Quote from: yg1968 on 06/24/2020 03:33 amOne of the interesting thing that was mentionned at 13-14 minutes of the podcast is that NASA intends to (soon) do away with the 14mt maximum requirement that was in the final RFP. Mark Wiese (Manager of NASA’s Gateway Deep Space Logistics) said that this requirement was there because they wanted to make sure that the PPE had enough power to control the stack. But he said that the fact that the Gateway logistic module only has to to stay one year at Gateway (as opposed to the 3 years which was the initial requirement in the draft RFP) and some additionnal studies by NASA related to power usage makes this requirement no longer necessary. The maximum of 14mt requirement is what prevented SpaceX from bidding Starship for Gateway logistic services.Does that mean SpaceX might go to NASA after the 14mt requirement is lifted and ask for a modification to their contract to sub in Starship? Any chance NASA would be receptive to that?
One of the interesting thing that was mentionned at 13-14 minutes of the podcast is that NASA intends to (soon) do away with the 14mt maximum requirement that was in the final RFP. Mark Wiese (Manager of NASA’s Gateway Deep Space Logistics) said that this requirement was there because they wanted to make sure that the PPE had enough power to control the stack. But he said that the fact that the Gateway logistic module only has to to stay one year at Gateway (as opposed to the 3 years which was the initial requirement in the draft RFP) and some additionnal studies by NASA related to power usage makes this requirement no longer necessary. The maximum of 14mt requirement is what prevented SpaceX from bidding Starship for Gateway logistic services.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/24/2020 06:17 amQuote from: yg1968 on 06/24/2020 03:33 amOne of the interesting thing that was mentionned at 13-14 minutes of the podcast is that NASA intends to (soon) do away with the 14mt maximum requirement that was in the final RFP. Mark Wiese (Manager of NASA’s Gateway Deep Space Logistics) said that this requirement was there because they wanted to make sure that the PPE had enough power to control the stack. But he said that the fact that the Gateway logistic module only has to to stay one year at Gateway (as opposed to the 3 years which was the initial requirement in the draft RFP) and some additionnal studies by NASA related to power usage makes this requirement no longer necessary. The maximum of 14mt requirement is what prevented SpaceX from bidding Starship for Gateway logistic services.Does that mean SpaceX might go to NASA after the 14mt requirement is lifted and ask for a modification to their contract to sub in Starship? Any chance NASA would be receptive to that?I would guess, that they are actually trying to get a plan to replace Dragon XL with Starship for a later date. I don't see them getting a Starship there in the timeframe that Dragon XL can. But they will have a plan about which milestones they would need to get for it to actually be considered.Also, this might be the point where they re-open the bidding process. You can not switch from Dragon XL to Starship and not get multiple complaints from the other offerors. But, if they wait until the new LV are operational, and Starship is somewhat proven, it will be a level playing field for all.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/24/2020 06:17 amQuote from: yg1968 on 06/24/2020 03:33 amOne of the interesting thing that was mentionned at 13-14 minutes of the podcast is that NASA intends to (soon) do away with the 14mt maximum requirement that was in the final RFP. Mark Wiese (Manager of NASA’s Gateway Deep Space Logistics) said that this requirement was there because they wanted to make sure that the PPE had enough power to control the stack. But he said that the fact that the Gateway logistic module only has to to stay one year at Gateway (as opposed to the 3 years which was the initial requirement in the draft RFP) and some additionnal studies by NASA related to power usage makes this requirement no longer necessary. The maximum of 14mt requirement is what prevented SpaceX from bidding Starship for Gateway logistic services.Does that mean SpaceX might go to NASA after the 14mt requirement is lifted and ask for a modification to their contract to sub in Starship? Any chance NASA would be receptive to that?They didn't say but I think that would be possible. The Global Logistics Services contract guarantees a minimum of two missions. So I am guessing that the first two missions would be Dragon XLs. But after that, who knows. In terms of new offerors, Mark Wiese mentionned during the podcast that they will only trigger the on-ramp clause if they see a change in circumstances which likely means if offerors come up with new capabilities.
1.6 Guaranteed MinimumThe guaranteed minimum value for any awarded contract is two missions. The minimum guarantee may be met at the Government’s discretion via a combination of orders. Each task order with a required delivery to Gateway constitutes one mission and will count towards the minimum guarantee; however, the minimum guarantee may also be met via a single order if it is for two separate missions with a minimum of two separate deliveries to the Gateway.When award is made off the initial solicitation, each Offeror may be awarded missions to meet their minimum guarantee without further competition since fair opportunity has already been given for the initial missions. In the event a provider is brought on via an on-ramp competition under clause 2.2.24, On-Ramp, they may be awarded their minimum guarantee through either the fair opportunity process as described in clause 2.2.18, Gateway Logistics Task Ordering Procedures, or under the fair opportunity exception at FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D).[/b]
SpaceX could just conduct a Starship shakedown flight to the Gateway on their own to demonstrated excessive cis-lunar logistics capability. If SpaceX have the Starship system online by then.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 06/24/2020 03:36 pmSpaceX could just conduct a Starship shakedown flight to the Gateway on their own to demonstrated excessive cis-lunar logistics capability. If SpaceX have the Starship system online by then.If they win HLS downselect, they'll conduct a Starship test flight to Gateway orbit as part of HLS, that can be used as GLS demo.
SpaceX gets milestones payments for building Dragon XLs. So I would expect them to build the first two. Dragon XLs could be launched by Starship as others have mentionned previously.
Quote from: yg1968 on 06/26/2020 05:18 amSpaceX gets milestones payments for building Dragon XLs. So I would expect them to build the first two. Dragon XLs could be launched by Starship as others have mentionned previously.Yeah, could be. But it depends on how much they get versus how much they have to spend to meet the milestones. With COTS and CCDev the contracts were supposed to be set up so that the development milestone payments only paid for part of the development, with the company chipping in part of the development costs, with the expectations of making it up later from the operational contracts. If that's the case with Dragon XL and SpaceX thinks they can do the job with Starship, which they'll already develop for other reasons, they might end up with more money in the end by just giving up the milestone payments. And even if the milestone payments are a net win for the company, it might be worth it to them to give up so they can put their people and facilities on other projects.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/26/2020 08:32 amQuote from: yg1968 on 06/26/2020 05:18 amSpaceX gets milestones payments for building Dragon XLs. So I would expect them to build the first two. Dragon XLs could be launched by Starship as others have mentionned previously.Yeah, could be. But it depends on how much they get versus how much they have to spend to meet the milestones. With COTS and CCDev the contracts were supposed to be set up so that the development milestone payments only paid for part of the development, with the company chipping in part of the development costs, with the expectations of making it up later from the operational contracts. If that's the case with Dragon XL and SpaceX thinks they can do the job with Starship, which they'll already develop for other reasons, they might end up with more money in the end by just giving up the milestone payments. And even if the milestone payments are a net win for the company, it might be worth it to them to give up so they can put their people and facilities on other projects.The Dragon XL will be built and fully developed. They have a contract for it and if you are a reputable business you deliver on your contracts.
Would it be a violation of the current contract if Dragon XL was dropped off at the edge of the gateway keep-out-sphere by Starship? It would seem to me that changes to the "booster" for the mission are not material changes to the contract if all other terms are met.
Quote from: groundbound on 06/26/2020 05:33 pmWould it be a violation of the current contract if Dragon XL was dropped off at the edge of the gateway keep-out-sphere by Starship? It would seem to me that changes to the "booster" for the mission are not material changes to the contract if all other terms are met.I don't know about a "violation", but there may be contract line items (CLIN) that are for "data deliverables" that include the launch and transit phases. So SpaceX could lose out on payment from those (likely not much).However if SpaceX wanted to change the method of delivery for the Dragon XL, and it results in the same ultimate services to NASA, then I don't think it would be a major effort to make the change.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/26/2020 05:49 pmQuote from: groundbound on 06/26/2020 05:33 pmWould it be a violation of the current contract if Dragon XL was dropped off at the edge of the gateway keep-out-sphere by Starship? It would seem to me that changes to the "booster" for the mission are not material changes to the contract if all other terms are met.I don't know about a "violation", but there may be contract line items (CLIN) that are for "data deliverables" that include the launch and transit phases. So SpaceX could lose out on payment from those (likely not much).However if SpaceX wanted to change the method of delivery for the Dragon XL, and it results in the same ultimate services to NASA, then I don't think it would be a major effort to make the change.Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that there are any contractual requirements for the Dragon XL to be delivered to space on a Falcon Heavy launch. It may very well be that NASA's expectations were a F9H launch, but, unless I'm wrong, it's not contractual. Therefore SpaceX could deliver DXL by whatever means it chooses, lofting it to space on a Starship and dropping the spacecraft off to make its own way to the Gateway from there.
Quote from: clongton on 06/27/2020 07:01 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 06/26/2020 05:49 pmQuote from: groundbound on 06/26/2020 05:33 pmWould it be a violation of the current contract if Dragon XL was dropped off at the edge of the gateway keep-out-sphere by Starship? It would seem to me that changes to the "booster" for the mission are not material changes to the contract if all other terms are met.I don't know about a "violation", but there may be contract line items (CLIN) that are for "data deliverables" that include the launch and transit phases. So SpaceX could lose out on payment from those (likely not much).However if SpaceX wanted to change the method of delivery for the Dragon XL, and it results in the same ultimate services to NASA, then I don't think it would be a major effort to make the change.Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that there are any contractual requirements for the Dragon XL to be delivered to space on a Falcon Heavy launch. It may very well be that NASA's expectations were a F9H launch, but, unless I'm wrong, it's not contractual. Therefore SpaceX could deliver DXL by whatever means it chooses, lofting it to space on a Starship and dropping the spacecraft off to make its own way to the Gateway from there.I would assume that they did specified a risk profile. Falcon Heavy has (or will) have Cat 3 certification. I would guess that could be an issue. But I don't know if the cargo will be Cat D, C or B. I remember that Dragon first took Cat D cargo until proven and started taking more sophisticated things like instruments and PMA (one of which blew up with CRS-7).
Quote from: baldusi on 06/27/2020 07:48 pmQuote from: clongton on 06/27/2020 07:01 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 06/26/2020 05:49 pmQuote from: groundbound on 06/26/2020 05:33 pmWould it be a violation of the current contract if Dragon XL was dropped off at the edge of the gateway keep-out-sphere by Starship? It would seem to me that changes to the "booster" for the mission are not material changes to the contract if all other terms are met.I don't know about a "violation", but there may be contract line items (CLIN) that are for "data deliverables" that include the launch and transit phases. So SpaceX could lose out on payment from those (likely not much).However if SpaceX wanted to change the method of delivery for the Dragon XL, and it results in the same ultimate services to NASA, then I don't think it would be a major effort to make the change.Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that there are any contractual requirements for the Dragon XL to be delivered to space on a Falcon Heavy launch. It may very well be that NASA's expectations were a F9H launch, but, unless I'm wrong, it's not contractual. Therefore SpaceX could deliver DXL by whatever means it chooses, lofting it to space on a Starship and dropping the spacecraft off to make its own way to the Gateway from there.I would assume that they did specified a risk profile. Falcon Heavy has (or will) have Cat 3 certification. I would guess that could be an issue. But I don't know if the cargo will be Cat D, C or B. I remember that Dragon first took Cat D cargo until proven and started taking more sophisticated things like instruments and PMA (one of which blew up with CRS-7).Per OIG, NASA "informally treated CRS-1 cargo as class D payloads". I think that Gateway cargo resupply would be the same, but haven't poked through the contract paperwork to see if there's any confirmation of that.
Good point. It's kind of hard to argue that it's OK to bring Starship from Earth to Gateway and then down to the lunar surface as a lander but somehow it can't can't bring supplies along on the Earth-to-Gateway leg.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/26/2020 04:15 amGood point. It's kind of hard to argue that it's OK to bring Starship from Earth to Gateway and then down to the lunar surface as a lander but somehow it can't can't bring supplies along on the Earth-to-Gateway leg. Not that hard to find an argument. There's likely to be expensive stuff on that Dragon, and NASA's perceived risk for loss of mission must be less than the original contract. Which means NASA must spend resources on certifying another vehicle.If the lunar lander fails to reach the moon, there's no equipment lost but the lander itself.
Initial certification of GLS requirements to include delivery of a logistics vehicle via Commercial Launch Vehicle (CLV) to Gateway, six month docked operations, and autonomous disposal. CLV shall have one successful flight of a common launch vehicle configuration before the Initial GLS mission. [...]Standard logistics service requirements needed after the Initial GLS mission to include delivery of a logistics vehicle via CLV to Gateway, six month docked operations, and autonomous disposal. CLV shall have one successful flight of a common launch vehicle configuration before each Standard GLS Missions. [...]Specialized logistic services for delivering other Gateway elements. CLV shall have three successful flights of a common launch vehicle configuration before each Specialized Delivery Mission.
Initial GLS Mission Payment Schedule1 ATP / Task Order Award 10% 2 System Requirements Review (SRR) 5%3 Preliminary Design Review (PDR) 5% 4 Critical Design Review (CDR) 10% 5 System Certification Review (SCR) 5% 6 Vehicle Baseline Review (VBR) 5% 7 Mission Integration Review (MIR) 10%8 Unpressurized Cargo Integration Review (if applicable) 5% 9 Pressurized Cargo Integration Review (PCIR) 5% 10 Flight Readiness Review (FRR) 15% Launch11 Delivery 15% 12 Six Months Operational Support 5% 13 End of Mission Review (EMR) 5%
Standard GLS Mission Payment Schedule (Basic/Accelerated)1 ATP / Task Order Award 10%/20% 2 Vehicle Baseline Review (VBR) 10%/15% 3 Mission Integration Review (MIR) 10%/10%4 Unpressurized Cargo Integration Review (if applicable) 10%/5% 5 Pressurized Cargo Integration Review (PCIR) 15%/10% 6 Flight Readiness Review (FRR) 20%/15%Launch7 Delivery 15%/15% 8 Six Months Operational Support 5%/5% 9 End of Mission Review (EMR) 5%/5%
