Quote from: Jim on 08/18/2017 01:57 amHabitat procurement for each project going to be years/decades apart. Not enough to stimulate a commercial market.The market would be to rent out the habitats not to build them. But that doesn't work if NASA makes the inside of the habitat (ECLSS, etc.) governmental as it currently intends to do it. I hope that changes.
Habitat procurement for each project going to be years/decades apart. Not enough to stimulate a commercial market.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/18/2017 02:25 amIt depends of course, but certainly there were many that said COTS could not work, and yet it did. So let's not be pre-bound by the past.COTS was to help develop a system that will have gov't and commercial uses. And then have a procurement that buys multiple "copies" of the system. COTS is not just giving out money and letting the contractor work open loop.
It depends of course, but certainly there were many that said COTS could not work, and yet it did. So let's not be pre-bound by the past.
It has to a system/service that will be procured maybe 7-15 times or so.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/17/2017 01:35 pmBut I admit that I have the same concerns as you that they will end up following the CCtCap model for habitats and not the COTS model. COTS is a dead model. It was unique that it was to develop capabilities not just for the government. COTS monies were used for and paid for Falcon 9 development. Commercial use of Antares has yet to happen.Unless a capability has potential to be used by others or have a long term NASA procurement and will have the commercial partners putting in some skin, COTS is not a viable contracting mechanism. Also, COTS flowed into CRS contract for services, just as CCtCap is flowing into CCP services.For habitats, COTS type procurement is a no go.A. COTS tested spacecraft and launch vehicles over 2-3 flights. Is that going to happen with a habitat?B. The follow on to COTS was CRS. How would COTS development of habitats flow into a procurement "habitat" services. This is not the same as a commercial space station where NASA could by time on one or rent one. It doesn't work when a habitat is going to be part of a station that is still managed by NASA.Service contracts are great and NASA should be using more of them. COTS contracts have limited applicability and there are few places that they fit in.
But I admit that I have the same concerns as you that they will end up following the CCtCap model for habitats and not the COTS model.
but they had a much more safe and reliable system.
\I cannot see any reason why the COTS model cannot be used for all cargo deliveries to NASA outposts from here on out.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 08/24/2017 05:35 pm but they had a much more safe and reliable system. No, not true. they had the same number of fatal accidents.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 08/24/2017 05:35 pm\I cannot see any reason why the COTS model cannot be used for all cargo deliveries to NASA outposts from here on out. Not happening for a decade at least.
Sure if you go back far enough, but they have not had an fatal accident since 1971. It has flown 100s of times since then. Many more times than the Shuttle.
Sure if you go back far enough, but they have not had an fatal accident since 1971. It has flown 100s of times since then. Many more times than the Shuttle. There is a good reason why the US decided to rely on the Soyuz as the only means of manned transport to the ISS without any backup. It pretty much is the epitome of launch reliability.
Quote from: DarkenedOne on 08/24/2017 06:06 pmSure if you go back far enough, but they have not had an fatal accident since 1971. It has flown 100s of times since then. Many more times than the Shuttle. There is a good reason why the US decided to rely on the Soyuz as the only means of manned transport to the ISS without any backup. It pretty much is the epitome of launch reliability. Let's not forget though that there would be no ISS (at least in its current form) without Shuttle. It certainly had unique capabilities that the Russian system did not.
Commercial crew has no reason to not be as safe as they can make it. They will not get contracts or have a business case if they were not safe.
Quote from: spacenut on 08/30/2017 07:45 pmCommercial crew has no reason to not be as safe as they can make it. They will not get contracts or have a business case if they were not safe.I would caution you very strongly on these statements. Spaceflight is still very dangerous. It's safer than it used to be, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking it's "safe" according to a typical understanding of that word.
The safest spacecraft is the one that never flies.
Everything else is a trade.
I think spacenut was just pointing out the obvious - that if potential customers perceive a provider is not being as safe as they can, then they won't be a preferred option.
Not that Commercial Crew providers will wait until they have eliminated all potential risk.
It's all about market perception, but that perception is based on what customers perceive, not what providers what to project.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/09/2017 10:30 pmI think spacenut was just pointing out the obvious - that if potential customers perceive a provider is not being as safe as they can, then they won't be a preferred option.Huh? Surely there's concerns other than "safety". Ya know, like price and availability?
Quote from: Coastal RonNot that Commercial Crew providers will wait until they have eliminated all potential risk.Then what the hell are they waiting for?
Quote from: Coastal RonIt's all about market perception, but that perception is based on what customers perceive, not what providers what to project.What customers?
I really doubt the commercial customers who have contracted SpaceX to fly them around the Moon have "living a safe life" as their top priority.
I really doubt they chose SpaceX over the Russians on the grounds of safety.
There's much more important considerations - like actually being able to make a deal and stick to it with legal recourse if the provider keeps changing things and threatening to take someone else instead of you - a behaviour for which the Russians are renowned. Not to mention the cabbage for every meal during training.
Valid points all, but I don't think that was as big of a factor. YMMV of course.