NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[Oli]

We don't know the answer to that yet.  But we all hope successful business models will be found.

If NASA's CASIS is anything to go by its rather hopeless.

We'll have (with SLS) 4 US launch providers, 4 crewed vehicles (2 of them reusable) and 3 unmanned transport vehicles (2 of em reuseable)

While the Russians have been flying 2 vehicles, Soyuz and Progress, for decades.

[baldusi]

On the contrary, Russians have made a very rational infrastructure that depends 100% on the government.
The USA is currently letting the industry try a lot of different approaches that will, most likely, not be viable commercially. But the right approach will be revealed in the end. And let's not forget that they actually are paying for operative mission, so they are getting services back, so it's not sunk money.

[ChrisWilson68]

I am not convinced that DC is more expensive than it's competitors.

Its competitors already have nearly all their development costs paid.  Cargo Dream Chaser does not.  And it's a complex system.  The Dream Chaser vehicle itself and the disposable module are two essentially different vehicles that both need to be developed.

For CCtCap, SNC had a very competitive bid.

They lost CCtCap, so it wasn't compelling enough to NASA.  And in CCtCap the competition also had to have large development costs paid.  So CRS-2 is very different.

[Dante80]

The two vehicle variants are not directly comparable in cost.

Crew DC uses a 412, Cargo DC a 552.
Crew DC has engines, life support etc, Cargo DC doesn't.
Crew DC doesn't have a cargo module, Cargo DC does.

etc etc. One might say that the Cargo DC could end up being more expensive (to both develop, build and fly) than the Crew DC.

[tobi453]

The two vehicle variants are not directly comparable in cost.

Crew DC uses a 412, Cargo DC a 552.
Crew DC has engines, life support etc, Cargo DC doesn't.
Crew DC doesn't have a cargo module, Cargo DC does.

etc etc. One might say that the Cargo DC could end up being more expensive (to both develop, build and fly) than the Crew DC.

Cargo DC is launching on 552? I guess they didn't manage to make it more expensive.

[A_M_Swallow]

The two vehicle variants are not directly comparable in cost.

Crew DC uses a 412, Cargo DC a 552.
Crew DC has engines, life support etc, Cargo DC doesn't.
Crew DC doesn't have a cargo module, Cargo DC does.

etc etc. One might say that the Cargo DC could end up being more expensive (to both develop, build and fly) than the Crew DC.

Cargo DC is launching on 552? I guess they didn't manage to make it more expensive.

"... more expensive" some of the SLS payloads will need a tug to arrive at the correct docking port.

[yg1968]

I am not convinced that DC is more expensive than it's competitors.

Its competitors already have nearly all their development costs paid.  Cargo Dream Chaser does not.  And it's a complex system.  The Dream Chaser vehicle itself and the disposable module are two essentially different vehicles that both need to be developed.

For CCtCap, SNC had a very competitive bid.

They lost CCtCap, so it wasn't compelling enough to NASA.  And in CCtCap the competition also had to have large development costs paid.  So CRS-2 is very different.

SNC received almost the same amount of development money from NASA under commercial crew than SpaceX and Orbital received under COTS.

During the press conference Kirk said that they had a very good proposal. SNC was in the competitive range with the other winning companies. Price was the main criteria under the selection criteria. Until we see the Selection Statement, it's reasonable to believe that SNC was competitive on price and that they did indeed have a good proposal.   

[yg1968]

The two vehicle variants are not directly comparable in cost.

Crew DC uses a 412, Cargo DC a 552.
Crew DC has engines, life support etc, Cargo DC doesn't.
Crew DC doesn't have a cargo module, Cargo DC does.

etc etc. One might say that the Cargo DC could end up being more expensive (to both develop, build and fly) than the Crew DC.

Maybe SNC is is trying to maxime its payload capacity with its trailer. There is likely a reason that it uses the 552.

[yg1968]

I'm surprised the biggest news of this all wasn't mentioned at the presser!...........














...............Dream Chaser just bagged herself her own NSF Forum Section! I'll set that up this week.

DC is already moving out! They grow up so fast.

[ChrisWilson68]

SpaceX seems to be a "big loser" between the winners. They had 12 launches in original CRS-1 and now they are down to 6. We should not expect much of the additional flights either as the goal is to keep number of visiting vehicles as low as possible. I can see two possible reasons for this: bias against SpaceX having too much business with NASA (they are already near 5% of NASA budget, with primary focus on ISS) and pressurized volume constraint.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.  If SpaceX is a lot cheaper, they might still go with a lot more SpaceX flights.  With Dragon 2 each visit need not take much astronaut time other than unloading and loading, which should scale with the amount of cargo, not the number of visits.  And even with berthing, it's just silly that it's such a manual process, in this age of self-driving cars.

If they really do go with others over SpaceX for most flights just because berthing is a manual process, they're wasting hundreds of millions of dollars.  Hopefully, someone at NASA will realize that and push to automate the process.

[ChrisWilson68]

NASA said that it has no intention of building another space station. They will let commercial companies such as Bigelow do that in LEO.

A lot can change with a new president.

[GalacticIntruder]

SpaceX seems to be a "big loser" between the winners. They had 12 launches in original CRS-1 and now they are down to 6. We should not expect much of the additional flights either as the goal is to keep number of visiting vehicles as low as possible. I can see two possible reasons for this: bias against SpaceX having too much business with NASA (they are already near 5% of NASA budget, with primary focus on ISS) and pressurized volume constraint.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.  If SpaceX is a lot cheaper, they might still go with a lot more SpaceX flights.  With Dragon 2 each visit need not take much astronaut time other than unloading and loading, which should scale with the amount of cargo, not the number of visits.  And even with berthing, it's just silly that it's such a manual process, in this age of self-driving cars.

If they really do go with others over SpaceX for most flights just because berthing is a manual process, they're wasting hundreds of millions of dollars.  Hopefully, someone at NASA will realize that and push to automate the process.

It is still several hundred million in potential revenue that SpaceX did not get, because NASA threw SNC a bone. It also helps SNC uses the Atlas, so if/when the new Antares fails, NASA won't be stuck with SpaceX. Also good for  politics, and the anti-SpX, Anti-CRS/CCdev Congress Critters.

[dkovacic]

SpaceX seems to be a "big loser" between the winners. They had 12 launches in original CRS-1 and now they are down to 6. We should not expect much of the additional flights either as the goal is to keep number of visiting vehicles as low as possible. I can see two possible reasons for this: bias against SpaceX having too much business with NASA (they are already near 5% of NASA budget, with primary focus on ISS) and pressurized volume constraint.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.  If SpaceX is a lot cheaper, they might still go with a lot more SpaceX flights.  With Dragon 2 each visit need not take much astronaut time other than unloading and loading, which should scale with the amount of cargo, not the number of visits.  And even with berthing, it's just silly that it's such a manual process, in this age of self-driving cars.

If they really do go with others over SpaceX for most flights just because berthing is a manual process, they're wasting hundreds of millions of dollars.  Hopefully, someone at NASA will realize that and push to automate the process.

SpaceX is not that much cheaper per kg in CRS-1 - less than 20%. And NASA awarded  additional CRS-1 flights proportionaly to the original ratio.

Effectively their crs flight rate per year will be cut in half under CRS-2. A big drawback will be cutting down testing opportunities for propulsive landings.

And regarding manual berthing, that should be remotely controlled from  ground control. But that is a whole different topic.

[AncientU]

Why do you think they will still be testing propulsive landings in 2019?

[Lobo]

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 wouldn't welcome a post that simply says "Boooo!"

But Boooooooo!

Ouch....you just got booed by Chris.

;-)

[dkovacic]

Why do you think they will still be testing propulsive landings in 2019?

Because dragon V2 will fly 1st time in 2017 most likely. And NASA will not allow landings without parachutes on CCtCap until this is a proven landing system.

[Lobo]

Anyway, I'm sorry my comments got us off on a negative sub-thread.  That was not my intention.

Same here, so I will stop derailing things.

Honestly, I'm glad Dream Chaser was chosen, my only concern is whether the cargo return redundancy and dissimilar capabilities will be worth the price of finishing the development of the spacecraft, as compared to the mature spacecraft that OrbitalATK and SpaceX were bidding.

I think removal of all crew considerations will probably reduce time and cost of the final flying article considerably...

[ChrisWilson68]

SpaceX seems to be a "big loser" between the winners. They had 12 launches in original CRS-1 and now they are down to 6. We should not expect much of the additional flights either as the goal is to keep number of visiting vehicles as low as possible. I can see two possible reasons for this: bias against SpaceX having too much business with NASA (they are already near 5% of NASA budget, with primary focus on ISS) and pressurized volume constraint.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.  If SpaceX is a lot cheaper, they might still go with a lot more SpaceX flights.  With Dragon 2 each visit need not take much astronaut time other than unloading and loading, which should scale with the amount of cargo, not the number of visits.  And even with berthing, it's just silly that it's such a manual process, in this age of self-driving cars.

If they really do go with others over SpaceX for most flights just because berthing is a manual process, they're wasting hundreds of millions of dollars.  Hopefully, someone at NASA will realize that and push to automate the process.

SpaceX is not that much cheaper per kg in CRS-1 - less than 20%. And NASA awarded  additional CRS-1 flights proportionaly to the original ratio.

Effectively their crs flight rate per year will be cut in half under CRS-2. A big drawback will be cutting down testing opportunities for propulsive landings.

Again, the claim that the SpaceX CRS flight rate will be cut in half is speculation.  You don't know, I don't know.

NASA has only said each provider gets at least 6 flights.  They might get many more.

I already listed some reason SpaceX might get more flights.  We'll have to wait and see.

[dkovacic]

SpaceX seems to be a "big loser" between the winners. They had 12 launches in original CRS-1 and now they are down to 6. We should not expect much of the additional flights either as the goal is to keep number of visiting vehicles as low as possible. I can see two possible reasons for this: bias against SpaceX having too much business with NASA (they are already near 5% of NASA budget, with primary focus on ISS) and pressurized volume constraint.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.  If SpaceX is a lot cheaper, they might still go with a lot more SpaceX flights.  With Dragon 2 each visit need not take much astronaut time other than unloading and loading, which should scale with the amount of cargo, not the number of visits.  And even with berthing, it's just silly that it's such a manual process, in this age of self-driving cars.

If they really do go with others over SpaceX for most flights just because berthing is a manual process, they're wasting hundreds of millions of dollars.  Hopefully, someone at NASA will realize that and push to automate the process.

SpaceX is not that much cheaper per kg in CRS-1 - less than 20%. And NASA awarded  additional CRS-1 flights proportionaly to the original ratio.

Effectively their crs flight rate per year will be cut in half under CRS-2. A big drawback will be cutting down testing opportunities for propulsive landings.

Again, the claim that the SpaceX CRS flight rate will be cut in half is speculation.  You don't know, I don't know.

NASA has only said each provider gets at least 6 flights.  They might get many more.

I already listed some reason SpaceX might get more flights.  We'll have to wait and see.

I agree with you - we have to wait and see.

[Lobo]

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.

The Space Shuttle Orbiter's design was a result of decades of testing. Save the fragility of the thermal protection system, the Orbiter was a very sound design--and, in my opinion, beautiful. It was the integration of the side external tank and solids, with a lack of a LES, that formed a vehicle that threatened the lives of every crew time and time again.

As the X-15 and many other winged experimental spacecraft have shown, winged spacecraft do have a place in certain circumstances. In an unmanned mode, the problems of designing a launch escape system aren't required (although DCC will have one to save itself).

Nothing wrong with wings or capsules. The only thing wrong is poor choices involved in their purpose.

This is not a poor choice. The synergy between three LVs, three cargo craft and three companies all but ensure that not only ISS will have routine cargo and a reboost outside of the Russians, but add that extra clearing of the brush and rocks to a future infrastructure for building and suppling other LEO ventures. Everyone wins with this contract.

"Wings" per se really are a hinderence for spacecraft up until the final part of atmospheric descent.  They subtract from payload capacity for the LV stack.  They are in the way for launch, and cause drag forces that must be designed around.  They are essentially big MMOD targets during the stay in space.  And they usually make for a large, complex geometry for the TPS when compared to a capsule (or biconic).

But a lifting body does help to minimize that as it's wings are small and it derives part of it's lift from the body itself.  So they aren't as much of a detriment as a true "space plane" as it were.   And they allow of a "passive" landing system.  No parachutes or landing engines to fail.   If landing gear fail it can still be bellied in relatively safely (as we saw with the DC test article landing).  At least compared to what you get if landing engines or a parachute fails on a capsule.  So redundancy needs to be built into those systems.  But there's really no need for a redundancy with a passive system like aerodynamic landing....other than redundant landing sites.

But myself, I think a capsule or biconic with redundant landing engines are a better solution, overall...
Pretty much accomplishes the same thing, but without the penalties for the other phases of the mission.