Quote from: Antares on 07/09/2009 03:39 amIs MSFC building parking lots? Oh, there are so many punch lines with that one Oddly enough, they trust the commercial sector to build those....
Is MSFC building parking lots? Oh, there are so many punch lines with that one
Not COTS - D , but at least they have the right idea.http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=458Today NASA released information regarding its intention to invest $50 million of American Reinvestment and Recovery Act stimulus funding in multiple competitively awarded, funded agreements for commercial crew concepts. This new program, known as the Commercial Crew Development or “CCDev,” represents a new milestone in the development of an orbital commercial human spaceflight sector. By maturing “the design and development of commercial crew spaceflight concepts and associated enabling technologies and capabilities,” the program will allow several companies to move a few steps forward towards the ultimate goal of full demonstration of commercial human spaceflight to orbit.According to the solicitation, “NASA’s Commercial Crew and Cargo Program is applying Recovery Act funds to stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate human spaceflight capabilities. These efforts are intended to foster entrepreneurial activity leading to job growth in engineering, analysis, design, and research, and to economic growth as capabilities for new markets are created. By developing commercial crew service providers, NASA may be able to reduce the gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability.”Full details from today’s NASA release can be found by clicking here.NASA has also established a website for the new CCDev procurement, accessible at: http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/ccdev/.Proposals are due September 22, 2009 and a pre-proposal “Industry Day” will occur at the NASA Johnson Space Center on August 13, 2009. Pursuant to the requirements of the 2009 Recovery Act, the funds will need to be fully spent by September 30, 2010.
They can't use the name COTS-D because it has already been awarded....
SCOLESE: I think we used -- unfortunately, we used COTS-D as a shorthand for commercial crew. COTS-D really is an option that was out there in the early Space Act Agreement to talk about human space flight. And there's only one organization that bid to that. So shorthand, we call it COTS-D but it really is not COTS-D. And if I misspoke, I'm sorry. MOLLOHAN: No, no, you didn't misspeak. It just sounded like COTS-D. OK. What's the difference? SCOLESE: The difference is we're not going off doing what we originally described as COTS-D. And when I get done here, maybe Doug can add a little more... MOLLOHAN: OK, we'll come back to that. SCOLESE: But what we're doing is a logical progression to Crew. It's not COTS-D as what was originally discussed and what it was two years ago.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/04/2009 03:59 pmThe Augustine commission will not come to the conclusion that Ares is flawed and pointless. 32 Billion Dollar development for a duplication of existing capabilities is flawed and if the commission doesn't see it as that then the commission is a joke and flawed. If it comes to another conclusion, then the conclusion is based on politics and the short term and not what is right or good for the nation and NASA and the long term.Mars and the moon are not valid justification for such waste. The end does not justify the means.If dropping Ares I means lunar and Mars missions are pushed out, so what? What does that really mean? Just some selfish people that want to see it in their lifetime will miss out on it? Please, give me a break. I am in a position where I could work lunar and Mars missions and I would want to. But I can put aside my wishes and really make a unbiased judgment that Ares I won't get us there and even would hamper the efforts. Yes, I do work with ELV's but I support Direct or "Not Shuttle-C" and COTS (EELV's) over Ares I.
The Augustine commission will not come to the conclusion that Ares is flawed and pointless.
Scolese said many things wrong in that hearing, though I'm not sure his words you cited are wrong. However, the meaning you imputed to them is: you used the term "awarded"; he didn't, nor did he indicate causation between the two, which you did. Those are incorrect.
(4) issue a notice of intent, not later than 180 days afterthe date of enactment of this Act, to enter into a funded,competitively awarded Space Act Agreement with 2 or morecommercial entities for a Phase 1 Commercial Orbital TransportationServices crewed vehicle demonstration program.
Since COTS Capability D is an existing option in an already competed contract, NASA could exercise it right away, resulting in immediate job creation.
Of the $400 million in stimulus money set aside for NASA's manned space exploration programs, $90 million will be spent on crew and cargo efforts, including $50 million to be spent on multiple, competitively awarded Space Act Agreements intended to foster private sector growth in developing human spaceflight capabilities.
10/28/09 Around the 6th of November, the PEP expects to identify those companies with whom we will have further discussions. The Schedule has also been updated.
This is pathetically slow.
