COTS Award Announcement Thread

[SpaceAdmin]

Congrats to Orbital for winning COTS 1.5.

I think you all know I was a SPAB fan, but that was because I refused to accept Jim's notion that COTS I was about launchers (because it wasn't in the requirements). Having said that, I now see why NASA picked Orbital. It's a great proposal that fills their launch gap.

However, I dare say that their win has little to do with Cygnus as it's appears to be Capability A and B only, with no planned development of C or D. The industry may come away with a great new launcher, but I can't see Cygnus being the clear winner for COTS II (which is about cargo).

I don't really think that ISS can operationally support a cargo delivery rate of 8 launches per year. That's a lot of traffic to ISS. Perhaps I just don't understand, but it seems more practical to combine capabilities (A, B, C) and get the flight rate down to 4 or less.

[vt_hokie]

Hmm, can't quite read the tail number, though I suspect I wouldn't know the answer anyway!

[TrueGrit]

Congrats on Orbital and their team.
Looks like a very promissing proposal.
Now comes the fun part, good luck, see ya out there.
Well maybe...  If you ever launch out of Florida or out West.

[aero313]

antonioe - 20/2/2008  10:19 AM

vt_hokie - 20/2/2008 8:31 AM Hehe...whatever works! Practicality aside, though, I was always partial to this Orbital design! Congrats on the COTS award!

OSP Trivia question #17:  what is the "tail number" in the picture, and what is its meaning?  If the number ends up being unreadable, I can post a picture from a different angle.

Note: aero313, you are not allowed to participate in this contest.

Geeze, Antonio, with my eyes these days I can't even read it.   :laugh:

By the way, congrats.  The proposal team was top notch.

[Lee Jay]

antonioe - 20/2/2008  8:19 AM

vt_hokie - 20/2/2008 8:31 AM Hehe...whatever works! Practicality aside, though, I was always partial to this Orbital design! Congrats on the COTS award!

OSP Trivia question #17:  what is the "tail number" in the picture, and what is its meaning?  If the number ends up being unreadable, I can post a picture from a different angle.

Note: aero313, you are not allowed to participate in this contest.

The number is 02139.  I have no idea of its meaning.

[gvo1000]

02139 - your alma mater's zip code?

[antonioe]

gvo1000 - 20/2/2008 11:53 AM 02139 - your alma mater's zip code?

Bingo!  Of course, the non-MIT-ers in the team retaliated by changing it to "20166" on the next round of graphics.

[ShuttleDiscovery]

So what's happening to SPACEX? They were chosen as the original COTS company with RPK. Do SPACEX now have to scrap all their plans to make way for Orbital?

[Jim]

ShuttleDiscovery - 20/2/2008  1:13 PM

So what's happening to SPACEX? They were chosen as the original COTS company with RPK. Do SPACEX now have to scrap all their plans to make way for Orbital?

Spacex is not affected by this, they continue what they were doing

[marsavian]

Can anyone remind me what historical Delta II prices were before they took off recently ?

[vt_hokie]

antonioe - 20/2/2008  12:55 PM

gvo1000 - 20/2/2008 11:53 AM 02139 - your alma mater's zip code?

Bingo!  Of course, the non-MIT-ers in the team retaliated by changing it to "20166" on the next round of graphics.

Haha...nice!  Would've taken me a while to guess that!   :laugh:

[abehnam]

According to this, in 1999 Delta II was costing $60 Million.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela7000.htm

[marsavian]

abehnam - 20/2/2008  12:36 PM

According to this, in 1999 Delta II was costing $60 Million.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela7000.htm

So if SpaceX bring in a Falcon 9 for $35m how exactly is Taurus II going to sell and what would have been the point ?

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php

Falcon 9 will offer the lowest cost per pound/kilogram to orbit, despite providing breakthrough improvements in reliability. A half bay flight of Falcon 9 is available to accommodate customers with payloads in between Falcon 1 and 9.

A Falcon 9 (5m fairing) mission to LEO is $35M.

Falcon 9 missions to GTO are:

Satellite Vehicle Mass (kg) Price
< 3500  $35M
3500-4500 $45M
4500-5000 $55M

[Analyst]

marsavian - 20/2/2008  7:44 PM

abehnam - 20/2/2008  12:36 PM

According to this, in 1999 Delta II was costing $60 Million.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela7000.htm

So if SpaceX bring in a Falcon 9 for $35m ...

We will see. Very big if. Another question, after the "if", is "when" will they?

Analyst

[kevin-rf]

Analyst - 20/2/2008  1:56 PM

marsavian - 20/2/2008  7:44 PM

abehnam - 20/2/2008  12:36 PM

According to this, in 1999 Delta II was costing $60 Million.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela7000.htm

So if SpaceX bring in a Falcon 9 for $35m ...

We will see. Very big if. Another question, after the "if", is "when" will they?

Analyst

And the next question is will there be a fuel surcharge

[marsavian]

Analyst - 20/2/2008  12:56 PM

marsavian - 20/2/2008  7:44 PM

abehnam - 20/2/2008  12:36 PM

According to this, in 1999 Delta II was costing $60 Million.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela7000.htm

So if SpaceX bring in a Falcon 9 for $35m ...

We will see. Very big if. Another question, after the "if", is "when" will they?

Analyst

Falcon 1 is not going up in price and the major advantage SpaceX have over Orbital is that they are vertically integrated and build all their equipment and can control costs that way.
I suppose Taurus II could do the big external unpressurised runs if Dragon is not up to the job but if SpaceX hit these targets then I can't see how Taurus II would sell in the general market but perhaps that's not the full mission cost they are quoting.  I know NASA likes acquiring new Rockets like a kid in a candy store but I sure hope the competitive threat from SpaceX was fully taken into account when deciding Orbital had the  'best business case' of the current proposals otherwise it's just wasted money again like RpK's.

[Nate_Trost]

Falcon 1 has already gone up in price.

COTS Falcon 9 missions sure won't be $35 million. Among many other things, that "base" price doesn't include a Dragon.

[Comga]

marsavian - 20/2/2008  12:09 PM
....but I sure hope the competitive threat from SpaceX was fully taken into account when deciding Orbital had the  'best business case' of the current proposals....

Don't be silly.  These are intelligent people, who are well aware of the other players.

For once, NASA is not picking the winners, just the frontrunning players.  They are fostering competition, not undercutting it. This is good.

Much as many of us have been enthusiastic about SpaceX, they are far from inevitable.  Their prices were set before a lot of the hardware and processes were (are to be) finalized and are not fixed in stone.

And congratulations to Orbital from the peanut gallery.

[William Barton]

Not only is competition between SpaceX and Orbital potentially a good thing, but these are in some ways complementary projects. Orbital will be attempting a Delta II class rocket, SpaceX an EELV class rocket. If both succeed, Cygnus will be a cargo carrier (both pressurized and un-), Dragon will be a pressurized cargo carrier and eventually a human carrier as well. Imagine that President Next manages to cancel Constellation as soon as he assumes office, and decrees that ISS will end in 2015 (well before the election at the end of his presumptive second term). Then SpaceX, Orbital, and Bigelow will be all that we have left in terms of a US manned space program. I sure do hope they all succeed!

[marsavian]

Falcon 9 is EELV size but currently sub Delta II price. You may consider that Taurus II gives it competition at Delta II size and price but the result looks pretty certain from the start. I suppose if you consider Taurus II as a failsafe cheap backup to EELVs on the proviso that SpaceX doesn't deliver then the reason for NASA picking is more clear, contingency rather than business. Dunno, just trying to take a stab at analysing competitive outcomes now the initial euphoria of getting to see a new shiny rocket being born is over