Author Topic: COTS  (Read 3715 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32499
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11269
  • Likes Given: 333
COTS
« on: 02/17/2006 01:56 PM »
Interesting procurement coming up. 

Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Demonstrations. 

NASA pays you as you prove to them that you can launch "Tang, toilet paper and t-shirts" to the ISS.

$500M available and multiple awards possible

Phase II is the actual procurment of said services

Some of the proposals ought to be interesting.  I wonder when John Q. Public will be able to see them.  Even the rejected one.

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/cots/

Offline braddock

  • NSF Private Space Flight Editor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: COTS
« Reply #1 on: 02/17/2006 02:44 PM »
Is Sea Launch elgible, or do they have too much vodka in their exhaust?

I don't see anything at first blush in the synopsis baring Boeing or Lockheed from making an EELV bid.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32499
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11269
  • Likes Given: 333
RE: COTS
« Reply #2 on: 02/17/2006 03:09 PM »
It is not a launch vehicle competition.  The spacecraft is the hard part.  Spacehab and Constellation Services are bidding new ones.  Spacehab is building theirs to launch on anything.   Look at the list of interested vendors.  Spacex is a potential.  Remember it is only a demonstration.  Sealaunch is out.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32499
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11269
  • Likes Given: 333
RE: COTS
« Reply #3 on: 03/17/2006 01:42 PM »

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 20
RE: COTS
« Reply #4 on: 03/17/2006 02:45 PM »
Yeah I would really like to look through them.  They released the original CEV proposals before the capsule requirement was enforced.  Also, it looks like the corona capsule design is pretty popular.  CXV, SpaceX Dragon, and now this new one all use it.

Offline Martin FL

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2260
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 201
RE: COTS
« Reply #5 on: 03/17/2006 02:47 PM »
Does the Falcon range have a crew escape/abort system? The images don't make this clear.

Online dmc6960

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: COTS
« Reply #6 on: 03/17/2006 04:06 PM »
Interesting idea putting the spacecraft inside the launch vehicle fairing, but I see one major problem with that.  How the heck would you get in it at the pad!?!?  That concept would be just fine for delivery and return of cargo, but for humans the payload fairing would need be to be custom-redesigned from the launch vehicle provider to provide access to the CBM.  Also, the SpaceRef article about SpaceX's Dragon capsule indicated the SM had escape motors on it. Thats just fine.  However, if your inside a fairing, it dont matter if you have escape motors or not, it just isn't gonna work!  This just sounds like a couple people trying to pitch an idea to get money, build the cheapest thing possible, and when it doesn't work just walk away with the rest of the money.
-Jim

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32499
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11269
  • Likes Given: 333
RE: COTS
« Reply #7 on: 03/17/2006 06:20 PM »
Quote
dmc6960 - 17/3/2006  11:06 AMInteresting idea putting the spacecraft inside the launch vehicle fairing, but I see one major problem with that.  How the heck would you get in it at the pad!?!?  That concept would be just fine for delivery and return of cargo, but for humans the payload fairing would need be to be custom-redesigned from the launch vehicle provider to provide access to the CBM.  Also, the SpaceRef article about SpaceX's Dragon capsule indicated the SM had escape motors on it. Thats just fine.  However, if your inside a fairing, it dont matter if you have escape motors or not, it just isn't gonna work!  This just sounds like a couple people trying to pitch an idea to get money, build the cheapest thing possible, and when it doesn't work just walk away with the rest of the money.

 Doors in the fairing is no big deal, all vehicles have them

The Soyuz uses large doors in the fairing for enterance into the orbital module.  The escape system was attached to the fairing which was connected to the capsule.  They founc away to get the fairing off after the abort rockets fire.  The Titan IV and Atlas V have had doors large enough for a man to walk thru.

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 20
RE: COTS
« Reply #8 on: 03/17/2006 10:42 PM »
Advent Launch Services in the running as well.  

http://www.adventlaunchservices.com/index.html
http://michaelbelfiore.com/blog/2006/03/advent-going-for-cots_114260903482804076.html

Interesting approach with a water launch and landing.  Apparently they were in the running for the X-Prize as well.

Offline Jamie Young

  • This custom rank is currently being decided on
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
  • Denver
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 96
RE: COTS
« Reply #9 on: 03/19/2006 08:42 PM »
Quote
Martin FL - 17/3/2006  9:47 AM

Does the Falcon range have a crew escape/abort system? The images don't make this clear.

Doesn't look like it, or you'd see the tower coming out the top.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32499
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11269
  • Likes Given: 333
RE: COTS
« Reply #10 on: 03/19/2006 10:17 PM »
Quote
Jamie Young - 19/3/2006  3:42 PM
Quote
Martin FL - 17/3/2006  9:47 AMDoes the Falcon range have a crew escape/abort system? The images don't make this clear.
Doesn't look like it, or you'd see the tower coming out the top.

Could be from the aft

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32499
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11269
  • Likes Given: 333
RE: COTS
« Reply #11 on: 03/19/2006 10:58 PM »
Escape rockets don't have to be tractors.  Dynasoar planned on pusher rockets for escape

Online dmc6960

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: COTS
« Reply #12 on: 03/20/2006 02:10 PM »
How does the reliability of a pusher rocket for escape compare to a tractor rocket?  With the historicly and currently used escape towers, there seems to be a single solid motor with multiple angled nozzels pulling you up very strait and symmetical.  With a pusher, all the designs I've seen involved several different motors placed on 2 or more sides of the vehicle. If one where to fail to light when the others did wouldn't there be a cartwheeling effect from asymmetrical thrust?

Another curiosity, the RS-88 engine was designed to be an escape engine.  Wouldn't the lag time for startup of a liquid engine be detrimental to emergency escape compared to an instantanious solid motor?
-Jim

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32499
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11269
  • Likes Given: 333
RE: COTS
« Reply #13 on: 03/20/2006 04:48 PM »
Quote
dmc6960 - 20/3/2006  9:10 AMHow does the reliability of a pusher rocket for escape compare to a tractor rocket?  With the historicly and currently used escape towers, there seems to be a single solid motor with multiple angled nozzels pulling you up very strait and symmetical.  With a pusher, all the designs I've seen involved several different motors placed on 2 or more sides of the vehicle. If one where to fail to light when the others did wouldn't there be a cartwheeling effect from asymmetrical thrust?Another curiosity, the RS-88 engine was designed to be an escape engine.  Wouldn't the lag time for startup of a liquid engine be detrimental to emergency escape compared to an instantanious solid motor?

The pusher hasn't been used much because it interferes with any service module and it can't be jettisoned.  Dynasoar had a single pusher with multiple nozzles

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32499
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11269
  • Likes Given: 333
RE: COTS
« Reply #14 on: 03/21/2006 01:07 PM »

MSNBC article with a list of some of the competitors

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927039/


Online PlanetStorm

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • England
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: COTS
« Reply #15 on: 03/21/2006 09:37 PM »

Interesting that Dream Chaser is a reworked HL-20. Does NASA charge for the use of its old designs? I wonder how many "failed" NASA projects actually make it but in a different guise?

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3034
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 244
RE: COTS
« Reply #16 on: 03/21/2006 10:27 PM »
Dreamchaser was originally going to be based on the X-34, but for some reason they switched to the HL-20 based design.  Whatever the final design, I hope they can make it happen!

Tags: