ISS Cargo Competition Ramps Up
A new space race emerges as NASA prepares to award contract to ferry supplies to space station, Washington Post
“Lugging groceries and supplies to the astronauts on the International Space Station may not be as cool as ferrying the astronauts themselves into orbit. But the NASA contract to fly cargo to the station in unmanned rocket ships has attracted bids from high-profile companies in what analysts say is another indication of commercial spaceflight’s recent renaissance. It appears that at least five space firms have submitted proposals for the work, including giants such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which didn’t bother to bid on the work the last time. In a new sort of space race, the contract has touched off an intense competition between stalwart defense contractors and new space start-ups that have, in just a few years, shown they can compete.”
Idly speculating, I suspect that the Lock-Mart system will be similar to the US/Ukranian/Russian/Italian Cygnus/Antares Or the ESA ATV.
Lockheed-Martin contracted a modified ESA service module from the ATV to be the Orion Service module. It would be a no brainer to re-add the Italian cargo canister (either small like on the Cygnus, or large like on the ATV.
Pop that on a LH Atlas V, and you have a low-risk entrant.
Plus, it should be able to do ISS re-boosts.
Still, this is only Orbitals to lose. The award will pick the two contenders, for backup, that are both lowest cost and most likely to deliver. SpaceX should easily hold on to one of these slots by that criteria, at $133M per delivery run per the award back in 2008. The Orbital slot was awarded initially at an average of $237.5M per flight. With a little inflation since that award, put the amount today at about $250 to $300M. For anyone to come in with an Atlas the max amount to cost for the carrier/spacecraft portion can then be derived. An Atlas 401 cost NASA $187M back in a 2010 award (MAVEN), launched in 2013. Round that off to $200M today, leaving the spacecraft having to come in at $100M or so. That’s going to be a challenge, for Boeing or Lockmart, especially as the award will probably not grant brownie points for taking more cargo per flight nor total, up to a limit.
Plus if they really toss in the hidden fees that “Atlas 401 (at a) cost NASA $187M back in a 2010 award ” would have to add in an extra $100mill or so for its share of the $1bill Readiness junk fee the gov hands out to ULA annually.
But, I’m sure they won’t count it.
In any event, I’m sure the Atlas costs ULA much less than the amount they are gouging the taxpayers for.
Looks like I got it two thirds correct. The atlas, duh, and the Italian cargo canister. Instead of the ESA service module, they are using the MAVEN mars bus as the service module. Very clever!
“In a new sort of space race, the contract has touched off an intense competition between stalwart defence contractors and new space start-ups that have, in just a few years, shown they can compete.“
More importantly, have left said ‘stalwart defence contractors’ wondering if they are still able to compete. I particularly draw the reader’s attention to AJR’s recent large-scale lay-offs.
We’re going to see Darwin-in-Action.
Adapt or die.
The more competition the better.
Yale. Lock-Mart expensive?
They’re definitely not wal-mart. I suspect lock-mart wiill cost more than the other competitors combined (except) Boeing, thus assuring them a contract. NASA equates high cost with quality.
Yep, costs a lot to produce all those powerpoints 🙂 but at least they have a vehicle. You’d have thought NASA, DoD, et al would have learnt that lower cost doesn’t necessarily equate to low quality but then again there’s all those pollies to pay!
Cheers
With the vigor that American industry is bringing to the table, NASA should just competitively bid out their entire heavy lift space transportation need.
Imagine what creative industry rivalry Orbital/ATK, ULA and SpaceX would exhibit 2015+.
Reminds me of the awesome industry response to NASA’s Pre-Griffin CEV competition a decade ago…
NASA was necessary to do the pioneering. It is now well understood how to get to and live in space from a zone extending from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon and for durations of years for humans, and to the edge of the solar system for robots.
Time to get out of the way and unleash the power of enterprising individuals and companies.
“It is now well understood how to get to and live in space from a zone extending from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon and for durations of years for humans, and to the edge of the solar system for robots”
That is a remarkable statement. True and remarkable all the same.
When I was a kid we were slamming brave souls around on rocket-powered sleds. Smart people opined our body would not be able to pass food and water from mouth to anus without gravity.
How far we have come. Thanks for the perspective.
I recall the concern that astronauts when asleep would be terrorized by a sensation of falling.
And there still are unknowns like the eye damage some astronauts have suffered and how to really stop bone loss. What is all that radiation doing? What happens with a child conceived and born in weightlessness?
It’d be nice if they could throw Dream Chaser a bone! That way we get something for our investment to date, the era of the spaceplane isn’t completely dead, and Sierra Nevada wouldn’t have to worry about the complexities of launch abort capability and crew accomodations.
Boeing is offering a CST-100 with crew and abort hardware removed:
http://aviationweek.com/spa…
Without the abort engines they will have a trunk like Dragon
Video:
http://www.space.com/28818-…
Full Story the the Lock-Mart entry:
http://aviationweek.com/spa…