|
daver
|
|
« Reply #2595 on: 02/18/2009 12:41 PM » |
|
A tour of Spacex from Feb. 17th. Is the canopy for Dragon or could they be building something else? http://talesoftheheliosphere.blogspot.com/2009/02/spacex-facility-tour.htmlClip "Three young men were working on something in the tent. A peek into the tent revealed some kind of fabricated panel that looked very much like a canopy for a jet. Who knows, perhaps it's something to do with Dragon?"
|
|
|
|
William Barton
|
|
« Reply #2596 on: 02/18/2009 12:48 PM » |
|
The COTS paradigm does seem like a way to do a C.O.D. space program. Of course, if it doesn't work out, that will amount to an illusion. But if it does, it suggests ways out of the endless budget bloat that bids fair to make VSE yet another stillborn program.
|
|
|
|
jongoff
|
|
« Reply #2597 on: 02/18/2009 04:10 PM » |
|
So far Space X has only succesfully lauched one Falcon 1 rocket. It seems risky to give them COTS-D funding at this point. Am I wrong in thinking this?
Of course spacex should not receive a single dollar of funding for COTS-D before a successful falcon 9 flight. But you could easily make a contract with them for COTS-D that has a successful falcon 9 flight as a first milestone and that offers no money before.
That way it would not cost you anything if spacex does not deliver. But spacex would find it much easier to secure additional investment.
By the way: one should really keep the costs in perspective. The entire COTS contract so far has cost less than that useless PR stunt called Ares-1X.
This is exactly right. The cool part about COTS, especially done right is that the government doesn't end up paying a lot of money unless the COTS contractor is actually making progress on their contract. If SpaceX had a COTS-D contract, and didn't deliver, they wouldn't get paid. As opposed to Ares-1, which will continue to suck billions of dollars a year in resources whether or not the turkey ever flies. ~Jon
|
|
|
|
HMXHMX
|
|
« Reply #2598 on: 02/18/2009 05:15 PM » |
|
So far Space X has only succesfully lauched one Falcon 1 rocket. It seems risky to give them COTS-D funding at this point. Am I wrong in thinking this?
Of course spacex should not receive a single dollar of funding for COTS-D before a successful falcon 9 flight. But you could easily make a contract with them for COTS-D that has a successful falcon 9 flight as a first milestone and that offers no money before.
That way it would not cost you anything if spacex does not deliver. But spacex would find it much easier to secure additional investment.
By the way: one should really keep the costs in perspective. The entire COTS contract so far has cost less than that useless PR stunt called Ares-1X.
This is exactly right. The cool part about COTS, especially done right is that the government doesn't end up paying a lot of money unless the COTS contractor is actually making progress on their contract. If SpaceX had a COTS-D contract, and didn't deliver, they wouldn't get paid. As opposed to Ares-1, which will continue to suck billions of dollars a year in resources whether or not the turkey ever flies.
~Jon
Jon, you are right that milestone-based contracts are the proper way to conduct these sort of developments. That's why David Gump and I first proposed them to NASA for the "program that later become known as COTS" in December of 2004 as part of the CE&R contracts. I felt it was the only answer to the persistent argument that small company couldn't do anything. If there were hardware deliverables, then progress could be unambiguously gauged, and payment made. Regrettably, however, the NASA Administrator changed, and the new occupant of the office ignored my key maxim: with the exception of the kickoff payment (needed to prime the pump) all subsequent payments must be tied to hardware in some way. Demonstration, deliverable, test, etc. To date, there have been no hardware deliverables for any COTS contractor, which means NASA has been paying for paper, once again. In the end, I don't see how paying for SSRs, PDRs, CDRs and such is any different than conventional FFP or CPFF/CPIF contracting, except there is less oversight of the contractor by the government. The companies end up becoming ordinary government contractors, not what we were hoping for. We will see how that all turns out shortly, as both SpaceX and Orbital attempt and hopefully successfully accomplish first flights.
|
|
|
|
dunderwood
|
|
« Reply #2599 on: 02/18/2009 06:26 PM » |
|
To date, there have been no hardware deliverables for any COTS contractor, which means NASA has been paying for paper, once again. I was under the impression that many of the COTS milestones involved hardware testing deadlines. It's not exactly hardware delivered to customers, but it's a bit more than just paper.
|
|
|
|
NUAETIUS
|
|
« Reply #2600 on: 02/18/2009 07:25 PM » |
|
Interview with Elon Musk by the Planetary Society, about 25 minutes of audio http://www.planetary.org/radio/show/00000328/Mr Kaplan mentioned the Falcan Lunar capacity PDF on the SpaceX website. Mr Musk sounded confused for a second and says "I didn't realize it was on the website". I go to look at the website and the link now gives the 404 Not found. But he is right, it was there, here is the Google cache. [PDF] Lunar Capability Guide – SCM 2008‐005a P a g e | i Copyright 2008 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Falcon 1e launch services are currently being contracted with capacity ... SpaceX currently supports lunar‐bound launches from both the facilities at the ... www.spacex.com/FalconLunarCapabilityGuide.pdf - Similar pages - Anyone download a copy of it before who ever posted that jewel got written up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
jongoff
|
|
« Reply #2602 on: 02/18/2009 08:27 PM » |
|
Jon, you are right that milestone-based contracts are the proper way to conduct these sort of developments. That's why David Gump and I first proposed them to NASA for the "program that later become known as COTS" in December of 2004 as part of the CE&R contracts. I have a copy of the final presentation you made (there on my desktop at work with the other CE&R final presentations), but not of the reports themselves. Does t/Space have those up anywhere? I felt it was the only answer to the persistent argument that small company couldn't do anything. If there were hardware deliverables, then progress could be unambiguously gauged, and payment made.
Regrettably, however, the NASA Administrator changed, and the new occupant of the office ignored my key maxim: with the exception of the kickoff payment (needed to prime the pump) all subsequent payments must be tied to hardware in some way. Demonstration, deliverable, test, etc. To date, there have been no hardware deliverables for any COTS contractor, which means NASA has been paying for paper, once again. In the end, I don't see how paying for SSRs, PDRs, CDRs and such is any different than conventional FFP or CPFF/CPIF contracting, except there is less oversight of the contractor by the government. The companies end up becoming ordinary government contractors, not what we were hoping for. I definitely agree with your concern. Of course, NASA also added other changes to the COTS paradigm--requiring a lot of "skin in the game" from the provider as well. That may have forced them to a contract that allowed payments for more "soft" milestones, in order to make the investment cases close. But I really like the pay only on hardware milestone approach. Even for dealing with bigger primes on more traditional projects. Make things more hands-off on the unwanted engineering meddling side, but make payments contingent on meeting actual hardware milestones and demonstrations. We will see how that all turns out shortly, as both SpaceX and Orbital attempt and hopefully successfully accomplish first flights. Yeah, I'm not really worried about SpaceX becoming just like another big government contractor per se. But I am worried that if they suffer a snag or two, that the whole idea of milestone based contracts to smaller players will become discredited. ~Jon
|
|
|
|
HMXHMX
|
|
« Reply #2603 on: 02/19/2009 12:59 AM » |
|
Jon, you are right that milestone-based contracts are the proper way to conduct these sort of developments. That's why David Gump and I first proposed them to NASA for the "program that later become known as COTS" in December of 2004 as part of the CE&R contracts.
I have a copy of the final presentation you made (there on my desktop at work with the other CE&R final presentations), but not of the reports themselves. Does t/Space have those up anywhere?
...
~Jon
I don't think so. Most of those discussions were private and never posted anyway.
|
|
|
|
HMXHMX
|
|
« Reply #2604 on: 02/19/2009 01:02 AM » |
|
To date, there have been no hardware deliverables for any COTS contractor, which means NASA has been paying for paper, once again.
I was under the impression that many of the COTS milestones involved hardware testing deadlines. It's not exactly hardware delivered to customers, but it's a bit more than just paper.
The only ones that are connected to any hardware would be the actual flight demonstrations (AFAIK). By then, essentially all the money is spent, so it is a little late to be learning that there's something amiss, if there is.
|
|
|
|
jongoff
|
|
« Reply #2605 on: 02/19/2009 01:55 AM » |
|
To date, there have been no hardware deliverables for any COTS contractor, which means NASA has been paying for paper, once again.
I was under the impression that many of the COTS milestones involved hardware testing deadlines. It's not exactly hardware delivered to customers, but it's a bit more than just paper.
The only ones that are connected to any hardware would be the actual flight demonstrations (AFAIK). By then, essentially all the money is spent, so it is a little late to be learning that there's something amiss, if there is.
But Gary, if it passes a NASA PDR/CDR, isn't it guaranteed to succeed? I mean--just look at Ares-I! ~Jon
|
|
|
|
Antares
|
|
« Reply #2606 on: 02/19/2009 07:40 AM » |
|
But Gary, if it passes a NASA PDR/CDR, isn't it guaranteed to succeed? I mean--just look at Ares-I! FBOFW, these are not NASA PDRs and CDRs. They are whatever the COTS partners define as PDRs and CDRs. The NASA RID writers have to complain they aren't up to snuff, then NASA management has to grow some and not pay the milestone. But now that I think about it in perspective against the Ares 1 PDR, maybe the two definitions are closer than we thought.
|
|
|
|
Ben the Space Brit
|
|
« Reply #2607 on: 02/19/2009 10:27 AM » |
|
Mr Kaplan mentioned the Falcan Lunar capacity PDF on the SpaceX website. Mr Musk sounded confused for a second and says "I didn't realize it was on the website". I go to look at the website and the link now gives the 404 Not found. But he is right, it was there, here is the Google cache.
(snip)
Very interesting. That suggests that the proposal PDF either wasn't authorised for release yet. Possibly it was a 'thought experiment' conducted by engineering and released by marketing without consultation. That suggests that it did not have the correct or the current numbers. This doesn't mean that F-9 and F-9H (if the latter ever enters service) wouldn't have a theoretical lunar range capability. It is just that Space-X isn't willing to commit itself to performance predictions yet. I also think that someone at Space-X's HQ has just been hauled over the coals. 
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #2608 on: 02/19/2009 01:03 PM » |
|
Very interesting. That suggests that the proposal PDF either wasn't authorised for release yet. Possibly it was a 'thought experiment' conducted by engineering and released by marketing without consultation. That suggests that it did not have the correct or the current numbers.
This doesn't mean that F-9 and F-9H (if the latter ever enters service) wouldn't have a theoretical lunar range capability. It is just that Space-X isn't willing to commit itself to performance predictions yet.
The document was only about the Falcon 1's lunar capabilities and not the 9. The F1 standard user's guide only discusses LEO missions and not high energy missions. This document filled the gap. The F9 is for higher energy orbits and hence has lunar capability. The information that is available on the F9 can be used to figure lunar capabilites
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #2609 on: 02/19/2009 01:10 PM » |
|
The document was only about the Falcon 1's lunar capabilities and not the 9. The F1 standard user's guide only discusses LEO missions and not high energy missions. This document filled the gap. The F9 is for higher energy orbits and hence has lunar capability. The information that is available on the F9 can be used to figure lunar capabilites
Actually, the Lunar Capacity guide covered the F9 as well. IIRC, something like 1900 kg to TLI was quoted for F9 Block 1 and 1200 kg to a typical Mars injection. Can't check now since the doc is at my home computer. The F9 payload planners guide isn't available yet so those were the only TLI figures officially available for F9 up until now.
|
|
|
|
