Author Topic: NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016 (Read 221218 times)

Lars-J · « **Reply #140 on:** 01/14/2016 08:50 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 01/14/2016 08:46 pm

Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 01/14/2016 08:41 pm
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/14/2016 08:40 pm
No vehicles provide un-pressurized downmass...

I'd be interested to see ANYONE provide that in a usuable fashion....

Unpressurized downmass is for disposal. Orbital just burns up on re-entry, Dragon can fill the trunk and then it burns up. But how would DC do it?

DC can attach unpressurized disposal items to their disposable docking adapter - the same way it delivers unpressurized cargo.

clongton · « **Reply #141 on:** 01/14/2016 08:52 pm »

Quote from: abaddon on 01/14/2016 08:48 pm

Quote from: clongton on 01/14/2016 08:46 pm
Unpressurized downmass is for disposal. Orbital just burns up on re-entry, Dragon can fill the trunk and then it burns up. But how would DC do it?
Orbital is pressurized, Dragon can't fill the trunk (it's an open container and the attachments are custom to the cargo going up). So, nobody can do it.

Orbital can just close up and not pressurize. SpaceX could easily provide a closure after the RMA has filled it.

Craftyatom · « **Reply #142 on:** 01/14/2016 08:52 pm »

SNC "expected" to have test flights, vague wording

Details about land landing for dragon, unsure how much detail is allowed to be provided, question deferred.

abaddon · « **Reply #143 on:** 01/14/2016 08:54 pm »

NASA ordered an additional flight from SpaceX in December under CRS-1 to bridge the gap. Have offer on flight(s) from Orbital but nothing signed yet.

Rocket Science · « **Reply #144 on:** 01/14/2016 08:54 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 01/14/2016 08:46 pm

Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 01/14/2016 08:41 pm
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/14/2016 08:40 pm
No vehicles provide un-pressurized downmass...

I'd be interested to see ANYONE provide that in a usuable fashion....

Unpressurized downmass is for disposal. Orbital just burns up on re-entry, Dragon can fill the trunk and then it burns up. But how would DC do it?

Older pic
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/partners/spacedev/index.html

freakdog · « **Reply #145 on:** 01/14/2016 08:55 pm »

Dream Chaser must meet minimum requirements for FAA certification, which means it will need to fly test flights.

freakdog · « **Reply #146 on:** 01/14/2016 08:56 pm »

Dream Chaser has a 'trailer' that is de-orbited separately from the vehicle.

Craftyatom · « **Reply #147 on:** 01/14/2016 08:58 pm »

SNC Launches on an Atlas V , that was the only proposal set forth. Most likely landing is in FL.

abaddon · « **Reply #148 on:** 01/14/2016 08:58 pm »

DreamChaser will launch on a specific Atlas vehicle from Florida and land in Florida.

Political Hack Wannabe · « **Reply #149 on:** 01/14/2016 08:59 pm »

They mentioned cubesats off of ISS - I am wondering if there has been any consideration if the vehicle wants to visit another station in orbit, before returning to earth

Note - I wanna see a DreamChaser land at Regean National!!!DCA baby

rayleighscatter · « **Reply #150 on:** 01/14/2016 08:59 pm »

I would expect Dream Chaser's test flight to be along the lines of Orbital ATK's and SpaceX's in that they will fly a demo mission to the ISS with cheap and non-critical supplies (food, toilet paper, that sort of thing).

Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 01/14/2016 08:59 pm

Note - I wanna see a DreamChaser land at Regean National!!!DCA baby

Potomac approach can be tricky enough for a piloted 737

JasonAW3 · « **Reply #151 on:** 01/14/2016 09:00 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 01/14/2016 08:10 pm

Orbital
Sierra Navada
SpaceX

Everybody loves a winner!

abaddon · « **Reply #152 on:** 01/14/2016 09:00 pm »

Anticipate four flights a year, likely alternating (was mentioned earlier) to protect against any specific vehicle or launcher being down due to an accident.

abaddon · « **Reply #153 on:** 01/14/2016 09:02 pm »

SpaceX proposed land landing and water landing options. Land landing supports 3 hour delivery, water landing 6 hour (for a subset of the cargo).

It sounds like NASA will be able to order a land landing, presumably on docking flights!

Craftyatom · « **Reply #154 on:** 01/14/2016 09:02 pm »

Dreamchaser can do unpressurized, seems to indicate a trunk of some sort but no comment in particular.

Dragon was proposed with water and land landing, with a 6 and 3 hour "early" recovery capability, respectively.

Political Hack Wannabe · « **Reply #155 on:** 01/14/2016 09:03 pm »

Quote from: rayleighscatter on 01/14/2016 08:59 pm

I would expect Dream Chaser's test flight to be along the lines of Orbital ATK's and SpaceX's in that they will fly a demo mission to the ISS with cheap and non-critical supplies (food, toilet paper, that sort of thing).

Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 01/14/2016 08:59 pm

Note - I wanna see a DreamChaser land at Regean National!!!DCA baby
Potomac approach can be tricky enough for a piloted 737

Well, we could go one step further, and use a Falcon 9 1st stage land where Marine One lands.

Although a few organizations may have something to say about trying to recreate The Day The Earth Stood Still

abaddon · « **Reply #156 on:** 01/14/2016 09:04 pm »

No plans for any more vehicles on the US side.

Craftyatom · « **Reply #157 on:** 01/14/2016 09:06 pm »

Question on Boeing's drop from the competition deferred, answer will come out in the future

First flight moved from 2018 to 2019 because of the delays in choosing the vehicles and providers

^{edit for clarity}

abaddon · « **Reply #158 on:** 01/14/2016 09:06 pm »

Why Boeing dropped? - Can't discuss yet.
Why first CRS-2 flights delayed from 2018 to 2019? - Procurement was delayed; complicated because
- Lots of offerers
- Lots of mission types
- Complicated process
Wanted to take appropriate amount of time to make the right choice, caused delay.
Procurement delay pushed out first flights.

abaddon · « **Reply #159 on:** 01/14/2016 09:09 pm »

Price was a factor, but not a driving factor. Six-seven factors for consideration regarding who will be chosen for a task order when looking at a flight.

Then he goes on to day that price was very important in selecting the three providers. So, a bit of mixed signals here. Speculation: maybe these three are all substantially cheaper than the Boeing and Lockheed proposals, but are not so different among each other, to the point where the differing capabilities tend to trump price.