Exoliner: in long term is what is needed. In short, everything is available hardware with a company like LM.

Probably 3rd prize for Cygnus.

[DatUser14]

I voted for D1 and Jupiter/Exoliner. Dragon, because it has downmass and is a currently certified vehicle I chose Jupiter/Exoliner because of political clout and it seems like a feasible idea (no reasoning, just from what has been presented and discussed).

[baldusi]

I actually expects 3 Dragons, 2 SuperCygnus and 1 CST-100. Voted for the incumbent, of course.

[e of pi]

I figure Dragon's got a good position for this, and it seems like good odds of getting one slot. As for the other...I'd like to see it go to Jupiter, which was surprising, interesting, and has a lot of potential cost and capability benefits (both for CRS and beyond). However...I'm not sure that novelty is a "plus" for NASA, and I've thus voted for Dragon/Cygnus as much as I'd like to see Jupiter happen.

[HIP2BSQRE]

I actually expects 3 Dragons, 2 SuperCygnus and 1 CST-100. Voted for the incumbent, of course.

So is that your expected flight rate per year?  Why not Jupiter?

[Hauerg]

I actually expects 3 Dragons, 2 SuperCygnus and 1 CST-100. Voted for the incumbent, of course.

So is that your expected flight rate per year?  Why not Jupiter?

Price?
Development needs?
Failure points? (If the tug fails at the wrong time recovering might be challenge)
Advantages of concept with low flight rates questionable.

But yes, Dragon/Jupiter would be my choice too, if I would not have to pay for it.