Author Topic: COTS Q&A  (Read 15495 times)

Offline C5C6

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Córdoba - Argentina
    • programaespacial.com
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
COTS Q&A
« on: 08/30/2008 03:20 PM »
surprisingly, there's no COTS Q&A, really hope I'm not making any mistake...I'm opening its Q&A...

I'd like to start asking, after reading about this whole issue of US access to the ISS after 2010, with a possible shuttle extension...shouldn't COTS solve this, more exactly with Dragon and Falcon 9?? I feel like COTS is just a possibility, and that it may help in a future...but that its not certain...

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #1 on: 08/30/2008 06:27 PM »
So far NASA hasn't funded or deeply studied commercial crew access to the ISS.
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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #2 on: 08/30/2008 06:38 PM »
Maybe thread should be changed to Commercial ISS Support.  COTS is a specific program that only involves funding demos by OSC and Spacex. It is not ISS support.  There are OSC and Spacex COTS threads

CRS, Commercial Station Resupply, is a contract to provide cargo logistics to the ISS and anyone can bid on it.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2008 06:40 PM by Jim »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #3 on: 08/31/2008 01:29 PM »
Another variation on that would be a change to an all encompassing 'COTS/CRS (Commercial ISS support) Q&A' title to make sure there is absolutely no doubt what the thread is about ;).
« Last Edit: 08/31/2008 01:32 PM by marsavian »

Offline C5C6

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • Córdoba - Argentina
    • programaespacial.com
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #4 on: 08/31/2008 04:40 PM »
So far NASA hasn't funded or deeply studied commercial crew access to the ISS.
so Falcon 9 and Dragon are just a fantasy?? I thought they were serious projects with milestones and target dates...

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #5 on: 08/31/2008 04:52 PM »
For cargo not crew.
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 Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #6 on: 09/03/2008 07:44 AM »
So far NASA hasn't funded or deeply studied commercial crew access to the ISS.
so Falcon 9 and Dragon are just a fantasy?? I thought they were serious projects with milestones and target dates...

SpaceX included a COTS-Capability D (Crew launch and return) as an option in their COTS proposal, but NASA has not exercised that option at this stage, choosing to focus efforts and resources only on the development of a cargo delivery and return capability that could then, if successful, be in a position to bid for the ISS cargo service contract. To pursue the Capability D option, SpaceX proposed an additional $308 million, or there abouts (I'd have to look at their agreement with NASA to be sure) be provided by NASA, which would be the "seed money" they would use to attract other private investment. There is interest in the Congress right now (with language in both House-passed and Senate reported bills) in having NASA initiate COTS-D, either by exercising the SpaceX option of Falcon 9/Dragon or opening a new COTS-D competition, or both, as an effort to develop a US human-rated spaceflight capability, which might be one means of filling in the gap between shuttle and Orion/Ares.

Opinions differ widely on whether such an effort could be done, with the relatively small amount of resources that might be expected to be made available, in a timely enough manner to be of actual use during the gap between planned shuttle retirement in 2010 and expected/hoped Ares/Orion availability in 2015. But it is likely, if the Congress is able to enact a NASA Authorization bill this year, that it will include language to direct NASA to make a run at it anyway, and authorize the additional funds to get it started. For SpaceX, of course, the Falcon 9/Dragon combo IS a serious idea, and they would surely like to see NASA exercise the Capability D option as soon as possible.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Tnarg

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #7 on: 09/08/2009 10:54 AM »
Orbital's Cygnus spacecraft can carry up to 2000kg and has agreed to take 20 tons in 8 flights to the ISS
2000kg * 8 = 16T

SpaceX's Dragon can carry atlest 3600kg and have 12 flights planed to the ISS to take there 20 tons.
3600kg*12 = 43.2T  (they cant be planing to fail up to 50% of the time can they?)

I'm cleary missing somthing here or have got somthing very wrong.  Has wikipedia lied to me?

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #8 on: 09/08/2009 11:19 AM »
Orbital's Cygnus spacecraft can carry up to 2000kg and has agreed to take 20 tons in 8 flights to the ISS
2000kg * 8 = 16T

SpaceX's Dragon can carry atlest 3600kg and have 12 flights planed to the ISS to take there 20 tons.
3600kg*12 = 43.2T  (they cant be planing to fail up to 50% of the time can they?)

I'm cleary missing somthing here or have got somthing very wrong.  Has wikipedia lied to me?

CRS includes fixed price contracts for "a minimum of 20 tons of upmass cargo to the ISS." The value of the contracts can be adjusted when the upmass and actual delivery is determined.

Quote
WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded two contracts -- one to Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., and one to Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif. -- for commercial cargo resupply services to the International Space Station. At the time of award, NASA has ordered eight flights valued at about $1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $1.6 billion from SpaceX.

These fixed-price indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts will begin Jan. 1, 2009, and are effective through Dec. 31, 2016. The contracts each call for the delivery of a minimum of 20 metric tons of upmass cargo to the space station. The contracts also call for delivery of non-standard services in support of the cargo resupply, including analysis and special tasks as the government determines are necessary.

NASA has set production milestones and reviews on the contracts to monitor progress toward providing services. The maximum potential value of each contract is about $3.1 billion. Based on known requirements, the value of both contracts combined is projected at $3.5 billion.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/CRS-Announcement-Dec-08.html

According to Orbital, Cygnus can carry up to 2700kg per flight. At least this is what their original CRS announcement from December 2008 said.

http://www.orbital.com/HumanSpaceExplorationSystems/COTS/

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #9 on: 09/08/2009 12:03 PM »
I'm cleary missing somthing here or have got somthing very wrong.  Has wikipedia lied to me?

never use wikipedia for space info.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #10 on: 09/08/2009 12:11 PM »
It would be fairest to say COTS was funded and most of the money has already been paid out to SpaceX, Kistler (failed), and Orbital (picking up the rest of Kistler's award). CRS to SpaceX and Orbital begins after each has successfully made one flight to ISS (SpaceX is doing two prior test flights of Dragon, Orbital is going to ISS with first flight of Cygnus as far as I know). One thing to remember is, Dragon carries both pressurized (in the reentry capsule) and unpressurized (in the expendable "trunk), whereas Cygnus is one or the other, depending on whether it's equipped with the pressurized container or not, but not both. And their CRS contract was modified to specify all pressurized cargo.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3151
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 5137
  • Likes Given: 313
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #11 on: 09/08/2009 01:02 PM »
I'm cleary missing somthing here or have got somthing very wrong.  Has wikipedia lied to me?

never use wikipedia for space info.

The 2000kg numbers come from an Orbital document. Wikipedia articles always have a reference if they're serious. There's nothing wrong with using them as a source if you have the time to click on the reference link.
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Cygnus_fact.pdf
« Last Edit: 09/08/2009 01:05 PM by Nomadd »

Online Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #12 on: 09/08/2009 01:28 PM »
Space X is designing Dragon to carry a crew on the their own development dollars at this time.  I am very sure NASA will chip in some money pretty soon.  Space X is an excellent design team.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #13 on: 09/08/2009 02:21 PM »
I'm cleary missing somthing here or have got somthing very wrong.  Has wikipedia lied to me?

never use wikipedia for space info.

The 2000kg numbers come from an Orbital document. Wikipedia articles always have a reference if they're serious. There's nothing wrong with using them as a source if you have the time to click on the reference link.
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Cygnus_fact.pdf

Hence you aren't "using" wikipedia, you are using the reference.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #14 on: 09/08/2009 03:33 PM »
Space X is an excellent design team.

Until they grasp systems engineering, they will not achieve excellence.  They make no attempt to do so.
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 Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #15 on: 09/08/2009 03:38 PM »
What's the volume of the Cygnus PCM and Dragon?  These missions may not exercise the full capability of the Taurus 2 and Falcon 9 or achieve the stated mass capacity unless they're carrying lead - or PowerBars.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2009 03:38 PM by Antares »
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 William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #16 on: 09/08/2009 03:55 PM »
Space X is an excellent design team.

Until they grasp systems engineering, they will not achieve excellence.  They make no attempt to do so.

Name some other teams that have developed two liquid-fuel rocket engines, mounted them on the two stages of a liquid-fuel launch vehicle, and use the assembly to place a satellite in lwo earth orbit in the past ten years or so. When you're done with that very short list, start naming teams that have set out to do the same, have burned through some money, and then given up. That list will be a bit longer. My guess is, nonsensical spin aside, the divide between excellence and lack of it will be in the gap between the lists.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7504
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1725
  • Likes Given: 377
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #17 on: 09/08/2009 04:00 PM »
What's the volume of the Cygnus PCM and Dragon?

Cygnus is stated to have 18.7 m^3 while Dragon is stated to have 7 - 10 m^3 of pressurized volume. It's amazing how often the mass discrepancy question comes up, but how rarely someone thinks about available volume. Probably that old spaceflight mantra - "mass is everything".

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7504
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1725
  • Likes Given: 377
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #18 on: 09/08/2009 04:04 PM »
My guess is, nonsensical spin aside, the divide between excellence and lack of it will be in the gap between the lists.

I wish them all the best, but my own definition of excellence would be based on how long a successful track record they accomplish, how long Another-One-In-A-Row-Launch-Success they can maintain. Excellent teams have dozens of launches in their bag with no failures.

Online Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: COTS Q&A
« Reply #19 on: 09/08/2009 05:29 PM »
Space X is an excellent design team.

Until they grasp systems engineering, they will not achieve excellence.  They make no attempt to do so.

Please expain in more detail.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Tags: COTS