NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[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.

Chris, are you assuming an expendable version without legs?

Yup, because we're comparing to a really expensive Atlas V.

[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.

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.

Now that is something that actually makes some sense!

[Phlebas]

Even if we assume $200M to $250M per resupply flight and 4 missions per year we get $800M to $1B per annum. It’s a five year flight schedule so why so much headroom in the contract (maximum 14B$).
What options could there be other than more flights?

Long time stalker, first time talker

[Dante80]

Even if we assume $200M to $250M per resupply flight and 4 missions per year we get $800M to $1B per annum. It’s a five year flight schedule so why so much headroom in the contract (maximum 14B$).
What options could there be other than more flights?

Long time stalker, first time talker

We don't know how they reached that number. For reference, assuming 5 flights of the most expensive mission per year, and five years of missions for the contract, should yield us a cost of around $560M per mission. That's still too much imo, for any of the vehicles at hand...

A more modest - close to life - cost of $250M per flight for 20 flights would give us a total of $5Bn for the contract, split 3 ways. That's about a billion dollars to service the ISS per year, not bad at all..

[Rocket Science]

Even if we assume $200M to $250M per resupply flight and 4 missions per year we get $800M to $1B per annum. It’s a five year flight schedule so why so much headroom in the contract (maximum 14B$).
What options could there be other than more flights?

Long time stalker, first time talker

Welcome to the Forum!

[rayleighscatter]

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.

NASA isn't buying flights they're buying upmass. OA is getting the same amount of material up to ISS in CRS2 for a third less.

[jongoff]

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

Or SNC is underestimating the remaining development spending left.

I'm more skeptical at the ability of outsiders to accurately estimate development costs than SNC does with their much better knowledge of where their system is and what needs to be done still. So many of the estimates I've seen on here ignore that SpaceX and Orbital were able to get their cargo vehicles flying for less than $300M each from a standing start. Dreamchaser is more complex than Dragon or Cygnus, but SNC can leverage a lot of work they've already done under the commercial crew program. I'd really be surprised if they were more than $500M out from  their first flight, and wouldn't be surprised if they were within $200-300M of development. If they were similar $/kg to Cygnus, that would imply their minimum of six flights would be worth ~$2B. Even if you assume the most pessimistic development cost and most pessimistic launch cost for a block buy of Atlas V 552s (when ULA was particularly motivated to close the deal because that is in the critical timeframe that they'll be losing DoD launches to SpaceX), it still looks likely to me that they can probably at least break even off of just the six minimum flights.

~Jon

[joek]

NASA isn't buying flights they're buying upmass. OA is getting the same amount of material up to ISS in CRS2 for a third less.

NASA is buying flights with CRS2.  That is a significant difference between CRS1 and CRS2.  But yes, I agree that Orbital is getting more mass to the ISS for the same number of flights and $/flight (or apparently so).

edit: p.s. CRS1 was also per-flight pricing for volume-limited missions.  No idea how many Orbital flights were volume limited.  edit2: Just read the contract again and Orbital's CRS pricing for pressurized up-mass is conditional on expected maximum capability (which translates to per flight pricing).

[abaddon]

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...

Sure, but it will by 2019.  Also, two engine Centaur doesn't have flight history either.

[arachnitect]

Even if we assume $200M to $250M per resupply flight and 4 missions per year we get $800M to $1B per annum. It’s a five year flight schedule so why so much headroom in the contract (maximum 14B$).
What options could there be other than more flights?

Long time stalker, first time talker

We don't know how they reached that number. For reference, assuming 5 flights of the most expensive mission per year, and five years of missions for the contract, should yield us a cost of around $560M per mission. That's still too much imo, for any of the vehicles at hand...

A more modest - close to life - cost of $250M per flight for 20 flights would give us a total of $5Bn for the contract, split 3 ways. That's about a billion dollars to service the ISS per year, not bad at all..

The RFI said NASA plans on spending $1-1.4B per year for CRS-2. They probably chose $14B so they can get to a 2028 ISS retirement under CRS2 if they want. Look at how many extensions have been awarded under CRS-1.

edit: FWIW, I believe DC missions will cost something like $430-480M each. It's not a bargain, but it fits NASA's spending profile.

[jongoff]

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...

Sure, but it will by 2019.  Also, two engine Centaur doesn't have flight history either.

No recent flight history. Didn't two engine Centaurs used to be the norm before they went back to a single engine design for Atlas III or Atlas V? I mean, there are going to be differences between the AV DEC and the previous version, but this isn't exactly breaking new ground for the ULA team (at least the team members who came from the pre-ULA Atlas side of things).

~Jon

[ugordan]

Yes, DEC was the norm pre-Atlas V, but my understanding is that the new DEC would be different in some respects. I seem to recall something about changes to TVC control or some such.

[jongoff]

Yes, DEC was the norm pre-Atlas V, but my understanding is that the new DEC would be different in some respects. I seem to recall something about changes to TVC control or some such.

Yeah, with the SEC they switched to more electromechanical control I think.

~Jon

[Dante80]

The RFI said NASA plans on spending $1-1.4B per year for CRS-2. They probably chose $14B so they can get to a 2028 ISS retirement under CRS2 if they want. Look at how many extensions have been awarded under CRS-1.

edit: FWIW, I believe DC missions will cost something like $430-480M each. It's not a bargain, but it fits NASA's spending profile.

Yes, that was my thought too. The $14Bn contract max includes "all possible options".

[rayleighscatter]

After a progress failure and a little uncertainty about ongoing funding from other partners I wouldn't be surprised if 14B also assumes NASA becoming the sole supplier of ISS.

[yg1968]

Yup, because we're comparing to a really expensive Atlas V.

It could be related to how tall the fairing needs to be for DC Cargo. See this thread for a discussion on this:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29417.msg1477310#msg1477310

[Rocket Science]

Just a noteworthy engineering point NASA is selecting an "all composite" space vehicle in Dream Chaser ops for the first time. Might get some valuable data out of this...

[yg1968]

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

Or SNC is underestimating the remaining development spending left.

For CCiCap, NASA gave SNC a partial award. Given that SNC couldn't get to CDR for CCiCap, NASA suggested that SNC focus on the riskiest part of their proposal (items that required more development time). Many of these were related to the fact that DC is a lifting body. So a lot of the risks related to their more complex spacecraft have already been retired.

[yg1968]

On another issue Kirk Shireman said that NASA got a different price if it bought a mission a la carte as opposed to 6 at the same time.

I am guessing that ULA gave SNC a discount for ordering 6 Atlas V from them.

[TrevorMonty]

On another issue Kirk Shireman said that NASA got a difference price if it bought a mission a la carte as opposed to 6 at the same time.

I am guessing that ULA gave SNC a discount for ordering 6 Atlas V from them.

There maybe some options in Atlas orders to switch to Vulcan. ULA would like to fly it and it should be  cheaper for SNC. I doubt SNC will risk DC on early Vulcan flights.