NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[AncientU]

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.

Does seem far out to be locking in six flights... are launch contracts like this usually an initial quantity, say two, with options for the remainder?

[Jcc]

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.

If I recall correctly, they have another drop test to do under CCiCap. My question is, if there are additional CCiCap milestones, can they be done using the Cargo design, or do they have to be done based on the original Crew design?

[joek]

If I recall correctly, they have another drop test to do under CCiCap. My question is, if there are additional CCiCap milestones, can they be done using the Cargo design, or do they have to be done based on the original Crew design?

Unless there is an amendment that has not been made public, it has to be done under CCiCap if they are to be paid under that contract.  That means based on the original crew proposal-design.

[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.

If I recall correctly, they have another drop test to do under CCiCap. My question is, if there are additional CCiCap milestones, can they be done using the Cargo design, or do they have to be done based on the original Crew design?

The only paying milestones that was left was the drop test. The rest are unfunded.

[yg1968]

Just as a reminder, in the RFI, NASA required the following:

NASA’s budget to procure this service is anticipated to be between $1.0B and $1.4B per year.
[...]
Delivery of 14,250 to 16,750 kilograms (kg) per year of pressurized cargo.
[...]
Services are required to be provided in 4 to 5 missions per year and the capabilities described above are required to be distributed across the year.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.0

Using the higher $1.4B per year number, let's assume that 2 of the flights are from Orbital ATK which would cost $250 million each (their higher end option). Let's assume that the third flight is by SpaceX and cost $133M (their CRS1 price per flight). The maximum a flight for DC would then be is $767M ($1400M less $250M x2 less $133M).

Using the lower $1B per year number, let's assume that two of the flights are by Orbital ATK at $200M and the third one is by SpaceX at $133M. The flight for DC would then be for a maximum of $467M ($1000M less $200M x2 less $133M = $467M).

But I doubt it's that much. My guess is that the price per kg for DC is similar to Orbital ATK which would mean that each DC flight would cost $283M ($250M x5000 kg / 4416 kg = $283M). 

But the biggest advantage of DC is that it allows NASA to reach their goal of upmass in 4 flights per year instead of 5. The T+3 hours cargo capability seems to have helped also.

[Lobo]

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!

I've been assuming that's SpaceX's plan, overall.
eliminate [in practice] F9E.  If a payload requires more than F9R, then they move it up to an FH-R3 (3 reusable boosters). 
Above than it gets moved to an FH-R2 (reusable outboard boosters with expendable central core).
Very few playloads will need more than that, but then they can move to the full FH-E.  Those will be big expensive payloads and can afford a fully expendable FH.

So if DC is too much for F9R, then FHR3 would be the bird to be looking at as a potential booster for it, as theoretically it should be cheaper than F9E.  So no need to be even looking at F9E.

[Lee Jay]

Both the RFI and RFP mention that NASA is purchasing services beyond upmass:

"The primary purpose of this Request For Information (RFI) is to inform industry of NASA’s resupply service requirements and to collect information on key parameters that would help NASA refine and mature the follow on acquisition plan for procuring safe, cost effective, timely, and reliable ISS research and cargo resupply, disposal, and return services. "

So, it would seem NASA is paying not just for upmass, but also for disposal and return.  DC is the only one of the three winning vehicles that can provide all three services on each mission, unless you count some of Dragon's downmass as disposal, in which case you have to be careful not to "double dip".

Combine that with more upmass, the ability to carry unpressurized cargo, docking+berthing capability and DC's advantages as a return vehicle over Dragon (low g, any time, rapid, land almost anywhere), and a DC mission might well have a lot more value to NASA than a single mission from either of the other suppliers, and thus be worth a higher price.  This higher price might only cost SNC in the form of a more powerful LV, and not so much more in operations, especially if the reuse doesn't require a lot of refurbishment.

[baldusi]

Both the RFI and RFP mention that NASA is purchasing services beyond upmass:

"The primary purpose of this Request For Information (RFI) is to inform industry of NASA’s resupply service requirements and to collect information on key parameters that would help NASA refine and mature the follow on acquisition plan for procuring safe, cost effective, timely, and reliable ISS research and cargo resupply, disposal, and return services. "

So, it would seem NASA is paying not just for upmass, but also for disposal and return.  DC is the only one of the three winning vehicles that can provide all three services on each mission, unless you count some of Dragon's downmass as disposal, in which case you have to be careful not to "double dip".

Combine that with more upmass, the ability to carry unpressurized cargo, docking+berthing capability and DC's advantages as a return vehicle over Dragon (low g, any time, rapid, land almost anywhere), and a DC mission might well have a lot more value to NASA than a single mission from either of the other suppliers, and thus be worth a higher price.  This higher price might only cost SNC in the form of a more powerful LV, and not so much more in operations, especially if the reuse doesn't require a lot of refurbishment.

DC can do pressurized return, pressurized disposal and unpressurized disposal. Dragon can do pressurized return and unpressurized disposal, but for bigger and heavier items. So there you have it. Not quite the same.
And by 2019 we will already know if Dragon can or can't do L+3hrs cargo return on the Cape.

[Jim]

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

It has more than 70 flights of history, just not recent.

[Zed_Noir]

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

It has more than 70 flights of history, just not recent.

IIRC the DEC have never flown on the Atlas V.

[rayleighscatter]

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

It has more than 70 flights of history, just not recent.

IIRC the DEC have never flown on the Atlas V.

But it will have before 2019.

[woods170]

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

It has more than 70 flights of history, just not recent.

IIRC the DEC have never flown on the Atlas V.

Correct and the new DEC (Centaur 5 DEC) is a much improved version of the older one. It's not like they are pulling some existing DEC's from storage. In other words, they are not pulling 70 flights of history from storage either.

[Lars-J]

So do we know which mission will be the first flight opportunity for DEC?

I'm guessing it is a race between the first CST-100 flight and the first Cargo DC flight, but ULA usually sets their schedule pretty far in advance.

[arachnitect]

So do we know which mission will be the first flight opportunity for DEC?

I'm guessing it is a race between the first CST-100 flight and the first Cargo DC flight, but ULA usually sets their schedule pretty far in advance.

CST-100 development would have to go completely off the rails to not be the first DEC. Uncrewed Flight Test in 2017.

Earliest DC would have a task order is 2019, and that's not guaranteed.

[Jim]

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

It has more than 70 flights of history, just not recent.

IIRC the DEC have never flown on the Atlas V.

And what does that matter? the two engines don't interface with the booster

[vapour_nudge]

The last DEC flew on an Atlas 3B about 10 years or so ago. Plenty of flights prior to that

[Newton_V]

I'll check tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure Atlas III flew 3 different Centaurs:

SEC (The longer, stretched Centaur III currently flying on Atlas V), referred to Atlas IIIA

1? DEC with the Centaur III, and 3 DEC with the shorter Centaur II from Atlas II, these were the Atlas IIIB.

It's sounds so confusing, maybe I have the A and B mixed up for Atlas III.

[Lars-J]

So do we know which mission will be the first flight opportunity for DEC?

I'm guessing it is a race between the first CST-100 flight and the first Cargo DC flight, but ULA usually sets their schedule pretty far in advance.

CST-100 development would have to go completely off the rails to not be the first DEC. Uncrewed Flight Test in 2017.

Earliest DC would have a task order is 2019, and that's not guaranteed.

Ok thanks. I guess I thought that DC might have an earlier date if they held on to the Crew DC launch opportunity they had booked prior to being down-selected. But you are right, I don't see how Cargo DC (or any DC) could be as far along as CST-100 is.

[Lars-J]

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

It has more than 70 flights of history, just not recent.

IIRC the DEC have never flown on the Atlas V.

And what does that matter? the two engines don't interface with the booster

I think the issue is more with the Centaur, not booster, that the DEC could develop a problem when flying for the first time in a new configuration. (for the modern Arlas V Centaur) It's not unheard of for new upper stages to have some teething issues.

[abaddon]

To bring this discussion back around, it started (I believe) when I asserted that the FH should have been a cheaper and similarly viable option for DreamChaser, as compared to the most expensive Atlas V ever.  It was then asserted that Atlas V has a great flight record and FH is unproven, which is true.  I asserted that Atlas V isn't proven either, with DEC as its upper stage, and that FH will very likely fly many times before 2019, which would reduce that risk.  Of course, DEC will also fly before DreamChaser uses it for CST-100.  But I was never saying FH was less risky, just a similar level of risk, meaning similar now (somewhat risky) and similar by the time DreamChaser flies (should not be risky for either).  So the FH being unproven now should not be a determining factor.

I think this is all pretty reasonable, of course reasonable people can disagree.  But I think like we're going in circles a bit here.