NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[yg1968]

Think that was F91.1, not F9FT?  Link didn't come up for me.

The presentation was last fall which isn't that long ago. The presentation didn't say that F9 wouldn't work. It only said that it would work on FH. But I think that implies that F9FT or the F9 not wouldn't be enough.

[abaddon]

TBH I am not sure the distinction is that important, FH would be much cheaper than an AV 552 anyway.

[Rocket Science]

TBH I am not sure the distinction is that important, FH would be much cheaper than an AV 552 anyway.

Not to pile on but FH has no flight history yet... Atlas V is a proven vehicle despite the price...

[deltaV]

NASA now has outstanding contracts with Boeing and SpaceX for ISS crew delivery and with Orbital, SNC and SpaceX for cargo. With the tiny ISS resupply market split between four separate providers there will be reduced economies of scale and hence high costs. Without seeing the bids we can only guess, but ISTM NASA would have been better off with two CRS2 winners. If they wanted 3-way redundancy ISTM it would be better to have a single combined contract for both crew and cargo with 3 winners.

[yg1968]

Think that was F91.1, not F9FT?  Link didn't come up for me.

The presentation was last fall which isn't that long ago. The presentation didn't say that F9 wouldn't work. It only said that it would work on FH. But I think that implies that F9FT or the F9 not wouldn't be enough.

Sirangelo also said that DC Cargo would work on Orbital ATK's next generation rocket when that happens (at 31:19 of the video).

[Dante80]

The F9FT wouldn't be enough according to SNC.

They never said that it seems.
Whether it can or not is a different discussion though. Anyone can take a guess on what the performance delta between an Atlas V 552 and an expendable F9FT for ISS orbit would be? This is a theoretical question of course (DC is going to fly on the 552 for CRS2).

[Coastal Ron]

TBH I am not sure the distinction is that important, FH would be much cheaper than an AV 552 anyway.

Not to pile on but FH has no flight history yet... Atlas V is a proven vehicle despite the price...

It's OK to be on the conservative side and bid what you know, which would be the Atlas V.  I would imagine SNC would have the ability to switch to other launchers later if they wanted, which is what Orbital ATK did.

So once Falcon Heavy is deemed "mature" in the eyes of SNC, they can decide if it makes sense at that point to switch.

[Rocket Science]

TBH I am not sure the distinction is that important, FH would be much cheaper than an AV 552 anyway.

Not to pile on but FH has no flight history yet... Atlas V is a proven vehicle despite the price...

It's OK to be on the conservative side and bid what you know, which would be the Atlas V.  I would imagine SNC would have the ability to switch to other launchers later if they wanted, which is what Orbital ATK did.

So once Falcon Heavy is deemed "mature" in the eyes of SNC, they can decide if it makes sense at that point to switch.

I'm cool with that!

[AncientU]

Is there a sense that three vendors were selected because the bids were lower than expected?

Certainly a minimum of two vendors would be required to ensure parallel development streams to reduce risk of a showstopper impacting ISS viability.  But the option to fund three vendors with greater diversity in technical and business strategy promotes the commercial industry on the taxpayer dime under the guise of providing generic cargo trucking to the ISS.

(A number in Congress would approve, just as Congress created scheduled passenger air service with postal subsidies. At one point, the Congress mandated airmail subsidies resulted in airlines sending up to 20,000 airmail letters to themselves to pay for the flight with or without passengers - they were paid more than the postage per letter to carry them. Congress changed this, but after passengers were taking regular flights instead of hiring a plane, but that was the intention of the author of the bill, while many considered the airlines to be exploiting taxpayers.)

And I approve. Three vendors doing three solutions seems like a sweet spot. Not so many as during the cold war when the dozens of military suppliers created lots of waste, but too little money to each so great products were delivered. But not the single track that gave us the shuttle with three vendors splitting block of tax money.

I suspect SpaceX and Orbital undercut their CRS-1 prices (the latter already disclosed) and SNC was probably double or triple the price at least.  Since SNC got left behind in the crew services, probably because they still had lots of development ahead, it was reasonable for NASA to bring them along further with a cargo contract.  The first two could get e job done, but all three is best of all worlds.

[yg1968]

The F9FT wouldn't be enough according to SNC.

They never said that it seems.
Whether it can or not is a different discussion though. Anyone can take a guess on what the performance delta between an Atlas V 552 and an expendable F9FT for ISS orbit would be? This is a theoretical question of course (DC is going to fly on the 552 for CRS2).

Sirangelo listed all of the LVs that could be used and F9 wasn't on that list. He even mentionned verbally the Orbital ATK Next Generation LV.

[Lee Jay]

I suspect SpaceX and Orbital undercut their CRS-1 prices (the latter already disclosed) and SNC was probably double or triple the price at least.

Double or triple at least?  I have no inside information, but there's no way that's the case.

[rayleighscatter]

I think people may be overestimating the remaining development spending Dream Chaser has left.

SpaceX and Orbital ATK got a combined 700 million for the COTS development, and that also included launch vehicle spending for both. Dreamchaser has already gotten close to 400 million in funding. Some of that is crew specific but I suspect the total remaining in R&D is far less than the billions some people predict and still less than the many hundreds of millions other think.

[yg1968]

For Orbital ATK, there is no need to speculate, we have their prices for CRS2 and CRS1. See post below:

http://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room/release.asp?prid=112

NASA Selects Orbital ATK for New 8-Year Contract to Deliver Cargo to the International Space Station

Under the Commercial Resupply Services-2 (CRS-2) contract, the company was awarded six initial cargo missions, valued at about $1.2-$1.5 billion, to be carried out beginning in 2019.  Depending on the spacecraft/launch vehicle configurations used, these initial missions will deliver approximately 22,500-26,500 kilograms (or 49,000-58,000 pounds) of supplies and equipment to the orbiting laboratory. Later in the contract, NASA may award additional missions for the 2021-2024 period based on operational requirements of the ISS.

Orbital/ATK's prices went down under CRS2. Under CRS1, the cost was $1.9B for 20mt of upmass cargo.

[Robotbeat]

Think that was F91.1, not F9FT?  Link didn't come up for me.

The presentation was last fall which isn't that long ago. The presentation didn't say that F9 wouldn't work. It only said that it would work on FH. But I think that implies that F9FT or the F9 not wouldn't be enough.

I totally disagree. If we believe the full thrust variant has at least 20% more performance than v1.1 (and we heard it was 30% more, right?), then a fully expendable F9FT has more performance than the Atlas V 551, and even an Atlas V 552.

If he didn't say specifically that Dreamchaser wouldn't work on F9, I would assume it would work, and that it'd get just as much performance as even this Atlas V variant.

Falcon 9 has /kick butt/ LEO performance.

Source:
http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Results.aspx
(and comparing those results with public figures for Atlas V performance, like that cited list on Wikipedia which come from the Atlas V user's guide and this: http://web.archive.org/web/20120921011608/http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/ast_developments_concepts_2010.pdf ...I compared the performance to 51.6degrees 400km to the 185km 28 degrees performance listed above, and used the same ratio between those two numbers for Atlas V 551 and applying it to Atlas V 552 to get a first-order estimate of the 552's performance to ISS... then compared to the v1.1's given performance, and adding 20% more due to the Full Thrust enhancements)

...remember that Dreamchaser's crewed variant didn't use as many SRBs on the Atlas V, which is another guarantee that Dreamchaser would be able to launch no problem on Falcon 9.

[Robotbeat]

I think people may be overestimating the remaining development spending Dream Chaser has left.
...

Or SNC is underestimating the remaining development spending left.

[AncientU]

Using these numbers, Orbital dropped cost per kg by about 40% and I'd suspect that SpaceX did the same plus/minus.  Per kg, SNC has to get development finished to achieve parity by this measure.  We need real numbers for the last two contracts (and better than a range for Orbital) to settle this.

I'm not at all saying that it isn't worth it for SNC to be more expensive this round, because they are bringing something innovative to the table.

[AncientU]

Think that was F91.1, not F9FT?  Link didn't come up for me.

The presentation was last fall which isn't that long ago. The presentation didn't say that F9 wouldn't work. It only said that it would work on FH. But I think that implies that F9FT or the F9 not wouldn't be enough.

I totally disagree. If we believe the full thrust variant has at least 20% more performance than v1.1 (and we heard it was 30% more, right?), then a fully expendable F9FT has more performance than the Atlas V 551, and even an Atlas V 552.

If he didn't say specifically that Dreamchaser wouldn't work on F9, I would assume it would work, and that it'd get just as much performance as even this Atlas V variant.

Falcon 9 has /kick butt/ LEO performance.

Source:
http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Results.aspx
(and comparing those results with public figures for Atlas V performance, like that cited list on Wikipedia which come from the Atlas V user's guide and this: http://web.archive.org/web/20120921011608/http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/ast_developments_concepts_2010.pdf ...I compared the performance to 51.6degrees 400km to the 185km 28 degrees performance listed above, and used the same ratio between those two numbers for Atlas V 551 and applying it to Atlas V 552 to get a first-order estimate of the 552's performance to ISS... then compared to the v1.1's given performance, and adding 20% more due to the Full Thrust enhancements)

...remember that Dreamchaser's crewed variant didn't use as many SRBs on the Atlas V, which is another guarantee that Dreamchaser would be able to launch no problem on Falcon 9.

Could be that by 2019, F9 (expendable) is no longer a viable ride.
FH reusable will replace F9 expendable per SpaceX, because it will be less expensive.

[Rocket Science]

Think that was F91.1, not F9FT?  Link didn't come up for me.

The presentation was last fall which isn't that long ago. The presentation didn't say that F9 wouldn't work. It only said that it would work on FH. But I think that implies that F9FT or the F9 not wouldn't be enough.

I totally disagree. If we believe the full thrust variant has at least 20% more performance than v1.1 (and we heard it was 30% more, right?), then a fully expendable F9FT has more performance than the Atlas V 551, and even an Atlas V 552.

If he didn't say specifically that Dreamchaser wouldn't work on F9, I would assume it would work, and that it'd get just as much performance as even this Atlas V variant.

Falcon 9 has /kick butt/ LEO performance.

Source:
http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Results.aspx
(and comparing those results with public figures for Atlas V performance, like that cited list on Wikipedia which come from the Atlas V user's guide and this: http://web.archive.org/web/20120921011608/http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/ast_developments_concepts_2010.pdf ...I compared the performance to 51.6degrees 400km to the 185km 28 degrees performance listed above, and used the same ratio between those two numbers for Atlas V 551 and applying it to Atlas V 552 to get a first-order estimate of the 552's performance to ISS... then compared to the v1.1's given performance, and adding 20% more due to the Full Thrust enhancements)

...remember that Dreamchaser's crewed variant didn't use as many SRBs on the Atlas V, which is another guarantee that Dreamchaser would be able to launch no problem on Falcon 9.

Chris, are you assuming an expendable version without legs?

[Dante80]

Watching the numbers, I can understand why NASA wanted to bring DreamChaser in the fleet. It has - in paper - formidable capabilities.

5000kg of pressurized upmass (1750kg on the craft, 3250kg on the storage module).
500kg of un-pressurized upmass (two external canisters around the storage module)
3250kg of trash disposal (on the storage module).
1750kg of pressurized downmass.
Docking or Berthing.
Low G re-entry and soft landing.
The ability to land in different airports.
Fast access to downmass cargo.

Coupled with the fact that the ISS people want to have less missions per year (around 4), as well as more freight per mission due to the inclusion of a seventh crew member, adding cargo DreamChaser to the fleet gives them the opportunity to be a lot more flexible (especially if something bad happens and one spacecraft is grounded).

Chris, are you assuming an expendable version without legs?

I'd presume an expendable version, yes.

[joek]

Using these numbers, Orbital dropped cost per kg by about 40% and I'd suspect that SpaceX did the same plus/minus.  Per kg, SNC has to get development finished to achieve parity by this measure.  We need real numbers for the last two contracts (and better than a range for Orbital) to settle this.

Don't see that Orbital's price has changed that much.  Orbital's original CRS1 order was $1.9B for 8 flights = $237.5M/flight.  The CRS2 order is $1.2-1.5B for 6 flights = $200-250M/flight.