COTS Award Announcement Thread

[stockman]

another interesting difference between orbital and spaceX I just noticed (probably means nothing but it did jump out at me). Orbital is all set to launch from Wallops in Virginia even its test launches and SpaceX is stuck out in the middle of the pacific ocean. Advantage Orbital?

[general]

Taurus II launching out of Wallops, huh?  I bet that makes the KSC/CCAFS folks looking for jobs post-STS happy as clams.

[edkyle99]

general - 19/2/2008  3:54 PM

Taurus II launching out of Wallops, huh?  I bet that makes the KSC/CCAFS folks looking for jobs post-STS happy as clams.

SpaceX will hire them.  

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

stockman - 19/2/2008  3:54 PM

another interesting difference between orbital and spaceX I just noticed (probably means nothing but it did jump out at me). Orbital is all set to launch from Wallops in Virginia even its test launches and SpaceX is stuck out in the middle of the pacific ocean. Advantage Orbital?

SpaceX plans to launch from Cape Canaveral SLC 40.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

stockman - 19/2/2008  3:49 PM

interesting... some of the tanks on this thing will be supplied by a Ukrainian supplier. Sounds to me like something specific like that makes that supplier right in the critical path of manufacturing this thing. I guess Canadian Money is no good for RPK but Ukrainian tanks are ok for Orbital???  confusing..

My take is that it came down to the business case, as Doug Cook said.  Planetspace appeared to have a good proposal, but it appears, to my eyes at least, to have resulted in a launch vehicle that would have been substantially larger/heavier, and more costly, than Taurus II, while carrying only a little more cargo.

OSC's launch site also provides a real benefit.  OSC can launch both ISS and sun synchronous missions from only ONE LAUNCH PAD.  That means Vandenberg AFB is not needed either.  

That is part of the strong business case that Mr. Cook mentioned.  

Notice too that the launch pad isn't far from Goddard.

As for the Ukrainian tanks, Russian rocket engines, and European cargo carrier, well it is the INTERNATIONAL Space Station after all.  Cygnus, boosted by an upper stage built by a Utah company, guided by U.S. avionics (presumably), and propelled by Japanese (probably) thrusters, will be deftly captured by a Canadian robot arm.

 - Ed Kyle

[marsavian]

Congrats to antonioe, aero and Orbital and looks like cheap US medium lift capability is going to be preserved which probably swung it for you. Does this now mean that aero will stop whingeing about SpaceX's easy money ?

[Flightstar]

Congratulations Antonio and Orbital. I do like your idea.

[abehnam]

Anyone know what is going to happen to Planetspace and Spacehab or their proposals as a result of not getting this? Will they probably take a shot at COTS II, and although COTS II is not related to COTS I, is there any reason to expect that someone who was not selected for COTS I will get a COTS II contract?

[wannamoonbase]

marsavian - 19/2/2008  5:04 PM

Congrats to antonioe, aero and Orbital and looks like cheap US medium lift capability is going to be preserved which probably swung it for you. Does this now mean that aero will stop whingeing about SpaceX's easy money ?

Bingo!

I read about this and immediately saw that the Delta II replacement question was answered as well as dependency on ULA for access to space and SpaceX already having a COTS contract.

Good luck guys.

[Jim]

abehnam - 19/2/2008  5:10 PM

Anyone know what is going to happen to Planetspace and Spacehab or their proposals as a result of not getting this? Will they probably take a shot at COTS II, and although COTS II is not related to COTS I, is there any reason to expect that someone who was not selected for COTS I will get a COTS II contract?

the advantages of having a COTS I contract go without saying.

for COTS II, I don't think a contractor can go into it without having some hardware already built (i.e. no paper proposals).

HTV or ATV on an EELV may be still viable.

[edkyle99]

Jim - 19/2/2008  4:16 PM

abehnam - 19/2/2008  5:10 PM

Anyone know what is going to happen to Planetspace and Spacehab or their proposals as a result of not getting this? Will they probably take a shot at COTS II, and although COTS II is not related to COTS I, is there any reason to expect that someone who was not selected for COTS I will get a COTS II contract?

the advantages of having a COTS I contract go without saying.

for COTS II, I don't think a contractor can go into it without having some hardware already built (i.e. no paper proposals).

HTV or ATV on an EELV may be still viable.

Doug Cook also mentioned that NASA has signed five "unfunded" Space Act agreements, which is interesting.  

 - Ed Kyle

[HoustonG]

Correct me if I misunderstood the broadcast, but did they say the Taurus II first stage will use an AJ26 Kerosene/Lox rocket engine?  How many of these Russian engines does Aerojet have in stock?  How old are they?  Are there any existing productions lines worldwide?  If not, do they plan to begin manufacturing them again?

I believe RPK planned on using the same engines, but their first stage was to be reusable.

[jacqmans]

RELEASE: 08-058

NASA PARTNERS WITH ORBITAL SCIENCES FOR SPACE TRANSPORT SERVICES

WASHINGTON - NASA selected Orbital Sciences Corporation of Dulles,
Va., to develop and demonstrate commercial orbital transportation
services that could open new markets and pave the way for contracts
to launch and deliver crew and cargo to the International Space
Station.

NASA and Orbital Sciences signed a funded Space Act Agreement under
the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Project, known as
COTS. The new partner will receive approximately $170 million in
federal funds to supplement its privately-funded efforts.

Through COTS, NASA is facilitating U.S. private industry development
of reliable, cost- effective access to low Earth orbit. The intent is
to create a market environment in which commercial space
transportation services are available to government and private
sector customers.

"NASA plans to get out of low Earth orbit and focus on going back to
the moon to prepare explorers for a future voyage to Mars," said Rick
Gilbrech, associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate, Washington. "Being able to buy safe, reliable
and economical service to low Earth orbit will help us achieve our
national goals."

The selection of Orbital Sciences brings to seven the number of
partners in which NASA is investing through COTS. NASA selected
SpaceX of El Segundo, Calif., as a partner in August 2006. NASA is
partnering with an additional five companies through unfunded
agreements.

NASA is providing approximately $500 million to stimulate the
commercial space transportation market and help develop safe,
reliable and cost-effective access to and from low Earth orbit.

"Our investment in the space transportation industry holds just as
much promise for the future as government's investment in the
railroads and airlines produced in the past," said Alan Lindenmoyer,
manager of the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office at NASA's
Johnson Space Center, Houston. "Like any wise investor would, we
chose a transportation provider whose innovative concept is based on
solid engineering and a sound business plan."

The Space Act Agreement establishes milestones and objective criteria
to assess the company's progress throughout Phase 1 of the COTS
Project. Partners with funded agreements receive payment for
achieving agreed-upon milestones.

In Phase 1, companies will demonstrate one or more of four
capabilities: external, unpressurized cargo delivery and disposal;
internal, pressurized cargo delivery and disposal; internal,
pressurized cargo delivery and return; and an option for crew
transportation. NASA plans to purchase cargo resupply services
competitively in Phase 2.

For more information about the COTS Project, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esmd/ccc

For information about NASA's plans to explore the moon and beyond,
visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration

[marsavian]

edkyle99 - 19/2/2008  4:20 PM

Jim - 19/2/2008  4:16 PM

abehnam - 19/2/2008  5:10 PM

Anyone know what is going to happen to Planetspace and Spacehab or their proposals as a result of not getting this? Will they probably take a shot at COTS II, and although COTS II is not related to COTS I, is there any reason to expect that someone who was not selected for COTS I will get a COTS II contract?

the advantages of having a COTS I contract go without saying.

for COTS II, I don't think a contractor can go into it without having some hardware already built (i.e. no paper proposals).

HTV or ATV on an EELV may be still viable.

Doug Cook also mentioned that NASA has signed five "unfunded" Space Act agreements, which is interesting.  

 - Ed Kyle

These are the already existing ones with Spacehab, PlanetSpace, T-Space, Spacedev and CSI.

[Jim]

HoustonG - 19/2/2008  5:21 PM

Correct me if I misunderstood the broadcast, but did they say the Taurus II first stage will use an AJ26 Kerosene/Lox rocket engine?  How many of these Russian engines does Aerojet have in stock?  How old are they?  Are there any existing productions lines worldwide?  If not, do they plan to begin manufacturing them again?

I believe RPK planned on using the same engines, but their first stage was to be reusable.

Here are your answers

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11604&posts=66&start=1

[edkyle99]

general - 19/2/2008  3:54 PM

Taurus II launching out of Wallops, huh?  I bet that makes the KSC/CCAFS folks looking for jobs post-STS happy as clams.

The Florida space/business media's take on this is going to be interesting, to say the least.  Space Florida might get some blame, etc..

 - Ed Kyle

[ApolloLee]

The only drawback is I don't see any mention of Cygnus being capable of crew transport, unlike Dragon....

[aero313]

marsavian - 19/2/2008  5:04 PM
Does this now mean that aero will stop whingeing about SpaceX's easy money ?

Just to refresh everyone's memory, It's been eight years since I was an Orbital employee.

[landofgrey]

We Floridians have been ticked off about the performance of Spaceport Florida Authority/Florida Space Authority/Space Florida for years. I'm not surprised Virginia beat us out... again. Too many promises over the years, half-funded initiatives and support of the industry that rises little above vacuous words. And an unsfe rotting gantry at LC-46 and the hangar for X-33/VentureStar/RLV's that will need to be demolished soon. They've underperformed consistently since 1989 and about the most newsworthy thing that's happened was the one lady who stole $50K from them a few years ago. Space Florida... putting the DUH in space.

[HoustonG]

3 COTS awards so far to supposedly provide crew/cargo delivery to the ISS.  Yet all involve developing new launch vehicles when there are already excellent existing alternatives.  Why do they continue to ignore proposals that give them what they DO require (orbital vehicles with rendevous/docking capability) on existing launchers?  Both SpaceHab and Loral had such plans.  I think NASA is really just interested in undercutting current commercial launchers, or taking riskier ventures to increase the chance for failure.  Take your pick.