CRS-2 Contenders- Who do you think will get the contract?

[fredinno]

CRS-2 Contenders- Who (2 contractors) do you think will get the contract?

The CRS-2 contracts are (supposedly) to be awarded this year, Nov. 5. The contract covers resupply flights from 2017-2024. Who do you think will win the contracts for delivering ISS Cargo?

We don't know too much about the CRS-2 proposals, but here is what we do know:

CRS-1 Contractors bidding for CRS-2

SpaceX w/Dragon (unknown if V1 or V2): Proven, carries 3,310T total cargo (pressurized and unpressurized) on a Falcon 9. Probably cheaper due to Launch Vehicle, SpaceX, and already completed R&D. Schedule advantage, due to completed R&D. Capable of unpressurized cargo disposal, and 3.1T downmass.

OrbitalATK w/Cygnus Enhanced: Proven, Carries 3,200T (pressurized cargo only) on a Antares 200. Probably cheaper due to smaller, 7T to LEO launch vehicle, and already completed R&D. Schedule advantage, due to completed R&D. Capable of pressurized cargo disposal only.

CCDev Contractors bidding for CRS-2

SpaceX (Already covered)

Boeing w/ CST-100: Also human rated, development already complete for CCDev by time of CRS-2 missions. Unknown cargo capacity, probably pressurized cargo only. Launched on Vulcan or Atlas 422, 421, or 423, depending on extra fuel mass, cargo capacity, and other unknown factors (Boeing is an information void). Probably slightly cheaper due to already completed R&D, which also gives it a schedule advantage. Also capable of unknown amount of downmass.

Other Proposals:

Sierra Nevada w/ Cargo Dream Chaser: Launches on Atlas/Vulcan 425 (Or Ariane 5 ES), 5T pressurized cargo, 0.5T unpressurized cargo, 3.25T disposal cargo, and 1.75T downmass. Can berth OR dock, uses extra expendable cargo container w/ solar panels for cargo missions, and capable of low-G reentry. Expensive due to heavy LV, extra R&D required, but is an all-in one carrier w/ massive amounts of cargo capacity. Uses folded wings to fit into a 5 meter payload fairing, simplifying aerodynamics.

Eliminated proposals:

Lockheed Martin w/ Jupiter-Exoliner Space Tug: Launches on unknown Atlas V variant, only capable of unknown amount of pressurized upmass. Innovative, partially reusable system capable of cargo disposal. Ion drive space tug infrastructure fits with NASA's Mars and ARM ambitions, and could lead to a potential SLS-launched and serviced space tugs. Failed;.; (probably due to massive amount of R&D needed), but an excellent proposal for future technology demonstration missions. Unknown cost, based off ATV, MAVEN, and Juno spacecraft.

WHO WILL WIN? Choose 2 CRS winners in the poll.

I'm hoping for Dream Chaser and Dragon, or Cygnus and Dragon.

[Rakaydos]

SpaceX and Boeing.

[fredinno]

SpaceX and Boeing.

Why???

[Frozen_Heart]

I'd say SpaceX and Boeing. Both are proven to be capable of doing this so NASA is most likely to take the safe bet.

Orbital doesn't have as much of a history and so is more of a risk.

Dream Chaser cargo just takes the worst of both worlds and still requires a lot of R&D.

[_Augustus_]

SpaceX and Orbital, maybe Boeing too.

Jupiter and Exoliner are really for the EML2 station, and Dream Chaser is going to be flown by Europe regardless.

[Karriz]

While ESA does have some kind of a partnership with SNC, it doesn't seem like much is going on there yet. CRS-2 is Dream Chaser's best shot at actually getting to fly anytime soon.

Maybe NASA will take the risk and choose SNC, since it's just for cargo missions this time. But most likely it'll be SpaceX and Orbital, both of which have proven designs.

[Kryten]

While ESA does have some kind of a partnership with SNC, it doesn't seem like much is going on there yet.

It was a memorandum of understanding with the DLR, which isn't worth much more than the paper it's printed on. Certainly there's no way europe will pay the development costs of an american vehicle, when they could just do it themselves.

I vote Orbital and either SpaceX or Boeing. SpaceX and Boeing gets you a relatively restricted amount of cargo in return for two pressurised downmass providers; there's no need for more than one. Exoliner could fill the big vehicle niche too, but it's already pretty certain it's been removed.

[_Augustus_]

While ESA does have some kind of a partnership with SNC, it doesn't seem like much is going on there yet. CRS-2 is Dream Chaser's best shot at actually getting to fly anytime soon.

Maybe NASA will take the risk and choose SNC, since it's just for cargo missions this time. But most likely it'll be SpaceX and Orbital, both of which have proven designs.

Dream Chaser is gonna fly in September of next year on an Atlas V, in the manned configuration (but for an unmanned test). Also Europe has confirmed that Dream Chaser is flying manned on the Ariane 5 by 2020, most likely INSIDE a fairing..

[Mitchz95]

I think SpaceX is a no-brainer. Probably Boeing as well.

[Kryten]

Dream Chaser is gonna fly in September of next year on an Atlas V, in the manned configuration (but for an unmanned test). Also Europe has confirmed that Dream Chaser is flying manned on the Ariane 5 by 2020, most likely INSIDE a fairing..

This is nonsense. There's a good chance the Dream Chaser test will not happen, and if it is it won't be before late 2018. Your other point is wrong in a whole bunch of ways;

a) There is no european involvement in dreamchaser right now other than MOU's, DC on Ariane was just a concept

specifically, it was a concept for uncrewed cargo delivery

and most importantly

c) there are no contracted launches for dreamchaser on anything for anyone

[Rakaydos]

SpaceX is the right choice, Boeing is the conservative choice.

[fredinno]

SpaceX is the right choice, Boeing is the conservative choice.

You can choose 2 "right choices" you know....

I'm somewhat more impartical to Cygnus here due to its mass efficiency.

[Redjoker]

My opinions:

Dragon/Spacex: Sure to win. It has completed 6 launches of the V1, so no R&D needed. Also the V2 could be used for larger payloads with no extra R&D costs, since it is funded through CCDev. CRS-7 did fail and the Falcon 9 is expected to fly again by the end of 2015 and CRS-8 in early 2016.

Cygnus/OribitalATK: Has a decent chance of being selected. It has completed 3 of it's contracted missions and should resume flights on an Atlas V by the end of the year after the CRS-4 failure.

CST-100/Boeing: Has a decent chance and probably a better shot than the Cygnus. It doesn't need additional R&D funding, since it is funded through CCDev. Boeing has the advantage of being a long time government contractor and the Atlas V is highly reliable. The main disadvantage is probably cost. Since it is primarily a manned capsule it will likely have a higher cost than the dragon V1 or Cygnus and only has pressurized cargo space, although that is balanced by it's highly payload capacity.

Dream Chaser/Sierra Nevada: Least likely proposal. It will require funds for R&D that the others don't. It is the only applicant that doesn't have it's own LV and would be subject to the launch scheduling of another company. It does however have the advantage of the lifting body design that could be useful for transporting injured crew with lower Gs on reentry.

I think that the Dragon and CST-100 will be selected, although Cygnus has a decent shot at beating the CST-100.

[fredinno]

My opinions:

Dragon/Spacex: Sure to win. It has completed 6 launches of the V1, so no R&D needed. Also the V2 could be used for larger payloads with no extra R&D costs, since it is funded through CCDev. CRS-7 did fail and the Falcon 9 is expected to fly again by the end of 2015 and CRS-8 in early 2016.

Cygnus/OribitalATK: Has a decent chance of being selected. It has completed 3 of it's contracted missions and should resume flights on an Atlas V by the end of the year after the CRS-4 failure.

CST-100/Boeing: Has a decent chance and probably a better shot than the Cygnus. It doesn't need additional R&D funding, since it is funded through CCDev. Boeing has the advantage of being a long time government contractor and the Atlas V is highly reliable. The main disadvantage is probably cost. Since it is primarily a manned capsule it will likely have a higher cost than the dragon V1 or Cygnus and only has pressurized cargo space, although that is balanced by it's highly payload capacity.

Dream Chaser/Sierra Nevada: Least likely proposal. It will require funds for R&D that the others don't. It is the only applicant that doesn't have it's own LV and would be subject to the launch scheduling of another company. It does however have the advantage of the lifting body design that could be useful for transporting injured crew with lower Gs on reentry.

I think that the Dragon and CST-100 will be selected, although Cygnus has a decent shot at beating the CST-100.

Cygnus doesn't need R&D either. Also, Boeing and ULA are not the same company, though Boeing would get prefrential treatment, b/c Boeing is one of its parent companies. Also, I'm not sure we really need more than 1 capsule with downmass...

[Streetwind]

I'm going to agree with the majority here and say: SpaceX plus one of either Orbital ATK or Boeing. It's the logical decision. The only question remaining is what is more important to NASA... economies of scale for both commercial contract lines and a an extremely reliable launch vehicle for Boeing, or having a known supplier that offers double redundancy (due to the ability to stick Cygnus onto an Atlas V if necessary) and a better price. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised by either choice.

[fredinno]

I think I know why SNC calls their vehicle the Dream Chaser. It chases dreams... that never happen;.;

[Nibb31]

Dream Chaser is gonna fly in September of next year on an Atlas V, in the manned configuration (but for an unmanned test). Also Europe has confirmed that Dream Chaser is flying manned on the Ariane 5 by 2020, most likely INSIDE a fairing..

[Citation needed]

That's just a load of bull.

- First, what is "Europe"? There is ESA, Arianespace, the EU, etc...

- Second, ESA is not going to be buying a spacecraft from a US company. That would be counter-productive on so many levels. ESA receives money from its member countries and that money has to be spent proportionally in those countries. If they need something from another country, they use barter arrangements (like the JWST launch or the Orion SM).

- Third, there would be the point of developing a manned spaceflight infrastructure for Ariane 5 when Ariane 5 is being phased out and the ISS is reaching end-of-life.

Also, DC on Atlas V is not scheduled anywhere. It doesn't appear in any Atlas V launch manifest and it won't happen unless DC can start selling flights. DC is pretty much on life support at this stage, waiting for someone to pull the plug.

As for the CRS-2 contract, SpaceX is pretty certain. The second contender will be either Boeing or Cygnus.

I'm betting on Cygnus because it uses CBM berthing while CST-100 uses IDS docking. Cargo vehicles stay attached for months, so if it's attached to one of the two IDS adapters, then you lose redundancy in case there is a problem docking with one of them, or in case you need two crewed vehicles at the same time. Also, the CBM allows larger cargo, including ISPR racks that don't fit through an IDS port.

- - - Updated - - -

Dream Chaser/Sierra Nevada: Least likely proposal. It will require funds for R&D that the others don't. It is the only applicant that doesn't have it's own LV and would be subject to the launch scheduling of another company. It does however have the advantage of the lifting body design that could be useful for transporting injured crew with lower Gs on reentry.

This is for CRS-2, it will be a strictly unmanned vehicle with no life support.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Nibb31

[shynung]

I'm betting on Cygnus because it uses CBM berthing while CST-100 uses IDS docking. Cargo vehicles stay attached for months, so if it's attached to one of the two IDS adapters, then you lose redundancy in case there is a problem docking with one of them, or in case you need two crewed vehicles at the same time. Also, the CBM allows larger cargo, including ISPR racks that don't fit through an IDS port.

It's just a docking port. Boeing can simply bolt a CBM-compatible onto the CRS-2 CST, can they?

[fredinno]

It's just a docking port. Boeing can simply bolt a CBM-compatible onto the CRS-2 CST, can they?

Depends on the size of the upper part of the CST-100 where the dock port would go.

[Nibb31]

It's just a docking port. Boeing can simply bolt a CBM-compatible onto the CRS-2 CST, can they?

Not without completely redesigning the pressure vessel and all the upper compartment and aerodynamics. This includes the access tunnel, the parachute compartment, the fairing, and all the reentry flight dynamics. It would be a completely different spacecraft. The diameter of the IDS collar constrains the moldline of the vehicle.

This diagram shows the size difference:

This is also why SpaceX is sticking to Cargo Dragon for CRS-2 instead of proposing a cargo version of Crew Dragon.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Nibb31

[fredinno]

Not without completely redesigning the pressure vessel and all the upper compartment and aerodynamics. This includes the access tunnel, the parachute compartment, the fairing, and all the reentry flight dynamics. It would be a completely different spacecraft. The diameter of the IDS collar constrains the moldline of the vehicle.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/mbc_actionha/uploads/48693/original.jpg

This diagram shows the size difference:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/xindex.php,qaction=dlattach,3Btopic=23841.0,3Battach=972659,3Bimage.pagespeed.ic.5hI2gvnQix.jpg

This is also why SpaceX is sticking to Cargo Dragon for CRS-2 instead of proposing a cargo version of Crew Dragon.

I wonder if the Dragon V1 will also be set up with SuperDracos for landing....

Either way, SNC's proposal used a disposable pressure vessel that is capable of bething and docking- though this probably is not fully necessary.

I don't think it's a massive problem, Progress and Soyuz use the same docking mechanism, so maybe if SpaceX and Boeing are selected, they'll opt to adding another IDS adaptor, SpaceX will use Cargo V2 Dragon, and the extra berthing port will be used for HTV flights only.

[Streetwind]

I wonder if the Dragon V1 will also be set up with SuperDracos for landing...

Though we'll know for sure only after the CRS2 announcement... as of the current state of information, almost certainly no.

[cantab]

I reckon Cygnus and Dragon, same as before. The point about docking vs berthing operations is a good one.

But what I think is a real shame is that the European ATV isn't set to fly any more. It had over twice the payload capacity of the Dragon, even more vs the Cygnus, all pressurised, automated docking. And it could reboost the station which I don't think any of the American commercial projects can. Is there a reason other than money it got canned?

[prophet_01]

Cygnus an Dragon would be my prefered choice since they both offer innovative designs based on economic and efficient concepts. Boeing just doesn't seem to take the risks of trying a new approach or funding complex R&D efforts.

Still, Boeing has very good relations to the agencies and organisations in charge... My best guess is that they'll get a contract despite the technical and economic disadvantages of the CST-100 :/

[Nibb31]

I reckon Cygnus and Dragon, same as before. The point about docking vs berthing operations is a good one.

But what I think is a real shame is that the European ATV isn't set to fly any more. It had over twice the payload capacity of the Dragon, even more vs the Cygnus, all pressurised, automated docking. And it could reboost the station which I don't think any of the American commercial projects can. Is there a reason other than money it got canned?

It was a barter deal. ESA got seats on the ISS in exchange for 5 ATV flights. That arrangement was extended in exchange for 2 Orion SMs.

Note that the barter deal is with NASA, therefore NASA is now paying Russia to fly ESA astronauts on Soyuz. A rather bad deal for NASA really.

- - - Updated - - -

Cygnus an Dragon would be my prefered choice since they both offer innovative designs based on economic and efficient concepts. Boeing just doesn't seem to take the risks of trying a new approach or funding complex R&D efforts.

I don't know what you mean by that. CST-100 is completely new spacecraft with plenty of new technology and R&D. It's fully automatic, it has a pusher LES, it's reusable, and it lands on airbags, and I could go on...

My best guess is that they'll get a contract despite the technical and economic disadvantages of the CST-100 :/

I don't know what disadvantages you're talking about. Heck, America hasn't flown a new manned spacecraft since 1981, and now you're getting 3 of them. You should be excited.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Nibb31