NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[Rocket Science]

I said this several years back... "selection is based on value" it's not always about cost...

[Hauerg]

If I read it correctly, all the CRS2 dragons will propulsively land at launch site.

[Star One]

I said this several years back... "selection is based on value" it's not always about cost...

Nail on head. DC offers things that the others don't. Plus it's being launched on a very reliable launcher.

[Hauerg]

I said this several years back... "selection is based on value" it's not always about cost...

Nail on head. DC offers things that the others don't. Plus it's being launched on a very reliable launcher.

Plus it should better have not a single failure.

[kevinof]

If I read it correctly, all the CRS2 dragons will propulsively land at launch site.

Huh? Cargo dragons don't have propulsive landing option unless it's about to change. Is this new?

[yg1968]

For CRS1, SpaceX was cheaper than Orbital for pressurized upmass. It is obvious that SpaceX increased their prices for CRS2.

How so? Orbital may have very significantly lowered theirs. Given higher mass per flight and fewer flights plus less abilities. Plus they may have felt they need to lower prices to get the contract at all.

The surprise is that the bid of Sierra Nevada is lowest. I cannot come up with a rationale for that.

Actually, you are right. Orbital's prices went significantly down. Their prices went from $95,000 per kg ($1.9B for 20mt) for CRS1 to either $53,000 per kg for Antares-Cygnus ($1.2B/22,500kg) or $56,604 per kg for Atlas-Cygnus ($1.5B/26,500kg) for CRS2.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21179.msg1477699#msg1477699

So I agree with you. The fact that Orbital ATK is cheaper isn't surprising because they are able to pack a lot in Cygnus but aren't returning any cargo.

DC brings back 1750 kg of downmass whereas Dragon1 can bring back at least 2500kg (possibly more) of pressurized downmass.

[yg1968]

Incidentally, the price comparaison is based on the following:

The evaluated price for each standard mission type and associated integration price was determined according to the following formula:

(CLIN 0002A ISS Integration Certification Base and Delta Price) + the sum of (CLIN 0001 Contract Years 2018-2024 NTE Standard Mission prices at 1/2 annual demand for pressurized upmass).

The RFP stated the annual total need for evaluation purposes is 15,000 kg for pressurized upmass and 2000 kg for only unpressurized upmass. For each proposed standard mission, the evaluation looked at the price for providing half of this annual total upmass (7500 kg pressurized, 1000 kg unpressurized) every year for 2018 through 2024 combined.

[Hauerg]

If I read it correctly, all the CRS2 dragons will propulsively land at launch site.

Huh? Cargo dragons don't have propulsive landing option unless it's about to change. Is this new?

Since Nasa states that the launch escape capability is unique to the SpaceX offer, yes, this has changed. If you have Superdracus for abort you might as well use them for landing. Building experience for the manned Dragon, AND getting paid for it.

[rpapo]

Building experience for the manned Dragon, AND getting paid for it.

You forget: according to the current schedules, Crew Dragon should be in service long before CRS2 actually starts, since CRS1 has quite a few flights left in it.  Beyond that, though, I agree, since they will probably not be using propulsive landing yet, and they should probably practice with Cargo returns first.

[kevinof]

If I read it correctly, all the CRS2 dragons will propulsively land at launch site.

Huh? Cargo dragons don't have propulsive landing option unless it's about to change. Is this new?

Since Nasa states that the launch escape capability is unique to the SpaceX offer, yes, this has changed. If you have Superdracus for abort you might as well use them for landing. Building experience for the manned Dragon, AND getting paid for it.

OK but cargo dragon doesn't have superdracos so that means the current dragon will be phased out/changed in favour of either the crewed version with a berthing adapter or a new cargo version with SD's.

[Hauerg]

If I read it correctly, all the CRS2 dragons will propulsively land at launch site.

Huh? Cargo dragons don't have propulsive landing option unless it's about to change. Is this new?

Since Nasa states that the launch escape capability is unique to the SpaceX offer, yes, this has changed. If you have Superdracus for abort you might as well use them for landing. Building experience for the manned Dragon, AND getting paid for it.

OK but cargo dragon doesn't have superdracos so that means the current dragon will be phased out/changed in favour of either the crewed version with a berthing adapter or a new cargo version with SD's.

Of course.

(I think SpaceX will try to make Crew and cargo version as similar as possible to simplify production)

[yg1968]

If I read it correctly, all the CRS2 dragons will propulsively land at launch site.

Huh? Cargo dragons don't have propulsive landing option unless it's about to change. Is this new?

Since Nasa states that the launch escape capability is unique to the SpaceX offer, yes, this has changed. If you have Superdracus for abort you might as well use them for landing. Building experience for the manned Dragon, AND getting paid for it.

OK but cargo dragon doesn't have superdracos so that means the current dragon will be phased out/changed in favour of either the crewed version with a berthing adapter or a new cargo version with SD's.

Neither option will be phased out. NASA has a choice between Dragon1 (which berths and lands in water) and Dragon2 (which docks and can land propulsively) for cargo. It's up to NASA to decide which one it wants. The price likely isn't the same for both versions.

[baldusi]

I wonder if the price issue was one of rounding problem. Both DC and Cygnus are able to do 7,500kg of pressurized with 2 missions. But SpaceX could need 3 missions. If they bid an average 180M/mission, that's 72k usd/kg. That's 30% above Cygnus.

[kevinof]

If I read it correctly, all the CRS2 dragons will propulsively land at launch site.

Huh? Cargo dragons don't have propulsive landing option unless it's about to change. Is this new?

Since Nasa states that the launch escape capability is unique to the SpaceX offer, yes, this has changed. If you have Superdracus for abort you might as well use them for landing. Building experience for the manned Dragon, AND getting paid for it.

OK but cargo dragon doesn't have superdracos so that means the current dragon will be phased out/changed in favour of either the crewed version with a berthing adapter or a new cargo version with SD's.

Neither option will be phased out. NASA has a choice between Dragon1 (which berths and lands in water) and Dragon2 (which docks and can land propulsively) for cargo. It's up to NASA to decide which one it wants. The price likely isn't the same for both versions.

According to Hauerg  ALL crs2 dragons will be propulsive so from 2017(?) or whenever crs2 kicks in, it's all Dragon2.

[Hauerg]

OK, here's the wording (page 17/22):
"SpaceX is the only launch system that provides an abort capability, which is important because it significantlyreducestheriskofcompletelossofpressurizedcargointheeventofalaunch failure. Thisisauniquecapability."
(from the ocr version, sorry no spaces).
Since there is no mention of it being optional or at extra cost, this might indeed mean an all-SD fleet.

[GreenShrike]

Since there is no mention of it being optional or at extra cost, this might indeed mean an all-SD fleet.

Or it may simply be the fact that the Dragon capsule has (regrettably) proven itself capable of surviving the destruction of its Falcon 9, even without a SuperDraco escape assist. CRS7 Dragon would have survived if it had deployed its parachutes, and Elon has said all post CRS7 Dragons will be programmed to pop chutes and save themselves upon catastrophic launch failure.

In similar circumstances, a Cygnus or a cargo DC with wings folded inside a fairing would be able to accomplish nothing but break up on impact.

There will still be "black" areas during early launch where simple parachutes wouldn't save Dragon but SDs would save Dragon2 (e.g. Falcon blowing up right at lift off), but any chance to save the pressurized cargo is better than the zero chance afforded by the non-Dragon vehicles.

[psloss]

Since there is no mention of it being optional or at extra cost, this might indeed mean an all-SD fleet.

As yg1968 noted, the source selection references "accelerated cargo return," which likely requires end of mission near KSC (either at the SLF or LZ-1).  A couple of quotes from Mr. Gerstenmaier's statement:

"However, I noted that for one of the two missions the accelerated cargo return is an option that would require additional cost."

"Sierra Nevada and SpaceX also provide accelerated return, although this is at additional cost for one of SpaceX’s two missions."

[Kryten]

Does anyone happen to have the source selection document/s for CRS1? I was trying to find them for comparison, but so far haven't been able to.

[woods170]

For CRS1, SpaceX was cheaper than Orbital for pressurized upmass. It is obvious that SpaceX increased their prices for CRS2.

How so? Orbital may have very significantly lowered theirs. Given higher mass per flight and fewer flights plus less abilities. Plus they may have felt they need to lower prices to get the contract at all.

The surprise is that the bid of Sierra Nevada is lowest. I cannot come up with a rationale for that.

Actually, you are right. Orbital's prices went significantly down. Their prices went from $95,000 per kg ($1.9B for 20mt) for CRS1 to either $53,000 per kg for Antares-Cygnus ($1.2B/22,500kg) or $56,604 per kg for Atlas-Cygnus ($1.5B/26,500kg) for CRS2.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21179.msg1477699#msg1477699

So I agree with you. The fact that Orbital ATK is cheaper isn't surprising because they are able to pack a lot in Cygnus but aren't returning any cargo.

DC brings back 1750 kg of downmass whereas Dragon1 can bring back at least 2500kg (possibly more) of pressurized downmass.

There is a very clear reason for SpaceX being more expensive than Orbital/ATK:

William Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations and the agency official who made the final decision on the CRS-2 awards, said the higher SpaceX costs for pressurized cargo delivery had to do with the production and size of the company’s Dragon spacecraft, which will also have a version carrying crew.

“Having two separate vehicles with separate production lines contributed to the prices, as well as the vehicle sizes which impact the cargo capacity and number of missions needed per year to deliver the required amount of upmass,” he wrote.

Cygnus has grown over the years. The current model packs a lot more kg's per launch than the original version. So, getting a given fixed amount of mass to orbit requires less launches and that has a tendency to drive down the overall cost figure for getting a fixed amount of mass to orbit.
We all know that Dragon (both 1 and 2) are volume limited. So, getting a given fixed amount of mass to orbit requires more launches when compared to Cygnus. So, on pressurized upmass alone (and that was in fact the only metric used to determine price competitiveness) Cygnus has the advantage of having the (much) larger upmass capacity.

[Robotbeat]

Right. And this need not generalize to overall an inferior cost performance. Having abort capability, having unpressurized up mass (and disposal) as wells as proven pressurized down mass helps a lot versus how things look if you have blinders on to see only cost performance of pressurized up mass.

Another point: using the same Dragon for crew and cargo has the advantage that you have a good chance of finding serious problems with the spacecraft on uncrewed flights instead of crewed flights where lives would be at stake.