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.
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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/17/2017 01:35 pmI am hoping that the new NASA admistrator will change things for the future (Nextstep) rounds of habitat development. You are wasting your wishes.
I am hoping that the new NASA admistrator will change things for the future (Nextstep) rounds of habitat development.
Quote from: Jim on 08/17/2017 02:46 pmQuote 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.That certainly seems to be the case but it's unfortunate given how succesfull it was in terms of bang for the buck.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/17/2017 07:14 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/17/2017 02:46 pmQuote 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.That certainly seems to be the case but it's unfortunate given how succesfull it was in terms of bang for the buck.It was a unique case
And if the U.S. Government truly wants to do more in space, without Congress having to spend more, then COTS could be a viable method to accomplish that, since the private sector wants to do more in space too.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/17/2017 07:54 pmAnd if the U.S. Government truly wants to do more in space, without Congress having to spend more, then COTS could be a viable method to accomplish that, since the private sector wants to do more in space too.As far as manned space, there is no more.
COTS isn't a model that is available for every procurement. It isn't a procurement system, in the first place. It is a development model. There are no future manned system developments that can use it.
It has to be a system or services that NASA is going to buy multiple times and that have commercial applications.
Quote from: Jim on 08/17/2017 09:16 pmCOTS isn't a model that is available for every procurement. It isn't a procurement system, in the first place. It is a development model. There are no future manned system developments that can use it....that we know of today.All we know is what has happened in the past, not even you knows what's going to happen in the future, and all I've been saying is that the experiences we had with COTS, CCP, and even the government-owned SLS and Orion, will help us to decide what the best route will be when/if NASA is tasked to do more HSF in space.QuoteIt has to be a system or services that NASA is going to buy multiple times and that have commercial applications.Of course. Not sure why you think this is a point of contention. It's not.
COTS isn't a model that is available for every procurement. It isn't a procurement system, in the first place. It is a development model. There are no future manned system developments that can use it. It has to be a system or services that NASA is going to buy multiple times and that have commercial applications.
NASA isn't going to buy more than one...
...and how would a commercial company do a development and test program?
Build a couple of modules and fly them in LEO for a year before going into production. Who commercially is going to use these modules.
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.
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.No, it is not a open nebulous process. 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 has to a system/service that will be procured maybe 7-15 times or so. It isn't for a one, two or three of a kind procurement. For example, COTS would not work on an X-37 type project. There are only two of them.
Sounds like the perfect formula for an exploration-class rocket.
Habitat procurement for each project going to be years/decades apart. Not enough to stimulate a commercial market.