Author Topic: COTS Cuts (Read 33731 times)

hop · « **Reply #20 on:** 07/21/2006 10:59 pm »

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

Maybe just sour grapes, but the basic idea seems sound.

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE because it has been decreed so by NASA. Availability of affordable cargo transport to LEO from multiple, truly competitive vendors would make a number of alternative approaches to meeting the VSE goals available. Especially for the longer term stuff like moon bases and mars missions.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #21 on:** 07/24/2006 05:06 pm »

More on COTS, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/07/23/1384.aspx

I read somewhere that the SpaceX guys are also having problems responding to the large amount of paperwork demanded. (I am sure B&LM are finding it business as usual)

and more developments. http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/PR/NASA_COTS_072406.pdf

zinfab · « **Reply #22 on:** 07/25/2006 03:06 am »

copied over from the "stick" thread:

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 24/7/2006 8:56 PM

Does any of this sound familiar? http://space.com/news/060724_cev_needsrevision.html

That article irritates the heck out of me. I suppose 3 billion is a number "for negotiation," but that's the entire CLV development budget as it stands today.

I'm trying to figure out why NASA is supposed to spend it's CEV development money "stimulating" ISS business.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #23 on:** 07/25/2006 04:24 am »

Sorry, I posted it intending to point out the parallels to the EELV vs Stick debates here. I believe that what they are trying to accomplish is getting all the LEO missions on COTS vehicals except for high mass Calv stuff, including the CEV. I don't necessarily agree with them.

JIS · « **Reply #24 on:** 07/25/2006 10:26 am »

Quote

hop - 21/7/2006 5:46 PM

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

Maybe just sour grapes, but the basic idea seems sound.

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE because it has been decreed so by NASA. Availability of affordable cargo transport to LEO from multiple, truly competitive vendors would make a number of alternative approaches to meeting the VSE goals available. Especially for the longer term stuff like moon bases and mars missions.

Yes, COTS has absolutely nothing to do with VSE. It’s clear, that COTS winners will struggle with unmanned delivery to ISS. It will be even easier for them to go to LEO with tourists and deorbit after few hours without any randezvous or space operation.
We’ll see but it’s clear that companies will be late with their systems and struggle to find enough resources. Only one or two have a real chance to run real space business in next ten years.
Eventually some competition for CEV could arise, but it won’t be in next 20 years.
I think that COTS is meant to develop “american Sojuz and Progress”. Until then NASA can buy Russian, European or Japan ships.

zinfab · « **Reply #25 on:** 07/25/2006 02:01 pm »

If I understand the article correctly, I'm even more irritated. The title is "Vision Plans Doomed, Space Advocacy Group Reports." COTS has nothing to do with the vision, unless this article and that organization are trying to MAKE IT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THEM.

I'm amazed at the ignorance of the space-support community sometimes. They're supposed to be in the know.

bad_astra · « **Reply #26 on:** 07/25/2006 03:39 pm »

Quote

Jim - 21/7/2006 9:45 AM

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE

http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/NASA_Research_and_Utilization_Plan_for_the_ISS.pdf
"The VSE has brought a new emphasis to alternate access to space with the development. of the CEV and COTS projects"

I could site other NASA sources on this, but I won't. COTS would not exist without VSE.

Jim · « **Reply #27 on:** 07/25/2006 03:43 pm »

I meant ESAS and the lunar missions.

JIS · « **Reply #28 on:** 07/25/2006 04:10 pm »

Quote

zinfab - 25/7/2006 8:48 AM

If I understand the article correctly, I'm even more irritated. The title is "Vision Plans Doomed, Space Advocacy Group Reports." COTS has nothing to do with the vision, unless this article and that organization are trying to MAKE IT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THEM.

I'm amazed at the ignorance of the space-support community sometimes. They're supposed to be in the know.

I agree. That article is shit. COTS companies haven't demonstrated anything yet. Giving billions to them won’t have any effect.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #29 on:** 07/25/2006 04:25 pm »

Well... I could say the Falcon got a lot further off the pad than the Stick is likely to. (But then someone would probably hit me)

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #30 on:** 07/25/2006 05:00 pm »

The Space Frontier Foundation is focused on the “creation of low cost access to the space frontier for private citizens and companies, enables or accelerates our use of space resources, and/or accelerates the rate at which wealth can be generated in space.” It is their belief that the CLV does not meet that criteria because; it is in competition with the COTS program in providing lift to LEO, and it, as currently envisioned (the stick), is not viable. Note that they would not be so strident if the EELV was the proposed launcher.

Furthermore they believe that the entire VSE as described in the ESAS is not sustainable or even achievable. At 1 to 2 billion dollars a mission and based on what happened to Apollo they may have a point.

It is clear that COTS winners are not going to have enough business servicing the ISS to make a profit in competition with the CEV, HTC, ATC, and Progress. Nor is it likely that there will be enough NASA, military, scientific, or commercial LEO missions to make it profitable. Even assuming that something like Bigelow Aerospace’s Space station/Tourist attraction was built there would still not be enough business to make it profitable. If, however, a large enough portion of the VSE could be added to the above missions then we might see a viable business opportunity. They believe something like that would actually kick start the whole privatization of space exploration/exploitation.

The problem that has been discussed over and over here is that NASA is constrained by the political realities of job retention and that NASA has had to make decisions that are compromises between what is the best engineering solution and what is politically viable. These people don’t buy into any of that.

bad_astra · « **Reply #31 on:** 07/25/2006 05:02 pm »

The company (I forget what there name was) that had a plan for a cargo module to be brought in by an empty Progress looked good. Shame it didn't get much further. OSC and Rocketplane-Kistler working together might bring about some results, though.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #32 on:** 07/25/2006 05:10 pm »

Quote

bad_astra - 25/7/2006 11:49 AM

The company (I forget what there name was) that had a plan for a cargo module to be brought in by an empty Progress looked good. Shame it didn't get much further. OSC and Rocketplane-Kistler working together might bring about some results, though.

Constellation Services International, yeah I like the idea of using the empty Progress as a space tug. It is an idea that ought to have some use.

Edit: For that matter the HTC and ATC might have that capability too.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #33 on:** 07/25/2006 06:31 pm »

The full Space Frontier Foundation White Paper is available here. http://www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/UnaffordableUnsustainable.pdf

Jim · « **Reply #34 on:** 07/25/2006 07:06 pm »

I have mixed feelings about this. However, I am dead set against the legisation proposal. CEV to ISS is a good way to work out the bugs. Maybe there can be a compromise. Let NASA build its own spacecraft but compete the launcher for it.

PS. I skimmed the white paper, I will read it in detail tonite.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #35 on:** 07/25/2006 07:59 pm »

I am not a member of or affiliated with SFF. I have spent the last hour and a quarter reading this white paper; while they often descend into their own jargon and are needlessly antagonistic I think they make some good points. They could have made an even stronger case if they had used some of the arguments I have seen here and elsewhere on the Internet.

To clear up some of the misunderstanding engendered by Space.com’s article I will quote their recommendations:

The Foundation recommends that CEV Block 1,
which is focused on ISS, be cancelled immediately.

The Foundation recommends that the CLV be
delayed consistent with CEV Block 2 and that the
Atlas V & Delta IV be reconsidered because of the
national security and taxpayer benefits, and the large
jump in the cost estimates of the CLV program.

The Foundation recommends that several billion
dollars of the near-term savings be used to create an
additional COTS competition, to create larger space
transportation prizes, and for service acquisitions.

Whoops, in reviewing (something they should have done) I see that I missed one of their recommendations. Their recommendations are scattered throughout the paper with supporting arguments and then summarized at the end in different wording. For some reason this recommendation was not in the summary.

RECOMMENDATION: The White House and
Congress should specify, as a matter of policy
and/or law, that NASA cannot develop, build,
own or operate a new vehicle for crew or cargo
missions to the ISS or to other parts of low
Earth orbit. For those missions, NASA must
buy a service from U.S. companies

MKremer · « **Reply #36 on:** 07/25/2006 08:11 pm »

Just my own opinion, but this SFF paper seems to be more due to preferential politics than engineering, especially considering how much the CEV program designs are still evolving, with many more engineering and materials research/studies still to be done before any final spec's have been agreed upon.

Jim · « **Reply #37 on:** 07/25/2006 08:32 pm »

There is already a law on the books, it is called the Commercial Space Act and it states that NASA must by commercial launch services. There are some exceptions., manned spaceflight is one.

Also There is no Block I or II CEV. the first one off the line can go to the moon.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #38 on:** 07/25/2006 08:32 pm »

Quote

MKremer - 25/7/2006 2:58 PM

Just my own opinion, but this SFF paper seems to be more due to preferential politics than engineering, especially considering how much the CEV program designs are still evolving, with many more engineering and materials research/studies still to be done before any final spec's have been agreed upon.

I agree completely, they are clearly stating that they believe that NASA's implementation of the VSE is flawed primarily from a policy point of view. The fact that some of the engineering decisions made so far seem to be questionable is just supporting their argument. The engineering that they most question are those that are policy based, CEV Phase I and the CLV. Their suggestion to reallocate "several billion dollars of the near-term savings" is specious since those dollars could be spent on CEV Phase II and CaLV now. Although if you buy into their arguments it does make some sense to beef up the COTS so that it has something operational by 2010.

Jim · « **Reply #39 on:** 07/25/2006 08:36 pm »

COTS doesn't guarantee that there will be a viable vehicle. It isn't a procurement. It is a wait and see. If I see progress I like, you will get some money for it.