NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[abaddon]

Second major question: Will SpaceX be allowed to reuse Dragons?

The current contract doesn't say that SpaceX cannot re-use Dragons.  SpaceX is already planning to re-use Dragons for CRS-1 contracted missions.

Has SpaceX said when that might happen?

I have never heard anything from SpaceX about reusing whole Dragons.  However, they are already reusing parts from recovered Dragons.

EDIT: Speaking strictly of Cargo Dragon here, of course.

[ChrisWilson68]

Now now Chris - descent is important in a viable forum - even when they are wrong :)

So is dissent.

[QuantumG]

The goal for Dragon 2 is land-safe-refuel-relaunch.

[abaddon]

How much does an Atlas 552 go for? (for the Dreamchaser).

Also, any idea how NASA managed to bring the contract max (with options) up to $14Bn? I assume, that is for flights up to 2028 (instead of the 2019-2024 period)?

I believe the hypothetical max would be with them ordering multiple times the actual number of flights they will actually order.  In other words, max SpaceX + max SNC + max OrbATK = $14 billion.  It's actually more complicated because each offers two variants, so it's the max of them all.

In reality it will be much fewer flights, so far under $14 billion.  Remember CRS-1 was ~$3.1 billion for ~20 flights.  At four flights per year for 2019-2024 we're talking 20 flights again, plus they might extend out for more years.

[Brovane]

Second major question: Will SpaceX be allowed to reuse Dragons?

The current contract doesn't say that SpaceX cannot re-use Dragons.  SpaceX is already planning to re-use Dragons for CRS-1 contracted missions.

Has SpaceX said when that might happen?

I have never heard anything from SpaceX about reusing whole Dragons.  However, they are already reusing parts from recovered Dragons.

From my understanding they are re-using the pressure vessels from earlier dragons for later CRS missions. 

[Craftyatom]

How much does an Atlas 552 go for? (for the Dreamchaser).

Also, any idea how NASA managed to bring the contract max (with options) up to $14Bn? I assume, that is for flights up to 2028 (instead of the 2019-2024 period)?

Seemed like they were stressing that that was chosen to be arbitrarily large, not as a cap they could ever conceivably hit.

[Dante80]

The goal for Dragon 2 is land-safe-refuel-relaunch.

land-safe-wait for the cancerous fumes to dissipate-refurbish-integrate-relaunch.

[whitelancer64]

I believe I read - somewhere - on NSF that the pressure vessel on the first extended flight of the CRS 1 (that is, CRS-13) will be reused from a previous CRS flight.

Am I misremembering?

[Brovane]

SpaceX bid 3 hour return (Dragon V2 propulsive landing) and 6 hour return (water landing), so this does not seem to be a unique capability.

Oh yeah, about that - how exactly is SpaceX planning to move specific cargo from a Pacific splashdown point to wherever it needs to be in 6 hours?  Speedboat?  Heli?  Boatplane?  I have no idea how far the journey would be, or how fast commercially available boats are.  I guess it kind of depends how close to land you're allowed to splash down...

It would be FOB at the dock for the customer. 

[Rocket Science]

The last few weeks have been amazing... Falcon lands back at the Cape and we see the birth of a new spacecraft... Just wow!!

[ChrisWilson68]

I was still rooting for the Jupiter-Exoliner till the end because reusing the in space hardware is as important as the boosters. But I suppose it was complex and potentially risky proposal.

I was too.  It's understandable that for the short term (the timeframe of this contract and the limited scope of delivery to ISS) Jupiter wasn't the right choice.  But I think that's unfortunate because it's a capability I'd like to see developed -- a reusable in-space tug.

Reusability is the key to scaling our space activities up.  I'm not satisfied with seven astronauts at a time in orbit.  The real promise of commercial cargo and crew is to get costs down so we can scale up.

That's why I'm still most excited about SpaceX of the three winners of CRS-2.  They're they only ones evolving toward a fully-reusable system.  Expendable launch vehicles can't scale.  Dream Chaser just provides the same services as other systems without a fundamentally important difference, so I can't get excited about it.  And I suspect it will cost more (development costs still to be paid, large disposable module), which goes against scaling up, not for scaling up.

[abaddon]

And I suspect it will cost more (development costs still to be paid, large disposable module), which goes against scaling up, not for scaling up.

I'm happy about DreamChaser, but with that exact caveat.  If it cost significantly more than the other providers then that's disappointing.  I don't believe it is unique enough in capabilities to justify much added cost.

[Rocket Science]

I was still rooting for the Jupiter-Exoliner till the end because reusing the in space hardware is as important as the boosters. But I suppose it was complex and potentially risky proposal.

I was too.  It's understandable that for the short term (the timeframe of this contract and the limited scope of delivery to ISS) Jupiter wasn't the right choice.  But I think that's unfortunate because it's a capability I'd like to see developed -- a reusable in-space tug.

Reusability is the key to scaling our space activities up.  I'm not satisfied with seven astronauts at a time in orbit.  The real promise of commercial cargo and crew is to get costs down so we can scale up.

That's why I'm still most excited about SpaceX of the three winners of CRS-2.  They're they only ones evolving toward a fully-reusable system.  Expendable launch vehicles can't scale.  Dream Chaser just provides the same services as other systems without a fundamentally important difference, so I can't get excited about it.  And I suspect it will cost more (development costs still to be paid, large disposable module), which goes against scaling up, not for scaling up.

Chris the scientists stated why they were excited to have DC in the mix... Why is it's "dissimilar redundancy" so hard to accept?
~Rob

[Star One]

I wonder when we'll finally see DC's first flight test firmed up.

I am not a DreamChaser fan.

Big win for ULA Atlas. They got 1/3, and maybe even 2/3 if Orbital decides.

People may call me cynical, but I think all of the effusive affection for Dream Chaser is misplaced adoration for the shuttle. Personally, I loathed the shuttle, so I kind of loathe Dream Chaser.

I think you're kind of downplaying the capabilities that DC brings to the table for ISS cargo, especially in the rapid return of science.

What are the other capabilities that other spacecraft can't provide?

Rapid return of science and/or return of delicate science.

I was still rooting for the Jupiter-Exoliner till the end because reusing the in space hardware is as important as the boosters. But I suppose it was complex and potentially risky proposal.

I was too.  It's understandable that for the short term (the timeframe of this contract and the limited scope of delivery to ISS) Jupiter wasn't the right choice.  But I think that's unfortunate because it's a capability I'd like to see developed -- a reusable in-space tug.

Reusability is the key to scaling our space activities up.  I'm not satisfied with seven astronauts at a time in orbit.  The real promise of commercial cargo and crew is to get costs down so we can scale up.

That's why I'm still most excited about SpaceX of the three winners of CRS-2.  They're they only ones evolving toward a fully-reusable system.  Expendable launch vehicles can't scale.  Dream Chaser just provides the same services as other systems without a fundamentally important difference, so I can't get excited about it.  And I suspect it will cost more (development costs still to be paid, large disposable module), which goes against scaling up, not for scaling up.

Chris the scientists stated why they were excited to have DC in the mix... Why is it's "dissimilar redundancy" so hard to accept?
~Rob

Precisely and they are the ones using the actual services.

[friendly3]

Chris the scientists stated why they were excited to have DC in the mix... Why is it's "dissimilar redundancy" so hard to accept?
~Rob

Because that doesn't seem to be true?

[simonbp]

I was still rooting for the Jupiter-Exoliner till the end because reusing the in space hardware is as important as the boosters. But I suppose it was complex and potentially risky proposal.

LM had been pushing Exoliner as step towards their preferred Deep Space Hab; now OATK has an even greater lead on that...

[abaddon]

To reiterate, NASA will be able to select a propulsive Dragon return with the same upper bound of timeframe of delivery of samples (three hours) as DreamChaser.  Quick return of samples is not a capability unique to DreamChaser.

[Star One]

To reiterate, NASA will be able to select a propulsive Dragon return with the same upper bound of timeframe of delivery of samples (three hours) as DreamChaser.  quick return of samples is not a capability unique to DreamChaser.

You cannot land a Dragon in as many places as you could land a DC should the need arise.

[ChrisWilson68]

I was still rooting for the Jupiter-Exoliner till the end because reusing the in space hardware is as important as the boosters. But I suppose it was complex and potentially risky proposal.

I was too.  It's understandable that for the short term (the timeframe of this contract and the limited scope of delivery to ISS) Jupiter wasn't the right choice.  But I think that's unfortunate because it's a capability I'd like to see developed -- a reusable in-space tug.

Reusability is the key to scaling our space activities up.  I'm not satisfied with seven astronauts at a time in orbit.  The real promise of commercial cargo and crew is to get costs down so we can scale up.

That's why I'm still most excited about SpaceX of the three winners of CRS-2.  They're they only ones evolving toward a fully-reusable system.  Expendable launch vehicles can't scale.  Dream Chaser just provides the same services as other systems without a fundamentally important difference, so I can't get excited about it.  And I suspect it will cost more (development costs still to be paid, large disposable module), which goes against scaling up, not for scaling up.

Chris the scientists stated why they were excited to have DC in the mix... Why is it's "dissimilar redundancy" so hard to accept?
~Rob

Everything has a cost.  The biggest problem with NASA, in my opinion, is the lack of appreciation for cost.

Sure, all else being equal, dissimilar redundancy is great.

But where dissimilar redundancy is really important is in a single system where there's a high cost of failure, such as a vehicle that carries crew.  Dissimilar redundancy across different missions is less important.

Cygnus, Cargo and Crew Dragon, CST-100, Soyuz, and Progress already provide way more than enough dissimilar redundancy for ISS logistics.  We already saw the effects of several accidents at the same time in 2015 -- Cygnus and Dragon were both down.  It was pretty much a worst-case scenario.  And it was no real problem.

Adding another commercial cargo carrier into the mix adds little value.

[Star One]

I was still rooting for the Jupiter-Exoliner till the end because reusing the in space hardware is as important as the boosters. But I suppose it was complex and potentially risky proposal.

I was too.  It's understandable that for the short term (the timeframe of this contract and the limited scope of delivery to ISS) Jupiter wasn't the right choice.  But I think that's unfortunate because it's a capability I'd like to see developed -- a reusable in-space tug.

Reusability is the key to scaling our space activities up.  I'm not satisfied with seven astronauts at a time in orbit.  The real promise of commercial cargo and crew is to get costs down so we can scale up.

That's why I'm still most excited about SpaceX of the three winners of CRS-2.  They're they only ones evolving toward a fully-reusable system.  Expendable launch vehicles can't scale.  Dream Chaser just provides the same services as other systems without a fundamentally important difference, so I can't get excited about it.  And I suspect it will cost more (development costs still to be paid, large disposable module), which goes against scaling up, not for scaling up.

Chris the scientists stated why they were excited to have DC in the mix... Why is it's "dissimilar redundancy" so hard to accept?
~Rob

Everything has a cost.  The biggest problem with NASA, in my opinion, is the lack of appreciation for cost.

Sure, all else being equal, dissimilar redundancy is great.

But where dissimilar redundancy is really important is in a single system where there's a high cost of failure, such as a vehicle that carries crew.  Dissimilar redundancy across different missions is less important.

Cygnus, Cargo and Crew Dragon, CST-100, Soyuz, and Progress already provide way more than enough dissimilar redundancy for ISS logistics.  We already saw the effects of several accidents at the same time in 2015 -- Cygnus and Dragon were both down.  It was pretty much a worst-case scenario.  And it was no real problem.

Adding another commercial cargo carrier into the mix adds little value.

Again the scientists at NASA would seem to disagree with you and I know who's word I would put the most weight on .