COTS I ReAward Final Cut Poll

[marsavian]

Place your bets Gentlemen for the Feb 7th decision day. If you feel it might be a combination feel free to add that option or just multi-vote.

[david_zz_smith]

Aren't Andrews Space, Orbital and Planet Space all planning on using new, Delta II class rockets?  What is the biggest useful payload this could carry?  1 T?  2 T?  We're talking on the order of 10 flights to satisfy the ISS requirements every year.  Does NASA really want that kind of orbital ballet going on?  Does anyone think that is going to be particularly cost effective?

[jongoff]

I put down SpaceHab (though I would've preferred Loral/CSI had they made it).  I don't know if Orbital is planning on using an existing booster or not, but at least SpaceHab is.   I give them slightly higher chance of pulling things off than the other three finalists.

~Jon

[edkyle99]

david_zz_smith - 18/1/2008  6:50 PM

Aren't Andrews Space, Orbital and Planet Space all planning on using new, Delta II class rockets?  What is the biggest useful payload this could carry?  1 T?  2 T?  We're talking on the order of 10 flights to satisfy the ISS requirements every year.  Does NASA really want that kind of orbital ballet going on?  Does anyone think that is going to be particularly cost effective?

It has to be 2 tonnes or more, which is roughly what Russia's Progress hauls now, quite regularly and reliably.  Four times last year.  Twenty seven times altogether so far.  More than 60 tonnes of cargo hauled up altogether (about 34 maxed out Ford F-150 cargo load's worth).  

Progress is the unsung workhorse of human space flight.  A noble steed indeed.

There is an argument to be made in favor of smaller, Progress-type payload increments.  Smaller means more flexibility in case of troubles - quicker response in case a certain spare part is needed on ISS, for example.  It means more frequent shipments of perishables like fresh fruits, etc.    It means less trouble if a launch fails.

 - Ed Kyle

[Rocket Girl]

The problem with SpaceHab is that they are proposing to use an EELV – they start at $125M.  I’d rather see Orbital or somebody else develop a Delta II size launcher which could also be used for NASA Science.  

Unlike the others, Orbital HAS developed several successful rockets.  Orbital won’t be “reinventing the wheel” so to speak.

I also think that when the dust settles, the number of COTS flights to ISS will be down to 2 or 3 a year with a Delta II size launcher, less if on an EELV.  Remember when the Shuttle was going to fly every week?

Also, PlanetSpace is really ATK.  They used Planet Space to save face in case they do not win.  If they win, they will buy PSpace (for a bit less than what they paid for MDA, I guess…)

[Norm Hartnett]

Arctus on Atlas.

They’ll win COTS II also, even before SpaceX completes their COTS I milestones.

[Smoothie]

Rocket Girl - 18/1/2008  12:38 PM
Also, PlanetSpace is really ATK.  They used Planet Space to save face in case they do not win.  If they win, they will buy PSpace (for a bit less than what they paid for MDA, I guess…)

I highly doubt it.  What is your basis for that plan?  COTS appears to only be a part of what PlanetSpace plans to eventually do.  The Point to Point flight system using that FDL-7 design appears to be a big part of their future.

I think NASA will split the money between two companies.  It does seem like the safe move.

[Chris Bergin]

Can't vote (some strange software thingy about being moderator status ) but SPACEHAB's a big favorite.

There's a BIG twist coming with one or two of the others next week, I'm told. Standby

[marsavian]

Rocket Girl - 18/1/2008  11:38 PM

The problem with SpaceHab is that they are proposing to use an EELV – they start at $125M.  I’d rather see Orbital or somebody else develop a Delta II size launcher which could also be used for NASA Science.  

ARCTUS is also compatible with Falcon 9 which is supposedly much cheaper

[wannamoonbase]

Chris Bergin - 19/1/2008  4:55 AM

Can't vote (some strange software thingy about being moderator status ) but SPACEHAB's a big favorite.

There's a BIG twist coming with one or two of the others next week, I'm told. Standby

There you go again Chris.  Your such a tease.  :laugh:

I am picking SpaceHAB as well.  I think they have a good team, existing and proven subsystems and using an established launch vehicle add alot.

[Antares]

EELV could be sold at marginal cost only, to help drive market.  That might help the $125M price.

Spacehab is the only one that doesn't require a new booster, not that the others couldn't swallow their pride and launch their newly developed pod on an EELV.  Taurus II would be synergistic as a Delta 2 replacement.

Question: which companies have the most to gain from site visits, one-on-one, face-to-face?

[clongton]

I voted SpaceDev DreamChaser on an Atlas-V, because I see the need as being 2-fold:

1. Personnel transport. The Congress is NOT going to want to change the ICNP restriction “again”, to allow the US to purchase rides on the Soyuz. DreamChaser can be ready, with the proper funding, to all but eliminate the “gap” and take on the roll of crew rotation. Atlas can certainly be ready.

2. Small cargo – as Ed said - is key to the flexibility for the ISS role. DreamChaser can bring more or less the same amount of cargo to ISS as Progress. In addition, it has the ability to return down-cargo as well. Flying more often than currently being done in support of ISS would drive the cost of each Atlas-V launch down, making the price per launch more attractive. Driving down that launch cost is one of the major goals in the creation of ULA.

In Round 1, SpaceDev was a very close third, losing to RpK only on complexity grounds. RpK wanted to build a launch vehicle, while SpaceDev wanted to build a spacecraft that would fly on an existing EELV. Spacecraft are always more complicated than launchers, and while SpaceDev was in a little better financial position than RpK, NASA went with less complexity. In hindsight, that was probably a mistake, because what NASA is going to need, regardless of who it gets it from, is manned access to LEO/ISS. We can either beg Congress to let us buy it from the Russians, or we can fly our astronauts on an American spacecraft. Hindsight tells me at least, that the 2 COTS awards should have been divided between a launcher and a spacecraft, covering both needs.

LM has already done the preliminary analysis and has publicly stated that there are no problems with flying DreamChaser on the Atlas. It fits, and with COTS funding, can become reality in reasonably short order, certainly in time enough to cover the gap, post-Shuttle.

[marsavian]

For those voting Spacedev/t-Space just a reminder that they are not thought to have made the final cut ...

http://www.space.com/news/080118-nasa-cots-finalists.html

[simonbp]

I'm going to take a risk and say Orbital; SpaceHab seems the obvious (because they've been advertising their idea so much), but the (frankly outrageous) cost of the Atlas V will probably doom them.

Orbital has a cheap, very plausible launch vehicle and proven record of satellite development. I don't think anyone else in the competition can claim that...

Simon

[Antares]

Name one paper rocket that isn't cheap, though I do agree that Orbital has a proven development record.