Author Topic: Place your bets for CRS2 (Read 22138 times)

Political Hack Wannabe · « **on:** 03/25/2015 02:48 pm »

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 · « **Reply #1 on:** 03/25/2015 03:04 pm »

From another thread:

Quote from: arachnitect on 03/14/2015 04:14 pm

... 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 · « **Reply #2 on:** 03/25/2015 04:06 pm »

Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 03/25/2015 02:48 pm

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 · « **Reply #3 on:** 03/25/2015 04:14 pm »

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 · « **Reply #4 on:** 03/25/2015 06:51 pm »

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 · « **Reply #5 on:** 03/25/2015 07:09 pm »

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 · « **Reply #6 on:** 03/25/2015 07:10 pm »

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 · « **Reply #7 on:** 03/25/2015 07:11 pm »

When will this contract be awarded?

the_other_Doug · « **Reply #8 on:** 03/25/2015 07:32 pm »

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 · « **Reply #9 on:** 03/25/2015 07:37 pm »

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 · « **Reply #10 on:** 03/25/2015 07:42 pm »

Quote from: spacenut on 03/25/2015 07:11 pm

When will this contract be awarded?

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

Oli · « **Reply #11 on:** 03/25/2015 07:42 pm »

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

On wiki it says:

Quote

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 · « **Reply #12 on:** 03/25/2015 07:46 pm »

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 · « **Reply #13 on:** 03/25/2015 07:55 pm »

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 · « **Reply #14 on:** 03/25/2015 08:06 pm »

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 · « **Reply #15 on:** 03/25/2015 08:10 pm »

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 · « **Reply #16 on:** 03/26/2015 02:46 am »

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

e of pi · « **Reply #17 on:** 03/26/2015 02:48 am »

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 · « **Reply #18 on:** 03/26/2015 04:43 am »

Quote from: baldusi on 03/26/2015 02:46 am

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 · « **Reply #19 on:** 03/26/2015 04:52 am »

Quote from: HIP2BSQRE on 03/26/2015 04:43 am

Quote from: baldusi on 03/26/2015 02:46 am
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.

sdsds · « **Reply #20 on:** 03/26/2015 05:14 am »

I'm one of the "unknown/unexpected" voters. I assume that would include some unexpected combination joint venture of those explicitly listed, e.g. a Cygnus/Jupiter joint development?

Razvan · « **Reply #21 on:** 03/26/2015 05:18 am »

I have voted:

1. Dragon favorite
2. CST 100 (very slight chances).

And yet, NASA may not need this time to pick a back up as in the cases of CRS1 and manned missions.
Boeing is already selected for CCtCap, and CST 100 will be currently servicing ISS so, in case needed, NASA could contract Boeing for one/few cargo flights...
I also think, this time competitiveness will play a decisive role.

dror · « **Reply #22 on:** 03/26/2015 05:37 am »

Copied from another thread

Quote from: dror on 03/17/2015 08:07 am

...
I don't see any reason to have both Cygnus and Jupiter.
It is not a super sensitive contract that needs a double redundancy.

Between Dragon, CST and DC the price of the Atlas V won't allow the latters to be price competitive.
Between the disposables, Jupiter is the better deal.

So it should come down to ~ 2 Jupiters and 3-4 Dragons a year , IMO.

I will add that choosing both Cygnus and Jupiter will be very expensive because Jupiter's price is very sensitive to the total number of missions it gets.
I believe it will be much cheaper than Cygnus because it saves large% of the buses and some% of the launches, and because development costs and added costs (arm, improved bus ...) will be spread and absorbed by LM to a certain ammount.

Mariusuiram · « **Reply #23 on:** 03/26/2015 05:55 am »

I was boring and voted incumbents.

Everyone seems to be following the 1 down-mass, 1 disposable logic. However, you have to wonder whether anyone is proposing a more creative solution to handle both? For example, could Dragon include a simple pressure vessel within the trunk (with an extra hatch, which is probably the sticking point), that could be used for disposal.

The 2 departure strategies currently seem quite mutually exclusive, but it also seems like an odd driving factor for the contract.

Darkseraph · « **Reply #24 on:** 03/26/2015 06:05 am »

I voted the incumbents, not because it's the outcome I'd like, but it is what I expect to be true.

My own favorites would be Dragon and Jupiter get picked, because I think the Jupiter systems is forward thinking. Having cheaper rockets from the ground is just a third of the equation of expanding into space. The other two parts are ISRU and reusable assets in space itself. This tackles on of those problems.

Will not happen, but scaled up X37 for cargo delivery purposes would be kinda cool.

AncientU · « **Reply #25 on:** 03/26/2015 01:56 pm »

I voted incumbents, but would love to see Jupiter or Cargo Chaser as a third supplier. Both add lots to the equation without increasing risk -- cost will be a factor (but didn't seem to be determining with CRS).

dror · « **Reply #26 on:** 03/26/2015 02:44 pm »

Quote from: Mariusuiram on 03/26/2015 05:55 am

I was boring and voted incumbents.

Everyone seems to be following the 1 down-mass, 1 disposable logic. However, you have to wonder whether anyone is proposing a more creative solution to handle both? For example, could Dragon include a simple pressure vessel within the trunk (with an extra hatch, which is probably the sticking point), that could be used for disposal.

The 2 departure strategies currently seem quite mutually exclusive, but it also seems like an odd driving factor for the contract.

Yes. This option was discussed extensively in the crs2 thread since page 1.
I am convinced that spx has offered such a configuration since it was explained that every offer has to be able to fulfill all needs (except down mass) in less then 6 flights a year. That will be very hard to do only with dragon1.

bad_astra · « **Reply #27 on:** 03/26/2015 02:44 pm »

Dragon for the obvious reasons.
Dreamchaser, cause who doesn't love her? (It's wishful, though I doubt it).

Kansan52 · « **Reply #28 on:** 03/26/2015 03:00 pm »

SpaceX and Boeing.

Technical merits are immaterial. NASA has multiple personalities. One NASA likes Space X. One NASA likes Boeing. The other NASAs are getting outvoted (see CCrew).

And whatever is decided, someone will be able to then create a technical reason for the choice.

Me jaded?

billh · « **Reply #29 on:** 03/26/2015 04:25 pm »

I voted for the incumbents, Dragon and Cygnus. Would love to see it be Dragon and Jupiter/Exoliner, but I suspect LM will need to bid too high a price in order to fund their development effort. And I'm not sure that in this competition NASA can fully weight the advantages of having a system like Jupiter available for future missions.

nadreck · « **Reply #30 on:** 03/26/2015 08:59 pm »

Interesting, just under 5% of respondents don't see a Dragon in the mix. Cygnus and Jupiter/Exoliner are virtually tied and between them have more than 3/4s of the respondents picking them as an alternate to the Dragon.

Is group think here going to prevail, in which case, we have to admit that if it is just 2 successful bidders, then it could go either way between Cygnus and Jupiter/Exoliner and still satisfy group think, but it also suggests, strongly, that if there was going to be 3 then group think is pretty firm on which 3 it is.

joek · « **Reply #31 on:** 03/27/2015 12:42 am »

Dragon and Cynus (yeah boring) -- For the initial award and orders for 3-4 years. NASA won't fill the schedule (award task orders) beyond that. Given that the minimum award is for six missions, in the near term there will be little room for higher risk and higher cost alternatives.

Doesn't shut the other contenders out completely (CRS-2 allows for later on-ramp of new entrants), simply means they have more homework to do and a bit more time for risk reduction before NASA is willing to give them an award.

Remember that the minimum guarantee for any initial CRS-2 contract award is only six missions. This is not necessarily a "winners take all [through 2024]" competition and bears little resemblance to
CRS-1. NASA potentially has lots of flexibility even after the initial CRS-2 awards to accommodate your favorite dark horse.

docmordrid · « **Reply #32 on:** 03/27/2015 03:13 am »

My guess:

Dragon and Jupiter/Exoliner

ORB-3 is a downside for Orbital, and it lets NASA back-door tug and tanker capabilities. Maybe Cygnus as a backup #3, as it was for RpK but with token flights.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #33 on:** 03/27/2015 03:33 am »

Dream Chaser is the coolest one with the greatest long-term potential, so naturally I expect NASA to pass on it. I'd have to go with the incumbents I guess if I'm playing the odds.

Beittil · « **Reply #34 on:** 03/27/2015 07:35 am »

Picked Dragon/Jupiter.

Even though Jupiter isn't even built yet. I think CST-100 is just a duplicate of Dragon in capability and not what NASA is looking for. They need different vehicles for different mission profiles (return cargo vs ditch garbage, etc). Dream Chaser is still a really cool concept, but that they have come up with is just overly complex + it uses the smaller docking system. And Cygnus, well... I don't see that system winning at this point with Antares being its choise of rocket still.

MattMason · « **Reply #35 on:** 03/27/2015 11:44 am »

Quote from: Beittil on 03/27/2015 07:35 am

Picked Dragon/Jupiter.

Even though Jupiter isn't even built yet. I think CST-100 is just a duplicate of Dragon in capability and not what NASA is looking for. They need different vehicles for different mission profiles (return cargo vs ditch garbage, etc). Dream Chaser is still a really cool concept, but that they have come up with is just overly complex + it uses the smaller docking system. And Cygnus, well... I don't see that system winning at this point with Antares being its choise of rocket still.

My reasoning and vote were the same.

Orbital has a great cargo craft, but they lack a launch vehicle with reliability, statistically. Lockheed and SpaceX have a clear advantage there, and Lockheed's quasi-reusability in Jupiter may pique NASA's thoughts at a space tug infrastructure, gaining Cygnus's cargo capacity without the hang-ups. I do want Orbital ATK to prosper, but they really have to get their LV hacked out.

SpaceX is already proven in ISS cargo, can continue to use either CBM or IDA, so they have a greater cargo versatility than the IDA-only CST-Cargo, although Boeing remains the statistical top dog for their LV successes.

Todd Martin · « **Reply #36 on:** 03/27/2015 01:20 pm »

I chose Dragon & Jupiter. Dragon is proven, the low cost leader, and has downmass capability. Cygnus was substantially more expensive, had a terrible LOM which the Government paid many Millions to clean up, has no downmass capability, and they need to re-certify their launch vehicle (a vehicle with no other customers). DreamChaser-Cargo is a kludge IMHO compared to crew DreamChaser. Boeing's CST-100 would be the second choice, except Lockheed's Jupiter has a cargo port & incredible flexibility to support a range of exciting new missions.

TrevorMonty · « **Reply #37 on:** 03/27/2015 01:21 pm »

Dragon/Jupiter

Exoliner because of extra cargo capabilities brings. But more importantly Jupiter because it allows any dumb(low cost) cargo container to be used to supply ISS.

deltaV · « **Reply #38 on:** 03/28/2015 09:10 pm »

I voted Dragon & CST-100. My reason for picking these two is the commercial crew program will pay for much of their fixed costs so if their bids match their costs they should win on price. Of course they may choose to use their cost advantage in additional profit rather than increased win chances so without seeing the bids it's very hard to tell who will win.

yg1968 · « **Reply #39 on:** 03/28/2015 09:24 pm »

I voted for Cygnus and Dragon but I expect NASA to pick 3 companies. My prediction is that the third one would be the CST-100.

Llian Rhydderch · « **Reply #40 on:** 03/28/2015 10:24 pm »

Quote from: deltaV on 03/28/2015 09:10 pm

I voted Dragon & CST-100. My reason for picking these two is the commercial crew program will pay for much of their fixed costs so if their bids match their costs they should win on price. Of course they may choose to use their cost advantage in additional profit rather than increased win chances so without seeing the bids it's very hard to tell who will win.

Your point about fixed costs, bid price, and profit is a beautiful thing, deltaV. It gives the other competitors an opportunity to make price competitive bids, on products for which they believe that they have other market opportunities for.

It begins to make the "market" for space flight services--distorted for decades by national governments picking favored players and assuring a commercial profit--start to operate a bit more like a free market, where would-be suppliers necessarily have skin in the game and face real entrepreneurial uncertainty. Profits are not certain. Get to work: deliver more product with a greater set of functionality at lower cost, and you get farther in the market competition. Slack off: deliver less at a higher price and you'll earn losses, which will encourage the capital and human resources a firm is currently using to be freed up for others who can use them to better effect. Lovely to see!

davey142 · « **Reply #41 on:** 03/28/2015 10:47 pm »

My Picks :

1. Dragon - proven, cheap.

2. CST-100 - similarities with crew version should reduce cargo costs. In addition, more Atlas V flights could reduce per-core costs too.

Cygnus - well, just too expensive, and Orbital ATK blew it on the reliability front.

subzero788 · « **Reply #42 on:** 03/28/2015 11:26 pm »

Cygnus and Dragon.

I think it's going to be too hard for new entrants to compete risk wise and price wise with the incumbents.

meekGee · « **Reply #43 on:** 03/29/2015 12:28 am »

Quote from: Todd Martin on 03/27/2015 01:20 pm

I chose Dragon & Jupiter. Dragon is proven, the low cost leader, and has downmass capability. Cygnus was substantially more expensive, had a terrible LOM which the Government paid many Millions to clean up, has no downmass capability, and they need to re-certify their launch vehicle (a vehicle with no other customers). DreamChaser-Cargo is a kludge IMHO compared to crew DreamChaser. Boeing's CST-100 would be the second choice, except Lockheed's Jupiter has a cargo port & incredible flexibility to support a range of exciting new missions.

I'm quoting this post since I'm too lazy to type exactly the same thing again.

llanitedave · « **Reply #44 on:** 03/29/2015 04:19 am »

Quote from: deltaV on 03/28/2015 09:10 pm

I voted Dragon & CST-100. My reason for picking these two is the commercial crew program will pay for much of their fixed costs so if their bids match their costs they should win on price. Of course they may choose to use their cost advantage in additional profit rather than increased win chances so without seeing the bids it's very hard to tell who will win.

I voted that way as well, based more on a gut feeling than anything I can verbally defend. But your argument is a big part of that gut feeling. In addition, there's so much talk about the importance of launch vehicle redundancy, seems to me that there would be an interest in having downmass redundancy as well.

Political Hack Wannabe · « **Reply #45 on:** 03/29/2015 01:05 pm »

I am curious - for those posting "something else" - what do you think that will be?

Rocket Science · « **Reply #46 on:** 03/29/2015 01:20 pm »

Dragon and DC Cargo... One obvious and one longshot to balance things out...

MikeAtkinson · « **Reply #47 on:** 03/29/2015 02:36 pm »

Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 03/29/2015 01:05 pm

I am curious - for those posting "something else" - what do you think that will be?

Although I chose Dragon and Cygnus, I don't think they will be the same Dragon and Cygnus which were bid for the original CRS. A review of CRS2 requirements shows that neither Dragon or Cygnus or a combination of them meets those requirements except at an absolute minimum level with 4 Dragon and 1 extended Cygnus per year.

Dragon first flew in 2010 and has been docking with ISS since 2012, it would be unlike SpaceX to not improve upon the current cargo Dragon in some way. Dragon has been volume limited with F9 v1.1, even with a reusable first stage, it will be even more volume limited with F9 v1.2 (or whatever it will be called).

Elon likes common designs and I suspect he is not pleased with having different crew and cargo versions of Dragon, it also can't escaped his attention that bulky low value objects make up the majority of the ISS (and any private or follow-on station) upmass and an even larger proportion of the disposal downmass.

SpaceX have many options, including but not limited to adding Dragon 2 features like super Dracos for land landing, increasing the capsule size and having a presurised trunk. FH could potentially launch very large cargo carriers, with a Dragon then acting as tug.

Cygnus has already moved to an extended version, launching on Atlas or F9 would allow a super-extended version to be used. If truly launcher neutral it could take advantage of low F9 prices without adding to launcher unavailability risk.

HIP2BSQRE · « **Reply #48 on:** 03/29/2015 03:24 pm »

Everyone seems to thinks there will be a capsule/space plane in the mix. The only other question is there a large cargo spacecraft in the mix?

Down mass:

CST-100
Dragon
DC

Large cargo:

Jupiter
Cygnus

Now remember NASA does not want more than 4-5 flights per year. For arguments sake let's assume SpaceX gets 2 flights per year due to price and experience. What other companies pick up at least 1/2 flights per year? I think that NASA is going to pick not two companies but at least three. NASA wants more cargo up and down and also wants redundancy.

HIP2BSQRE · « **Reply #49 on:** 03/29/2015 03:50 pm »

This is how I see it playing out:

DOWN MASS

CST-100 X 1
Dragon X2
DC

Yes I know DC is one getting the coal again.

LARGE CARGO

Jupiter X1

Please remember there is little money for development - so any development is going to raise your total cost.

DOWNMASS

DC is competing with SpaceX and Boeing who either have a spacecraft flying or NASA paying for a large portion of their spacecraft development via commercial crew.

LARGE CARGO - BULK

This one is more tricky.

LM favor - BIG aerospace company and has the financial and technical expertise to pull it off. Remember NASA is paying for delivery. You do not deliver - then at the end NASA loses some money but not all. So I see NASA hedging its bet. If LM is late in development - it can call up SpaceX or Boeing for another flight to mitigate the development risk.

ATKOrbital -BIG aerospace company. Things in favor -has experience with ISS operations been there-done that.

dror · « **Reply #50 on:** 03/29/2015 05:38 pm »

Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 03/29/2015 01:05 pm

I am curious - for those posting "something else" - what do you think that will be?

Answer:

Quote from: yg1968 on 04/15/2014 09:33 pm

Interested parties list has been posted:

Quote from: Interested parties list
Aerojet Rocketdyne
Aerospace
Arrow
Astrium
ATDL
ATK
Barrios
Blue Origin
Boeing
Draper Lab
Kistler SS
L-3 Cincinnati
Lockheed Martin
Orbital
Paragon Space Development Corporation
SAS
SNC
SpaceX
Teledyne Brown
United Launch Alliance
UTAS

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/

Comga · « **Reply #51 on:** 03/29/2015 06:07 pm »

Dragon would seem to be a shoe-in. It's only 29 months until SpX-15, the last of the newly added CRS-1 flights with the only US vehicle currently operational, but...

We shouldn't underestimate the power of the "majors" to capture business.
Never underestimate NASA's penchant for tweaking things until they break like Pegasus XL. Orbital "needed" to up the payload by 10% and had a failure with the modified system after two successes. NASA could say that Dragon "needs" some increase in volume that exceeds SpaceX's abity to get it within the existing OML.
(My opinion is the Cargo DreamChaser shows a serious increase in complexity with adding the new module to increase volume which pushes it into a fairing which needs the folding fins. I hope Dragon isn't pushed to an add-on module.)
Funny things happen in proposals and negotiations. Orbital could offer NASA a bargain and only charge them 60% if their rocket explodes.
Lockheed could spread the cost and risk by getting Jupiter's development funded in parallel for other purposes like ISS reboost and deorbit if and when the Russians attempt to go their own way.

Rocket Science · « **Reply #52 on:** 03/29/2015 06:38 pm »

If NASA doesn’t select DC for cargo we will know that they overhyped the importance that the Shuttle played in low g entry for both the astronauts and investigators experiment requirements...

rcoppola · « **Reply #53 on:** 03/29/2015 07:47 pm »

CRS 2 is extremely interesting:

(What I think will happen and why, not necessarily what I think personally should happen.)

With 2 Crewed vehicles coming on-line, Dragon & CST, NASA will be increasing the permanent crew size. Some have mentioned the possibility of temporary, shorter personnel visits for conducting experiments so the crew size could fluctuate accordingly. (We'll see about the short term science stays, NASA doesn't seem to either be willing or able to accommodate that flexibility right now.)

Increased crew and science means not only an incremental increased need of supplies BUT an increase of down-mass.

SpaceX is clearly mixing and matching their current Cargo Dragon and future Crewed Dragon in an efficient preparation for Pad and Inflight Aborts. This informs that they may very well have a good handle on porting over both the larger Trunk and propulsive landing to the current cargo version with berthing mech. (don't want to derail anything so I'll stop there.)

So Dragon, IMO, is a shoe-in because it's very likely they will not only be the cheapest but also do an increase for unpressurized up-mass, propulsive landing and subsequent re-use.

Because of the added crew and subsequent additional scientific pace of experiments, I think NASA will chose to have 2 vehicles capable of down-mass returns. And the logical choice for me is the CST which can leverage all the facilities and personnel from their crew program. However, Crew capability timing must not be put at risk and CST still has not actually flown yet but there is well-placed faith in Boeing.

Also both CST and Dragon with only 4 crew can bring up and back additional limited cargo as well.

So having these two systems handle both pure cargo and crew/cargo feels right. But what about trash disposal?

With more crew and more science comes more trash and Cygnus already exists, so I think they'll keep Enhanced Cygnus in the loop for both additional bulk up-mass and disposal but with lesser flights.

Dragon, CST & Cygnus.

DC and Jupiter are very interesting but feel too complicated for this contract. They are both almost worth it for their future use cases alone but I don't think this program will be used for that purpose. As much as I think it could be, at least in part.

If I had my way?

Dragon, Jupiter & CST. Regardless, I really think we need 2 cargo vehicles with return capabilities. I think NASA will feel the same way.

rayleighscatter · « **Reply #54 on:** 03/29/2015 08:22 pm »

It's really quite interesting and honestly a bit harder to make guesses at. It seems that in terms of upmass that from greatest to least is Jupiter, Dreamchaser, Cygnus, Dragon, CST. The two most capable in terms of combined up (and DC in terms of returned) are also the two "paper" proposals. Dragon and CST are the two crew options and have a big leg up but are also both below average in upmass.

This really seems like it will hinge much more heavily on what metrics NASA uses and how it weighs them. Price? Volume? Incumbency? Risk? Other? I think nearly any provider could find a field where it places in the top 2 right now so we'll have to wait and see how NASA made their choices. (And the cynic in me thinks this also makes it much easier for NASA to tailor their selection criteria to preferred options)

TrevorMonty · « **Reply #55 on:** 03/29/2015 08:56 pm »

LV redundancy comes into play.

Dragon because it works and F9.

Jupiter for greater payload.

DC for redundant down mass.

Having two out of three flying on ultra reliable Atlas shouldn't be an issue. Plus NGLV will reduce launch costs, whether it is passed onto NASA is another story.

Poll

Which vehicles will be selected for CRS-2

Author Topic: Place your bets for CRS2 (Read 22138 times)