Author Topic: COTS III-VI alternative  (Read 5220 times)

Offline cpcjr

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
COTS III-VI alternative
« on: 06/20/2008 04:38 PM »
I would like to get some discussion on the feasibility of COST being expanded to include the Moon.

We have COST I  Cargo to ISS.
               COST II Crew to ISS.
Lets add:
      COST III Cargo to Moon
      COST IV Crew to Moon.

Option 1. Parallel to Ares I/V
Option 2. Parallel to Direct.
Option 3. No Ares, No Direct, No Orion.

Option 3 three has the advantage of allowing more funding for all four COST levels.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2008 05:35 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31535
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9893
  • Likes Given: 308
Re: COTS III-VI alternative.
« Reply #1 on: 06/20/2008 04:43 PM »
There is no COTS II.  Crew to ISS is part of COTS I (it is phase D)

« Last Edit: 06/20/2008 05:35 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: COTS III-VI alternative.
« Reply #2 on: 06/20/2008 04:44 PM »
If your COTS 4 will become reality someday, it will be pointless for NASA to use or develop their own spacecraft anymore, when they can just buy them. I guess it will be a good thing.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2008 05:36 PM by Chris Bergin »

Online nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 163
Re: COTS III-VI alternative.
« Reply #3 on: 06/20/2008 04:51 PM »
Eerie, you forget crew to Mars ;)
« Last Edit: 06/20/2008 05:36 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: COTS III-VI alternative.
« Reply #4 on: 06/20/2008 04:53 PM »
If your COTS 4 will become reality someday, it will be pointless for NASA to use or develop their own spacecraft anymore, when they can just buy them. I guess it will be a good thing.

The VSE subtitle is "Moon, Mars and Beyond".  All for 16 billion dollars (not seperating it out further to just exploration dollars) a year?  Hardly.

Eventually, the moon base, etc will need to be turned over to private enterprise for us to take the next step.  Just as you are beginning to see the first steps in that with regards to LEO. 

The way this whole thing should work is NASA leads with commercial enterprise in mind for eventual handover to private ops so that we can move on to the next destination. 
« Last Edit: 06/20/2008 05:36 PM by Chris Bergin »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: COTS III-VI alternative.
« Reply #5 on: 06/20/2008 05:09 PM »
The VSE subtitle is "Moon, Mars and Beyond".  All for 16 billion dollars (not seperating it out further to just exploration dollars) a year?  Hardly.

I wasn`t aware the goal of VSE is doing Moon and Mars (what is Beyond, btw? NEOs? Ceres?) at the same time.

But I think the basic idea is that as you develop further, your prices drop. Not to mention the fact than US economy grows over time, so even the relative size of the Apollo program would be smaller today.

Quote
Eventually, the moon base, etc will need to be turned over to private enterprise for us to take the next step.  Just as you are beginning to see the first steps in that with regards to LEO. 

I was merely talking about contracting spacecraft, not about private enterprise doing something in space by themselves. When something worthwhile will be discovered on the Moon, private enterprise will come there with or without NASA`s help. It is the way market works.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2008 05:36 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: COTS III-VI alternative.
« Reply #6 on: 06/20/2008 05:18 PM »
The VSE subtitle is "Moon, Mars and Beyond".  All for 16 billion dollars (not seperating it out further to just exploration dollars) a year?  Hardly.

I wasn`t aware the goal of VSE is doing Moon and Mars (what is Beyond, btw? NEOs? Ceres?) at the same time.

But I think the basic idea is that as you develop further, your prices drop. Not to mention the fact than US economy grows over time, so even the relative size of the Apollo program would be smaller today.

Quote
Eventually, the moon base, etc will need to be turned over to private enterprise for us to take the next step.  Just as you are beginning to see the first steps in that with regards to LEO. 

I was merely talking about contracting spacecraft, not about private enterprise doing something in space by themselves. When something worthwhile will be discovered on the Moon, private enterprise will come there with or without NASA`s help. It is the way market works.

On not knowing what the VSE is truely about....that's sad.  Score one for the PR/marketing guys.  Beyond is just what is sounds like.....it's a big universe. 

On the second point.  Why?  If doing it correctly from the get go private enterprise will want to come where the capital for doing it alone may not be available initially.  Hence NASA goes first with the ultimate goal of turning over operations.  Some of the places we will go in this solar system will eventually lead to commercial/private applications so why not have them in mind from the start?
« Last Edit: 06/20/2008 05:37 PM by Chris Bergin »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: COTS III-VI alternative.
« Reply #7 on: 06/20/2008 05:32 PM »
Quote
On not knowing what the VSE is truely about....that's sad.  Score one for the PR/marketing guys.  Beyond is just what is sounds like.....it's a big universe. 

It`s a big universe indeed, much bigger than your budget.

OV-106, private enterprise want to make profit. That`s the only goal and the definition of the private enterprise.

Since private enterprise don`t have enough money, or don`t want to risk the money, to do space research by themselves in search of profits, they won`t do nothing until someone else discover the way to make profit in space for them. So there is no need for NASA to actually invite private enterprise to come with them. NASA is doing the equivalent of fundamental science. Let them do it.

I was talking about something else. Contracting spacecraft is a way for private enterprise to make profit from NASA`s budget, not from space. It simply may lead to more efficient designs of spacecrafts.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2008 05:37 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: COTS III-VI alternative
« Reply #8 on: 06/20/2008 05:37 PM »
Thread and post titles fixed.

Offline cpcjr

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: COTS III-VI alternative.
« Reply #9 on: 06/20/2008 06:20 PM »
There is no COTS II.  Crew to ISS is part of COTS I (it is phase D)



OK Make crew to moon phase E and Cargo to Moon phase F. COTS II was used else where.


Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22355
  • Liked: 647
  • Likes Given: 252
Re: COTS III-VI alternative.
« Reply #10 on: 06/22/2008 12:24 AM »
There is no COTS II.  Crew to ISS is part of COTS I (it is phase D)



OK Make crew to moon phase E and Cargo to Moon phase F. COTS II was used else where.


Id rather that Phase D was funded than having an amendment tacked on without any money.
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5194
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: COTS III-VI alternative
« Reply #11 on: 06/23/2008 09:52 PM »
HELLO?  Business case?!!  That's the only reason COTS and CRS (may) work.

As long as we're talking semantics, it's Capability D.  Phases were the nomenclature when the COTS concept first came out of HQ studies.  These were abandoned when Phase II became CRS and an ISS Program procurement.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline simonbp

Re: COTS III-VI alternative
« Reply #12 on: 06/24/2008 12:24 AM »
I can distinctly recall a NASA presentation on the lunar outpost mentioning commercial resupply, so someone is considering it...

Really, like ISS, the real mark opportunity is logistical resupply, as it requires a lot of smaller launches (rather than a few big, like construction flights) and doesn't have the huge safety requirements of crewed flights...

Simon ;)
« Last Edit: 06/24/2008 12:25 AM by simonbp »

Tags: Moon alternative. COTS