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

[Streetwind]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Why in the world is NASA paying for 3 payload suppliers? Does it need TRIPLE redundancy? (I know that both suppliers failed last year, them Progress, but ISS generally has enough supplies to last months.) I also doubt Dream Chaser will see too many flights, its payload capacity is pretty big.

Dreamchaser is guaranteed to get six or more flights. All of the winning companies are. Plus, the panel seemed rather taken with the low-G, rapid retrieval cargo return option and cited that there was increasing demand for such a thing.

And honestly, whether NASA pays for nine flights each from two different suppliers, or six flights each from three different suppliers, doesn't make a real difference. There was pressure to downselect hard on Commercial Crew, because that program involved actually developing the vehicle, which cost extra in addition to buying the launches. CRS-2, however, buys only launches on finished vehicles. Sierra Nevada is receiving no funding whatsoever for developing Dreamchaser - they're supposed to show up at the launchpad in 2019 with a finished and certified spacecraft, or they won't get any flights. As such, the number of providers is pretty irrelevant.

You may in fact have noticed that while politicians made loud cries for downselecting to one provider for Commercial Crew, nobody is crying for downselecting for Commercial Cargo at all, not even from three to two. And if the politicians aren't making a fuss, you know just how little it matters

[Dr.K Kerbal]

ARRGGH! Instead of putting in SpaceX dragon, I put in the SNC dream Chaser.

[Streetwind]

12 minutes ago, Dr.K Kerbal said:

I love Space x and my cousin works at Space x. I just have one question. When I download the spaceX Heavy lifters pack, none of the parts are there and there are supposed to be parts like 2.5 metre boosters and 75 metre fuel tanks and engines. I am starting to think that this is a problem I do when downloading like me not installing properly. Maybe the file does not completely install but I would like to ask you because when I looked up SpaceX, most of the comments had your profile picture in them. Yes. That is a fact.

So I would like to know why.

Dr. K Kerbal

This is about the wrongest possible place you could be asking this question in, without trying a thread that doesn't mention SpaceX at all

All KSP mods have their own thread here on the forums, and Google finds them pretty reliably - if they aren't linked directly from the download sources. That's the place where you should ask about installation issues.

[Dr.K Kerbal]

I have tried looking it up but cannot fid anywhere.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Streetwind said:

Dreamchaser is guaranteed to get six or more flights. All of the winning companies are. Plus, the panel seemed rather taken with the low-G, rapid retrieval cargo return option and cited that there was increasing demand for such a thing.

And honestly, whether NASA pays for nine flights each from two different suppliers, or six flights each from three different suppliers, doesn't make a real difference. There was pressure to downselect hard on Commercial Crew, because that program involved actually developing the vehicle, which cost extra in addition to buying the launches. CRS-2, however, buys only launches on finished vehicles. Sierra Nevada is receiving no funding whatsoever for developing Dreamchaser - they're supposed to show up at the launchpad in 2019 with a finished and certified spacecraft, or they won't get any flights. As such, the number of providers is pretty irrelevant.

You may in fact have noticed that while politicians made loud cries for downselecting to one provider for Commercial Crew, nobody is crying for downselecting for Commercial Cargo at all, not even from three to two. And if the politicians aren't making a fuss, you know just how little it matters

Ah. I would think the DOD would be more interested in precious cargo reentry, but too bad the Dream Chaser can't perform the CRV functions the HL-20 could do.

[Nibb31]

The DOD has zero interest in cargo resupply vehicles.

[fredinno]

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

The DOD has zero interest in cargo resupply vehicles.

*if it did.

[Rune]

Any spanish speakers here? I just posted about this in my mother language somewhere else, and could use a copy-paste to save time...

Anyhow, basically, SNC has pulled a win I totally didn't expect, as evidenced by my earlier comments. US station resupply is going to look pretty cute, what with such different vehicles... a capsule, a disposable cargo carrier, and a winged vehicle! But that aside... yeah, Dream Chaser is going to launch on a 552, that puts launch costs alone in the region of three times what SpaceX charges for a full resupply flight, Dragon included (rounding to ~100 million for a COTS flight vs ~300 million for an Atlas 552 launch). And they bring up less payload than Dragon, never mind Orbital. So yeah, right off the bat, they can expect to be about four or even five times more expensive per kg of payload, and I don't know how that would go with the accountants, frankly. They must have a very tight business case and some special concessions from NASA.

I'm sure it does help a lot that they can put it on top of an Arianne and have us euros pay for our station time that way. The cost to launch is going to be very similar in that case, but I'm sure we would be very happy to pay for station time with what would effectively amount to launch industry subsidies. And I'm sure Woerner is very happy indeed right now, SNC did exactly what he asked them to.

 

Rune. Man, hauling wings to orbit is a hell of an inefficient thing, right?

[Scotius]

Maybe NASA sneakily is attempting to get back to winged, reuseable orbital vehicles? Maybe they hope for extra data, and thus are willing to pony up more money for DreamChaser? One can only hope - i still miss Space Shuttle. Economically feasible or not, Shuttles were magnificent ships.

[EladDv]

17 minutes ago, Rune said:

Any spanish speakers here? I just posted about this in my mother language somewhere else, and could use a copy-paste to save time...

Anyhow, basically, SNC has pulled a win I totally didn't expect, as evidenced by my earlier comments. US station resupply is going to look pretty cute, what with such different vehicles... a capsule, a disposable cargo carrier, and a winged vehicle! But that aside... yeah, Dream Chaser is going to launch on a 552, that puts launch costs alone in the region of three times what SpaceX charges for a full resupply flight, Dragon included (rounding to ~100 million for a COTS flight vs ~300 million for an Atlas 552 launch). And they bring up less payload than Dragon, never mind Orbital. So yeah, right off the bat, they can expect to be about four or even five times more expensive per kg of payload, and I don't know how that would go with the accountants, frankly. They must have a very tight business case and some special concessions from NASA.

I'm sure it does help a lot that they can put it on top of an Arianne and have us euros pay for our station time that way. The cost to launch is going to be very similar in that case, but I'm sure we would be very happy to pay for station time with what would effectively amount to launch industry subsidies. And I'm sure Woerner is very happy indeed right now, SNC did exactly what he asked them to.

 

Rune. Man, hauling wings to orbit is a hell of an inefficient thing, right?

well seeing as they have the advantage of a more gentle landing g load profile it might be enough to justify if agencies want to get gentle and fragile experiments down from the ISS, also the ability to land on any conventional airport is a good reason too if you have time sensitive experiments to check on 

Edited January 17, 2016 by EladDv

[Mitchz95]

If somebody was badly injured on-orbit, how dangerous would a landing in a Soyuz or a Dragon be? A Dream Chaser might be the preferred option in those circumstances.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Mitchz95

[fredinno]

33 minutes ago, Mitchz95 said:

If somebody was badly injured on-orbit, how dangerous would a landing in a Soyuz or a Dragon be? A Dream Chaser might be the preferred option in those circumstances.

This one is not man-rated, sadly, but it could work if it was.

1 hour ago, Rune said:

Any spanish speakers here? I just posted about this in my mother language somewhere else, and could use a copy-paste to save time...

Anyhow, basically, SNC has pulled a win I totally didn't expect, as evidenced by my earlier comments. US station resupply is going to look pretty cute, what with such different vehicles... a capsule, a disposable cargo carrier, and a winged vehicle! But that aside... yeah, Dream Chaser is going to launch on a 552, that puts launch costs alone in the region of three times what SpaceX charges for a full resupply flight, Dragon included (rounding to ~100 million for a COTS flight vs ~300 million for an Atlas 552 launch). And they bring up less payload than Dragon, never mind Orbital. So yeah, right off the bat, they can expect to be about four or even five times more expensive per kg of payload, and I don't know how that would go with the accountants, frankly. They must have a very tight business case and some special concessions from NASA.

I'm sure it does help a lot that they can put it on top of an Arianne and have us euros pay for our station time that way. The cost to launch is going to be very similar in that case, but I'm sure we would be very happy to pay for station time with what would effectively amount to launch industry subsidies. And I'm sure Woerner is very happy indeed right now, SNC did exactly what he asked them to.

 

Rune. Man, hauling wings to orbit is a hell of an inefficient thing, right?

No, Dream Chaser Launches Five Tons of cargo, with a half a ton of unpressurized stuff. It can also dispose cargo and land almost 2 T. So, the costs are actually much lower than Rune states here.

 

And ESA already pays for ISS flights via Orion SM construction.

[Rune]

3 hours ago, EladDv said:

well seeing as they have the advantage of a more gentle landing g load profile it might be enough to justify if agencies want to get gentle and fragile experiments down from the ISS, also the ability to land on any conventional airport is a good reason too if you have time sensitive experiments to check on 

That is a reason to use this. Does it justify the extra cost? Well, that is the meat of the pudding, as they say. I contend that it doesn't, except as a niche capability that we don't need right now as much as a gazillion other things (reliable ECLSS, in-space engines for manned missions, fuel transfer and storage tech, advanced aerodynamic decelerators... the list is almost endless).

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

No, Dream Chaser Launches Five Tons of cargo, with a half a ton of unpressurized stuff. It can also dispose cargo and land almost 2 T. So, the costs are actually much lower than Rune states here.

Dragon can lift 3mT pressurized or unpressurized... in v1.1. Meaning v1.1 FT can lift substantially more, up to 6mT if the volume is maxed out. And in any case, you know perfectly well I'm still in the right order of magnitude... it will be perfectly fine to say that SpaceX's or Orbital's $/Kg figure will be a fraction of SNC's. Whether it's 1/5th or 1/3rd, I think is academic at this point.

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

And ESA already pays for ISS flights via Orion SM construction.

For now, but there are only two of those SMs on the books. What happens afterwards (2025 and onwards, after these contracts are over) is very much up in the air, and ESA's director general has clearly stated that he likes Dream Chaser on an Arianne, very much, provided he doesn't have to redesign the Arianne. And an EELV-certified Dream Chaser fits the bill perfectly.

 

Rune. In fact, I think he has already publicly stated his satisfaction with SNC's CRS-2 proposal.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Rune

[Ten Key]

This BBC article seems relevant to the discussion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35328544

[fredinno]

46 minutes ago, Rune said:

That is a reason to use this. Does it justify the extra cost? Well, that is the meat of the pudding, as they say. I contend that it doesn't, except as a niche capability that we don't need right now as much as a gazillion other things (reliable ECLSS, in-space engines for manned missions, fuel transfer and storage tech, advanced aerodynamic decelerators... the list is almost endless).

Dragon can lift 3mT pressurized or unpressurized... in v1.1. Meaning v1.1 FT can lift substantially more, up to 6mT if the volume is maxed out. And in any case, you know perfectly well I'm still in the right order of magnitude... it will be perfectly fine to say that SpaceX's or Orbital's $/Kg figure will be a fraction of SNC's. Whether it's 1/5th or 1/3rd, I think is academic at this point.

For now, but there are only two of those SMs on the books. What happens afterwards (2025 and onwards, after these contracts are over) is very much up in the air, and ESA's director general has clearly stated that he likes Dream Chaser on an Arianne, very much, provided he doesn't have to redesign the Arianne. And an EELV-certified Dream Chaser fits the bill perfectly.

 

Rune. In fact, I think he has already publicly stated his satisfaction with SNC's CRS-2 proposal.

'Meaning v1.1 FT can lift substantially more, up to 6mT if the volume is maxed out.'

Source? I know Dragon has an extended trunk version, but that only increases unpressurized capacity, and since usually far more pressurized is needed than unpressurized, Dragon's usefulness is more limited, even with a larger rocket, since the pressurized capacity is not any larger.

 

'For now, but there are only two of those SMs on the books. What happens afterwards (2025 and onwards, after these contracts are over) is very much up in the air, and ESA's director general has clearly stated that he likes Dream Chaser on an Arianne, very much, provided he doesn't have to redesign the Arianne. And an EELV-certified Dream Chaser fits the bill perfectly.'

Unless it is licensed to be made in Europe, not happening (if that's even possible). And the ISS is slated to retire by 2024, so unless it's extended to 2028, ESA is fine. Even if it did, it would be better to just make one more SM, and get those final 3 years of flights to the station.

[Nibb31]

The extent of the deal with ESA is that ESA is giving SNC one IDS docking adapter for it. These are expendable BTW. Any more will have to be purchased by SNC.

Cargo DC on Ariane might happen if SNC purchases flights, but ESA will never buy anything from SNC because it's against their policy to spend money in non-member countries.

Manned DC on Ariane will never happen, because Kourou is simply not equipped for manned spaceflight (they can launch Soyuz rockets from Kourou, but they can't process Soyuz or Progress spacecraft). Also because Ariane 5 is scheduled to be replaced by Ariane 6 so it makes no sense to man-rate it at this stage.

[Rune]

10 hours ago, fredinno said:

Source? I know Dragon has an extended trunk version, but that only increases unpressurized capacity, and since usually far more pressurized is needed than unpressurized, Dragon's usefulness is more limited, even with a larger rocket, since the pressurized capacity is not any larger.

Dragon's pressurized cargo capacity as advertised by SpaceX, which equals downmass, BTW, is around 3mT. Dragon's unpressurized payload is advertised as being the same. If you have enough lift capability on the booster, and F9FT has more than enough, I don't see why you can't load both the trunk and the capsule.

10 hours ago, fredinno said:

Unless it is licensed to be made in Europe, not happening (if that's even possible). And the ISS is slated to retire by 2024, so unless it's extended to 2028, ESA is fine. Even if it did, it would be better to just make one more SM, and get those final 3 years of flights to the station.

I don't mean that ESA would pay for the Dream Chaser, I mean that it can pay for the launcher. ISS will keep on flying until at least 2028, you can be sure of that. So much bureaucratic inertia, and nothing to replace it...

4 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

The extent of the deal with ESA is that ESA is giving SNC one IDS docking adapter for it. These are expendable BTW. Any more will have to be purchased by SNC.

Cargo DC on Ariane might happen if SNC purchases flights, but ESA will never buy anything from SNC because it's against their policy to spend money in non-member countries.

Manned DC on Ariane will never happen, because Kourou is simply not equipped for manned spaceflight (they can launch Soyuz rockets from Kourou, but they can't process Soyuz or Progress spacecraft). Also because Ariane 5 is scheduled to be replaced by Ariane 6 so it makes no sense to man-rate it at this stage.

Yup, so far it's only a Belgium company building docking adaptors for the ISS program. Never said anything to the contrary. I also didn't say anything of the other two things you mention, ESA buying DreamChasers or a manned version of Dream Chaser lifting off on an Arianne (that last one is frankly several kinds of impossible, considering no human-capable Dream Chaser will be built). What I claimed to be possible, in the future, is for ESA to pay for its ISS utilization hours by providing Ariannes to NASA to launch Dream Chasers, in order to resupply ISS in the post-2024 time frame. When you put it like that, it doesn't sound that crazy, right? Especially when the only new thing that has to happen is the CRS-2 contract running its course without any significant changes, and ISS being extended to 2028.

 

Rune. Add to that the recent "doubts" (i.e: whining) about European commitment to ISS, even to the 2020 date discussed formally right now, and you have a sweet deal to keep us happy until 2028.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Rune

[Nibb31]

Just now, Rune said:

What I claimed to be possible, in the future, is for ESA to pay for its ISS utilization hours by providing Ariannes to NASA to launch Dream Chasers, in order to resupply ISS in the post-2024 time frame. When you put it like that, it doesn't sound that crazy, right?

Not crazy, but not possible. NASA's contract with SNC covers the service of getting X amount cargo to the ISS for X dollars. Since SNC doesn't have its own launcher, SNC has to purchase a launch from a launch provider to fulfill its contract. The cost of that is incurred by SNC, not NASA, so there is no place for a barter agreement between NASA and ESA.

Just now, Rune said:

Rune. Add to that the recent "doubts" (i.e: whining) about European commitment to ISS, even to the 2020 date discussed formally right now, and you have a sweet deal to keep us happy until 2028.

It seems like ESA is running out of barter chips at this stage, unless NASA agrees to order a few more Orion SMs... Beyond that, there really isn't much use for ESA's ATV technology. I really wish ESA would come up with a program of its own, otherwise all that spacecraft technology is just going to waste.

[fredinno]

 

29 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Not crazy, but not possible. NASA's contract with SNC covers the service of getting X amount cargo to the ISS for X dollars. Since SNC doesn't have its own launcher, SNC has to purchase a launch from a launch provider to fulfill its contract. The cost of that is incurred by SNC, not NASA, so there is no place for a barter agreement between NASA and ESA.

It seems like ESA is running out of barter chips at this stage, unless NASA agrees to order a few more Orion SMs... Beyond that, there really isn't much use for ESA's ATV technology. I really wish ESA would come up with a program of its own, otherwise all that spacecraft technology is just going to waste.

"It seems like ESA is running out of barter chips at this stage, unless NASA agrees to order a few more Orion SMs... Beyond that, there really isn't much use for ESA's ATV technology. I really wish ESA would come up with a program of its own, otherwise all that spacecraft technology is just going to waste."

Nah. NASA probably will want at least a few more Orion SMs- 2 will be needed for EM-1 and EM-2, then 1 for ARM, and the rest for yet to be manifested missions- probably involving Lunar space stations.

46 minutes ago, Rune said:

Dragon's pressurized cargo capacity as advertised by SpaceX, which equals downmass, BTW, is around 3mT. Dragon's unpressurized payload is advertised as being the same. If you have enough lift capability on the booster, and F9FT has more than enough, I don't see why you can't load both the trunk and the capsule.

I don't mean that ESA would pay for the Dream Chaser, I mean that it can pay for the launcher. ISS will keep on flying until at least 2028, you can be sure of that. So much bureaucratic inertia, and nothing to replace it...

Yup, so far it's only a Belgium company building docking adaptors for the ISS program. Never said anything to the contrary. I also didn't say anything of the other two things you mention, ESA buying DreamChasers or a manned version of Dream Chaser lifting off on an Arianne (that last one is frankly several kinds of impossible, considering no human-capable Dream Chaser will be built). What I claimed to be possible, in the future, is for ESA to pay for its ISS utilization hours by providing Ariannes to NASA to launch Dream Chasers, in order to resupply ISS in the post-2024 time frame. When you put it like that, it doesn't sound that crazy, right? Especially when the only new thing that has to happen is the CRS-2 contract running its course without any significant changes, and ISS being extended to 2028.

 

Rune. Add to that the recent "doubts" (i.e: whining) about European commitment to ISS, even to the 2020 date discussed formally right now, and you have a sweet deal to keep us happy until 2028.

"Dragon's pressurized cargo capacity as advertised by SpaceX, which equals downmass, BTW, is around 3mT. Dragon's unpressurized payload is advertised as being the same. If you have enough lift capability on the booster, and F9FT has more than enough, I don't see why you can't load both the trunk and the capsule."

Sure you could. Only problem is that you would almost never get anywhere near needing 3T of unpressurized payload, or even 2T- a situation which will be worsened by the introduction of Dream Chaser. The capsule, not the Launcher, is the limiting factor, as the capsule contains most of the most useful cargo.

 

In practice, the max. Payload for Dragon is 3T + 1T of unpressurized cargo, if that unpressurized cargo space is needed.

[Rune]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Not crazy, but not possible. NASA's contract with SNC covers the service of getting X amount cargo to the ISS for X dollars. Since SNC doesn't have its own launcher, SNC has to purchase a launch from a launch provider to fulfill its contract. The cost of that is incurred by SNC, not NASA, so there is no place for a barter agreement between NASA and ESA.

Sigh, you still don't understand what I am saying. I am not referring to anything happening for as long as the CRS-2 contract runs. That clearer? It's the third time I say it... SNC launching on an Arianne V would not be a part of CRS-2, it would be a new contract negotiated in the 2020 timeframe, to cover at least a part of Europe's barter costs for the 2024-2028 timeframe. How is that not possible?

 

Rune. I think I was pretty clear on the timeline...

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, Rune said:

Rune. I think I was pretty clear on the timeline...

Ok! Got it

But in a hypothetical CRS-3 (2024-2028), that would still look something like a joint SNC/ESA proposal including a barter element, which would be competing against Orbital Cygnus, SpaceX and ULA...  I don't think it's likely to be acceptable in NASA's procurement process and would be considered unfair by the other proponents.

ISS partnership agreements between national government agencies and NASA's procurement for commercial services happen on very different and independent levels.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Nibb31

[Rune]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Ok! Got it

But in a hypothetical CRS-3 (2024-2028), that would still look something like a joint SNC/ESA proposal including a barter element, which would be competing against Orbital Cygnus, SpaceX and ULA...  I don't think it's likely to be acceptable in NASA's procurement process and would be considered unfair by the other proponents.

ISS partnership agreements between national government agencies and NASA's procurement for commercial services happen on very different and independent levels.

Yeah, it could never be sold as a CRS-3 contender. However, as something with a different contractual structure... European modules launched on Shuttle, after all, and Bigelow's BEAM is about to ride on SpaceX's Dragon. The DreamChasers could be contracted as "extraordinary cargo", outside of the CRS contract and sole-sourced like the rest of the station hardware, and the Arianne flights and integration be the barter agreement. Of course, I am the first one to acknowledge this would create some understandable flak from the other CRS providers. Then again, considering their launch costs, it may be the thing that keeps Dream Chaser flying after people realize just how expensive it is compared to the competition, and as you say Europe is running out of bargaining chips to barter. It should be politically pursued by at least Johann Woerner, going by recent comments he has made...

 

Rune. Note I am not advocating for this, or saying it's a given thing. I'm just predicting it might be advocated for, when the time comes.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Rune

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, Rune said:

Yeah, it could never be sold as a CRS-3 contender. However, as something with a different contractual structure... European modules launched on Shuttle, after all, and Bigelow's BEAM is about to ride on SpaceX's Dragon. The DreamChasers could be contracted as "extraordinary cargo", outside of the CRS contract and sole-sourced like the rest of the station hardware, and the Arianne flights and integration be the barter agreement. Of course, I am the first one to acknowledge this would create some understandable flak from the other CRS providers. Then again, considering their launch costs, it may be the thing that keeps Dream Chaser flying after people realize just how expensive it is compared to the competition, and as you say Europe is running out of bargaining chips to barter. It should be politically pursued by at least Johann Woerner, going by recent comments he has made...

 

Rune. Note I am not advocating for this, or saying it's a given thing. I'm just predicting it might be advocated for, when the time comes.

Why would NASA make a new CRS for 2024-2028 rather than extending CRS-2, which is likely cheaper (not to mention it wouldn't really be worth it for new enterents anyways.)

 

And ESA can just build a few more Orion SMs, then NASA puts those in storage for ARM and Lunar Space Station flights (only ARM is currently manifested, but still). Even if they still had no mission for them, doing so would still be worth it for NASA- not to mention we would not have to deal with the politics of ESA partnering with a foreign vehicle. Woerner says a lot of stuff that will never happen- like "The Moon Awakens" plans I posted about in an earlier thread.

[batman78781]

About the Dream Chaser, what do they have planned for an abort (launch, not in space)? I mean, part of the whole 'reusable vehicle' thing probably means they won't produce more than 2-3 vehicles  for the first 6 contracts, I'm guessing. They will also want to demonstrate what happens in the event of LV failure, right? ATK couldn't do anything about Antares, but SNC will probably compete for manned flight too. Dragon can do the fancy abort thing (I don't know if Dragon V1 cargo has dracos on it, but it might). I think SNC will need to compete with that. Even with the Atlas' perfect flight record, stuff could go wrong. Besides, if they move to manned flights w/o a proven aboard system...  Wait, they won't even get a manned contract w/o an abort system....  So yeah, what are your guys' thoughts on this? Manned flight will probably not be in a fairing, but the cargo requires it, so there needs to be a way to recover the ship if anything goes wrong, right? Aborting was always an issue with STS, so I'm curious as to what they come up with.

[Streetwind]

SNC has competed for manned flight already, and was not selected. They won't be competing for another round for quite a while. Also, cargo vessels don't get launch abort systems, because cargo isn't as valuable as human lives, and launch abort systems cost payload.

Mind you, someone who followed their Commercial Crew bid more closely than I did can probably tell you something about what they proposed in that...