Author Topic: COTS Cuts (Read 33734 times)

Jim · « **on:** 07/17/2006 06:00 pm »

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/07/18/Navigation/177/207853/NASA+COTS+cuts+cause+bidder+consternation.html

nacnud · « **Reply #1 on:** 07/17/2006 06:56 pm »

That's not good news, especialy from the venture capital point of view.

simonbp · « **Reply #2 on:** 07/18/2006 12:12 am »

Not really, it just says their priorities are elsewhere (namely the moon). Besides, this isn't venture capital, it's the government handing out money so that they can eventually privatise ISS resupply. As most of the "commercial space" crowd claims that they make money off of this, it would be frankly hypocritical to claim the government isn't giving you enough money, instead of going out and getting some "real" venture capital...

Simon

vt_hokie · « **Reply #3 on:** 07/18/2006 12:59 am »

Great, one of the few worthwhile endeavors NASA currently has going...

How about a 50/50 split between COTS and CEV, instead of the current 99.5% to 0.5% split or whatever it is?! Why does CEV/CLV have to cost so much, anyway?

nacnud · « **Reply #4 on:** 07/18/2006 01:02 am »

Exactly, going out and getting venture capital for one of these projects will depent alot on the market these new space companies have to operate in. NASA has jst shown how commited it is to this venture by cutting the funding.

Jim · « **Reply #5 on:** 07/18/2006 01:57 am »

I don't see the big deal. It's NASA's choice if it doesn't want to spend money on commercial ISS resupply, which is the point of COTS. Not the development of a new spacecraft and/or launch vehicle. Especially, since VSE is the future, not the ISS

hop · « **Reply #6 on:** 07/18/2006 02:55 am »

If I were a conspiracy type, I'd say that it's a great way of maintaining the idea that space transport can only be done by BoLockMart and that it must always cost billions. Make a half hearted attempt to support commercial cargo, and then when it fails to materialize, you can point to the failure and say "See, it's not possible!"

However, I think the real reason is that COTS is low hanging fruit. It isn't essential to the VSE or finishing ISS, and it is fairly high risk (in the sense that they could well dump half a billion into it an not get anything at all in return). OTOH, if COTS worked and got things to the point where NASA could simply contract payload to orbit in a real competitive market, it could obviously be a big benefit, not just to ISS but to the VSE or whatever follows it.

Avron · « **Reply #7 on:** 07/18/2006 03:02 am »

Quote

hop - 17/7/2006 10:42 PM

If I were a conspiracy type, I'd say that it's a great way of maintaining the idea that space transport can only be done by BoLockMart and that it must always cost billions. Make a half hearted attempt to support commercial cargo, and then when it fails to materialize, you can point to the failure and say "See, it's not possible!"

However, I think the real reason is that COTS is low hanging fruit. It isn't essential to the VSE or finishing ISS, and it is fairly high risk (in the sense that they could well dump half a billion into it an not get anything at all in return). OTOH, if COTS worked and got things to the point where NASA could simply contract payload to orbit in a real competitive market, it could obviously be a big benefit, not just to ISS but to the VSE or whatever follows it.

something like dropping $4 billion into MFSC?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #8 on:** 07/18/2006 06:09 pm »

I agree with Jim, the last thing the VSE needs is affordable alternate ways of getting mass into LEO.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #9 on:** 07/21/2006 05:23 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 18/7/2006 1:56 PM

I agree with Jim, the last thing the VSE needs is affordable alternate ways of getting mass into LEO.

Huh? If we are at the point where NASA wants to suppress affordable access to space because it threatens porkbarrel programs, then I can no longer support NASA in its efforts.

Propforce · « **Reply #10 on:** 07/21/2006 06:41 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 18/7/2006 10:56 AM

I agree with Jim, the last thing the VSE needs is affordable alternate ways of getting mass into LEO.

Ha ha ha .....

vt_hokie · « **Reply #11 on:** 07/21/2006 06:45 am »

Perhaps I'm a little slow to pick up on sarcasm tonight!

Ducati94 · « **Reply #12 on:** 07/21/2006 01:33 pm »

You will more than likely get what you want in 2011. I expect NASA to create with the support of the ISS partners an International Space Station Institute which will manage the ISS. CLv will carry the NASA crew members and will supply funds for cargo but not all the cargo. With ESA building the ATV and Progress in the cargo market that will be the completion for the COTS market. The hard problem to solve is the down mass which the station design requires for operation. The new ways of repairing LRUs which were which were planed to be returned to earth to be maintain may be the lesson we need for Mars missions.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #13 on:** 07/21/2006 02:51 pm »

http://space.com/news/060721_cots_csi.html

While I take this with a large grain of salt since one can not discount a sour grapes attitude, I do believe it to some extent.

Quote

Propforce - 21/7/2006 1:28 AM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 18/7/2006 10:56 AM

I agree with Jim, the last thing the VSE needs is affordable alternate ways of getting mass into LEO.

Ha ha ha .....

Quote

vt_hokie - 21/7/2006 1:32 AM

Perhaps I'm a little slow to pick up on sarcasm tonight!

I was only being half sarcastic, can you imagine a situation where NASA is spending 1 billion a pop on launches of the CEV to the ISS while a COTS provider is doing the same for 300 million? NASA certainly doesn't want that and I am pretty sure they will make sure it doesn't happen.

Jim · « **Reply #14 on:** 07/21/2006 02:58 pm »

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE

Ducati94 · « **Reply #15 on:** 07/21/2006 03:12 pm »

COTS is for cargo only. You will not be hauling 3 to 6 people to LEO and back for $300M.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #16 on:** 07/21/2006 03:32 pm »

CLV was planned to carry cargo, COTS included the option of carrying people. What is the total cost of a Soyuz mission? 12-20 million a seat for passengers but for an overall mission? Well under 300 million perhaps under 300 million for two.

Jim · « **Reply #17 on:** 07/21/2006 04:05 pm »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 21/7/2006 11:19 AM

CLV was planned to carry cargo, COTS included the option of carrying people. What is the total cost of a Soyuz mission? 12-20 million a seat for passengers but for an overall mission? Well under 300 million perhaps under 300 million for two.

The CEV is still planning on carrying cargo

COTS for people is option 4 and wasn't even considered for the first phase. The 2nd phase is the contract for cargo, which is 2009 or later

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #18 on:** 07/21/2006 04:53 pm »

Quote

Jim - 21/7/2006 10:52 AM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 21/7/2006 11:19 AM

CLV was planned to carry cargo, COTS included the option of carrying people. What is the total cost of a Soyuz mission? 12-20 million a seat for passengers but for an overall mission? Well under 300 million perhaps under 300 million for two.

The CEV is still planning on carrying cargo

COTS for people is option 4 and wasn't even considered for the first phase. The 2nd phase is the contract for cargo, which is 2009 or later

Thank you Jim, I think you have made my point for me.

To restate: "The last thing the VSE needs is affordable alternate ways of getting mass into LEO."

To make that more clear let me state it another way. The CLV/CEV is in direct competition with the COTS program, at least in the early years. One, the VSE, is a NASA designed, contractor built, NASA operated program. The other is a contractor designed, NASA approved, contractor built, contractor operated program. NASA is planning to spend billions of dollars on the CEV/CLV and if the COTS program can provide the same level of service at a substantial cost savings it will certainly call the CEV/CLV into question and that would certainly lead to questions about the entire VSE. What are the odds that the COTS program is going to see cost cuts (see link in first post) and possibly questionable decisions (see link in fourteenth post (#51163))? (Not to mention bureaucratic foot dragging, obfuscation, and over regulation)

Jim · « **Reply #19 on:** 07/21/2006 07:04 pm »

COTS doesn't go to the moon, the CEV does. COTS is for cargo demos until 2009. Then the contract for cargo would be competed. COTS for people would be later than that and Station is gone by 2016. A COTS is not "NASA approved". It maybe ok for cargo and allowed to dock to the ISS, but it will have to meet NASA requirements to carry a NASA crew member. Even if a COTS vehicle on a cargo mission requires a COTS pilot, it still may not meet NASA manrating requirements. This would be like having an experimental plane. The FAA allows you to fly it but you can't carry passengers.