COTS D in the On-Deck Circle...

[mmeijeri]

Or if there just isn't enough traffic to give more than one competitor a meaningful amount of business, especially once Orion starts launching astronauts to the ISS?

[yinzer]

What if there is a minimum cost of supporting any provider and the government can't afford 2x or 3x that number?  Then what?

Then you either a) accept that one provider will have you over a barrel, b) vertically integrate and do it yourself, or c) find a different way to solve the problem that lets you have more suppliers.

This happens in IT all the time.  Even though there are frequently specialized computing setups that will give better performance, a lot of technical organizations favor more generic systems to avoid vendor lock-in and subsequent reamage.

[robertross]

Or if there just isn't enough traffic to give more than one competitor a meaningful amount of business, especially once Orion starts launching astronauts to the ISS?

1) Once COTS-D is fully established, the ISS Orion can reduce flights to essential only.
2) Using Orion as a lifeboat, you still need crew & cargo flights via COTS-D (regular schedule).
3) Orion can also fade away to lunar objectives and leave crew access to COTS-D & Soyuz.

[jongoff]

What if there is a minimum cost of supporting any provider and the government can't afford 2x or 3x that number?  Then what?

That's the thing.  Once you have the capability of flying people, especially if it's at a good price (say sub $10M per seat), there should be commercial customers.  For just cargo, there aren't.  But flying people (tourists, entrepreneurs trying to do stuff with microgravity, media, etc) has the potential of opening up non-NASA demand for the services.  That's the real key, and the real problem with how COTS has been run so far.  The goal should be to prime the pump and help and encourage other commercial demand for the same services so that NASA can both a) get a better price, b) know that it isn't going to be dependent on only one provider, and c) be able to leverage further commercial development.

~Jon

[NUAETIUS]

That's the thing.  Once you have the capability of flying people, especially if it's at a good price (say sub $10M per seat), there should be commercial customers.  For just cargo, there aren't.  But flying people (tourists, entrepreneurs trying to do stuff with microgravity, media, etc) has the potential of opening up non-NASA demand for the services.  That's the real key, and the real problem with how COTS has been run so far.  The goal should be to prime the pump and help and encourage other commercial demand for the same services so that NASA can both a) get a better price, b) know that it isn't going to be dependent on only one provider, and c) be able to leverage further commercial development.
~Jon

And that's the beautiful thing about COTS, and CRS.  It finally kills one of the chickens we have been dealing with since Apollo. 

We need commercial space launchers to make space cheaper/We need commercial customers in space to justify the commercial launchers/We need heightened launch rates to justify RLVs...   Around and around we go, but CRS changes the equation.

If ITAR is removed, or rewritten SpaceX and Orbital could in the future provide logistics launches for anyone they want to.  The could resupply the ISS, DIRECT'S Fuel Depot, Russia's follow on to the ISS, China's Space Station, Chinese Russian, and American moon bases.  Also Orbital and SpaceX could resupply any commercial stations such as Bigelow and the Isle of man group.

Completion in space is a wonderful thing.

[Patchouli]

That's the thing.  Once you have the capability of flying people, especially if it's at a good price (say sub $10M per seat), there should be commercial customers.  For just cargo, there aren't.  But flying people (tourists, entrepreneurs trying to do stuff with microgravity, media, etc) has the potential of opening up non-NASA demand for the services.  That's the real key, and the real problem with how COTS has been run so far.  The goal should be to prime the pump and help and encourage other commercial demand for the same services so that NASA can both a) get a better price, b) know that it isn't going to be dependent on only one provider, and c) be able to leverage further commercial development.
~Jon

And that's the beautiful thing about COTS, and CRS.  It finally kills one of the chickens we have been dealing with since Apollo. 

We need commercial space launchers to make space cheaper/We need commercial customers in space to justify the commercial launchers/We need heightened launch rates to justify RLVs...   Around and around we go, but CRS changes the equation.

If ITAR is removed, or rewritten SpaceX and Orbital could in the future provide logistics launches for anyone they want to.  The could resupply the ISS, DIRECT'S Fuel Depot, Russia's follow on to the ISS, China's Space Station, Chinese Russian, and American moon bases.  Also Orbital and SpaceX could resupply any commercial stations such as Bigelow and the Isle of man group.

Completion in space is a wonderful thing.

It also kills the issue of depending on one transportation system as well.
This would allow a vehicle that develops an issue to be grounded and fixed vs flying it and hope nothing goes wrong.

It also would allow rescue missions if needed as well both shuttle accidents may not have occurred if there was a second transportation system.
Well Columbia may have still been lost but the crew would have been rescued.

I agree with you on ITAR it has to be rewritten or removed as the law has been a complete failure as written.

[Swatch]

ITAR at its heart means well.... but a rewrite bearing in mind we're not in the Cold War anymore is probably in order...

[nooneofconsequence]

ITAR at its heart means well.... but a rewrite bearing in mind we're not in the Cold War anymore is probably in order...

To be frank I don't think anyone commenting on ITAR here knows squat about it.

ITAR has been a pragmatic response to an obvious problem. It will be in place until it isn't needed - when that happens it will also be quite obvious. Not everyone plays fair - duh!

Until then it won't change - may even get a little tougher. But comments about it being rewritten are complete horsepucky.

[Patchouli]

ITAR at its heart means well.... but a rewrite bearing in mind we're not in the Cold War anymore is probably in order...

To be frank I don't think anyone commenting on ITAR here knows squat about it.

ITAR has been a pragmatic response to an obvious problem. It will be in place until it isn't needed - when that happens it will also be quite obvious. Not everyone plays fair - duh!

Until then it won't change - may even get a little tougher. But comments about it being rewritten are complete horsepucky.

Never thought I'd have to be as blunt as Jim sometimes is but this is the most idiodic response I have seen yet from anyone on the subject.

Why is ITAR bad in it's present form lets see many people will avoid dealing with US companies because of ITAR's brokenness.
I can understand regulating something like a radar to an F22 or an AMRAAM missile.
But when you require guards for what amounts to an aluminum platform yes something is very very wrong.
The law was written with complete disregard of today's world of multinational operations by a bunch of people who apparently had no clue at all the cold war is over or that business operations often cross national boarders.
In short ITAR is as broken as the road vehicle inspection and registration process in NZ.

[mmeijeri]

1) Once COTS-D is fully established, the ISS Orion can reduce flights to essential only.

COTS-D cannot easily get fully established until Orion gets out of the way. Especially since NASA appears to be trying to postpone funding COTS-D until Orion is operational. And what do you mean by essential?

[wannamoonbase]

I use to be doubtful of COTS-D, but with the way that the Orion and Ares 1 schedule and cost have been going I think it's essential to support.

The standing army of people that costs bllions per year need to be minimized and a government agency is never going to be able to do that.  Ever!

[Bill White]

What if there is a minimum cost of supporting any provider and the government can't afford 2x or 3x that number?  Then what?

That's the thing.  Once you have the capability of flying people, especially if it's at a good price (say sub $10M per seat), there should be commercial customers.  For just cargo, there aren't.  But flying people (tourists, entrepreneurs trying to do stuff with microgravity, media, etc) has the potential of opening up non-NASA demand for the services.  That's the real key, and the real problem with how COTS has been run so far.  The goal should be to prime the pump and help and encourage other commercial demand for the same services so that NASA can both a) get a better price, b) know that it isn't going to be dependent on only one provider, and c) be able to leverage further commercial development.

~Jon

NOW is the time to push for a MirCorp II project, a LEO destination owned and operated outside of NASA's control and available for space tourists, researchers and others. Perhaps Bigelow based, perhaps with a European made inflatable habitat. Hasn't Thales-Alenia done some work on inflatable habs?

COTS-D can indeed serve as a "starter motor" to turn the engine over but after that we need "gas in the tank" to keep the engine running.

The rumors about Mike Griffin castigating Lockheed for even discussing an Atlas V based crew taxi with Bigelow annoy me about as much as the Ares 1 does.

Let's see if the Obama Administration, and a Hillary Clinton State Department, is as unsympathetic to the idea of a non-NASA LEO facility as our government was 8 years ago with the original Mir Corp.

[nooneofconsequence]

ITAR at its heart means well.... but a rewrite bearing in mind we're not in the Cold War anymore is probably in order...

To be frank I don't think anyone commenting on ITAR here knows squat about it.

ITAR has been a pragmatic response to an obvious problem. It will be in place until it isn't needed - when that happens it will also be quite obvious. Not everyone plays fair - duh!

Until then it won't change - may even get a little tougher. But comments about it being rewritten are complete horsepucky.

Never thought I'd have to be as blunt as Jim sometimes is but this is the most idiodic response I have seen yet from anyone on the subject.

Why is ITAR bad in it's present form lets see many people will avoid dealing with US companies because of ITAR's brokenness.
I can understand regulating something like a radar to an F22 or an AMRAAM missile.
But when you require guards for what amounts to an aluminum platform yes something is very very wrong.
The law was written with complete disregard of today's world of multinational operations by a bunch of people who apparently had no clue at all the cold war is over or that business operations often cross national boarders.
In short ITAR is as broken as the road vehicle inspection and registration process in NZ.

You don't know what you're talking about.

It started with Loral accidentally giving away the store to the Chinese because they talked too much after a launch failure. Which they never should have done if they had thought about it. ITAR is the response to such - a mandatory, explicit policy.

Sure countries can learn it on there own. That's fine under ITAR. And when they all abide by fair agreements as to use, then they can learn from each other.

So what idiot wants to deincentivize them from signing and playing fair?

These are the guys holding back improvement. Not ITAR.

ITAR is good.

[Patchouli]

ITAR at its heart means well.... but a rewrite bearing in mind we're not in the Cold War anymore is probably in order...

ITAR has nothing tying it to the Cold War. It originated years after that period ended and was precipitated by the actions of China. Although I think ITAR does over-reach, there is something to be said about restricting some technology from universal access.

That's pretty much what I mean it does over reach very badly but then it was written by people who lacked knowledge on the subject.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1259/1
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2009/05/04/itar-crimp-space-tourism/

Though no law at all is better then the present law as a poorly written law does do more harm then good.
The law in it's present form can pretty much be described as shooting one's self in the foot.
The is no easy program for meeting compliance and some of the stuff listed under USML is just silly.
I'm not talking remove it completely but just rewrite it with input from people in the space industry.
A RCS thruster,propellant fuel line,or specs on how to interface with an LV for example should be ITAR exempt.
Fortunately with a more sane administration in power reform should happen soon.

[nooneofconsequence]

ITAR at its heart means well.... but a rewrite bearing in mind we're not in the Cold War anymore is probably in order...

ITAR has nothing tying it to the Cold War. It originated years after that period ended and was precipitated by the actions of China. Although I think ITAR does over-reach, there is something to be said about restricting some technology from universal access.

That's pretty much what I mean it does over reach very badly but then it was written by people who lacked knowledge on the subject.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1259/1
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2009/05/04/itar-crimp-space-tourism/

1.Though no law at all is better then the present law as a poorly written law does do more harm then good.
2.The law in it's present form can pretty much be described as shooting one's self in the foot.
3.The is no easy program for meeting compliance and some of the stuff listed under USML is just silly.
4.I'm not talking remove it completely but just rewrite it with input from people in the space industry.
5.A RCS thruster,propellant fuel line,or specs on how to interface with an LV for example should be ITAR exempt.
6.Fortunately with a more sane administration in power reform should happen soon.

1. Wrong - it works well enough.
2. How? Your usual standard of ignorant mouthing off?
3. Which? Do you have any idea why its there?
4. What parts? It came from people in the space industry - directly from incidents and experience.
5. Why? There can be processes that increase reliability in these. Why they are covered.
6. Yes they are smart. Which is why they won't mess with ITAR. Get ready for a surprise.

[robertross]

1) Once COTS-D is fully established, the ISS Orion can reduce flights to essential only.

COTS-D cannot easily get fully established until Orion gets out of the way. Especially since NASA appears to be trying to postpone funding COTS-D until Orion is operational. And what do you mean by essential?

Since there is no contract written yet, it would certainly be worded to the effect that reliance on COTS-D does not exclude Orion. There will have to be a phase-in period.

Having said that: if the role was reversed, and COTS-D were further along, with Orion 'perhaps' becoming operational at the same time, or slightly later than COTS-D, then I'm sure it would not be so critical.

Essential is, in my opinion, ensuring that the flights remain regular and on-time. If there were to be an incident requiring COTS-D stand-down, then everybody gets on-board Orion instead. Obviously not as easy as that, but that essentially is what I mean.

[mmeijeri]

Since there is no contract written yet, it would certainly be worded to the effect that reliance on COTS-D does not exclude Orion. There will have to be a phase-in period.

Oh sure, COTS-D should not be the primary tier of an effort to close the gap, but a part of it nevertheless and funded immediately. And for strategical reasons too (stimulating commercial activity in LEO by creating redundant commercial manned access to space), COTS-D should be funded immediately, and should have been a long time ago.

Looking back, it might have been better if a system with Boeing or LM involved had been selected instead of or in addition to SpaceX and Orbital.

Having said that: if the role was reversed, and COTS-D were further along, with Orion 'perhaps' becoming operational at the same time, or slightly later than COTS-D, then I'm sure it would not be so critical.

Well, since NASA is building a beyond LEO capsule that can also serve the ISS, it would be silly not to use it as a backup. Same goes for J-130, if that path is chosen. It is interesting DIRECT is now pushing for J-130 to close the gap, when previously they had said they expected Delta-IV to be ready earlier. Man-rating either Delta or Atlas and preferably both is even more urgent than COTS-D. I'd say both are as important as Orion and should be given priority over pretty much anything else. BTW: wasn't there a rumour suggesting the transition team had asked about the possibility of launching Orion on Ariane 5 as a backup plan?

Essential is, in my opinion, ensuring that the flights remain regular and on-time. If there were to be an incident requiring COTS-D stand-down, then everybody gets on-board Orion instead. Obviously not as easy as that, but that essentially is what I mean.

Yes, agreed.

[Swatch]

Although I think ITAR does over-reach, there is something to be said about restricting some technology from universal access.

We can agree on this... like I said... it means well...

ITAR has nothing tying it to the Cold War. It originated years after that period ended and was precipitated by the actions of China.

You don't know what you're talking about.

It started with Loral accidentally giving away the store to the Chinese because they talked too much after a launch failure. Which they never should have done if they had thought about it. ITAR is the response to such - a mandatory, explicit policy.

ITAR in one form or another was around well before the Loral incident.  It stems from AECA enacted in 1976... last I checked, that's in the middle of the Cold War.  I'm not saying the Loral thing with China had didn't create the problems we have now, just that its origins are from a time that is pre-internet, pre-global launch market, pre-commercial space boom.  Heck even 1996 is a long time ago in terms of world economy... this world is more tied together than ever before.

Perhaps I was a bit too simplistic with my wording when I mentioned Cold War.


Once again... I'm not saying the intentions are wrong, I'm saying this is a different world than when ITAR came into being, both politically and economically.   A rewrite could alleviate many of these problems.

[yg1968]

The $150 million for commercial crew would be reduced to $50 million because of Senator Shelby's objections:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-shelby-private-rockets-070309,0,4053077.story

In Shelby's defense, I don't believe that Congress intended for any of the stimulus money to go to commercial crew efforts. It was given for Ares I in order to bridge the gap (or at least not make it longer). Hopefully, the money for commercial crew will get appropriated later on.   

[robertross]

The $150 million for commercial crew would be reduced to $50 million because of Senator Shelby's objections:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-shelby-private-rockets-070309,0,4053077.story

In Shelby's defense, I don't believe that Congress intended for any of the stimulus money to go to commercial crew efforts. It was given for Ares I in order to bridge the gap (or at least not make it longer). Hopefully, the money for commercial crew will get appropriated later on.   

Thanks for the link. It will be interesting to see what happens next week (as per the article).

If it is indeed true, then (imo) he does so at the peril of US manned spaceflight. If the Augustine Commission finds some damming evidence that Ares is flawed and pointless, Shelby will face harsh criticism. It may be a noble effort on his part, but selfishness at the expense of the greater good will not go over well.