Author Topic: Place your bets for CRS2 (Read 22136 times)

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.

Poll

Which vehicles will be selected for CRS-2

Author Topic: Place your bets for CRS2 (Read 22136 times)