Author Topic: COTS Cuts (Read 33735 times)

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #40 on:** 07/25/2006 08:52 pm »

Jim their argument is that there is a Block I, with docking mechanisms for the ISS and no methane engine, and Block II with the LIDs docking mech and with the methane engine that was dropped to get to the ISS in a timely fashion.
They also argue that the COTS should lead to a procurement if not contain guarentees of a procurement. If fact they imply that NASA should issue a procurement for services to the ISS now.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #41 on:** 07/25/2006 09:16 pm »

It is kind of amusing, these guys are space advocates after all, and so while they really want private carriers, they really really want a heavy lift vehicle, even if it is a government one. I would guess that there is a strong contingent at SFF that is arguing for multiple EELV (or COTS) to assemble the moon mission in orbit but an equally vocal group arguing for heavy lift. Kinda like around here.

zinfab · « **Reply #42 on:** 07/25/2006 09:41 pm »

The purpose of ISS visits early in the CEV path is more "proof of concept" and "meeting International committments" (6 people escape). NASA is not planning to make CEV to ISS a very repeatable thing (it'll be too expensive).

I still don't understand why NASA should divert 17% of its annual budget toward the COTS program. Don't they realize that if we sent CLV money (Atlas/Delta OR Ares), they may be destroying the VSE all together?

Unfortunately, this just looks like another painful instance of space advocates eating their own...

Thanks for these sources, Norm. You've reinvigorated this thread!

edited to add: All my disagreements aside, I wish NASA had the will to make the most economical decision on launch vehicles. This ATK SRB thing is starting to make me ill. Maybe I just read too many one-sided opinions on this board, though.

mong' · « **Reply #43 on:** 07/25/2006 10:34 pm »

at the time, there is NO private company able to send significant payloads (10 to 20 tons) to the ISS on its own, so I don't see why NASA should spend such a big amount of its ressources on it, COTS is already more or less an act of faith, and $500 million is enough for that.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #44 on:** 07/25/2006 11:03 pm »

mong' - are you saying that there is no private company able to send significant payloads (10 to 20 tons) to LEO?

mong' · « **Reply #45 on:** 07/25/2006 11:22 pm »

no, I am saying they can't send it to the ISS. some big companies have the launchers (lockmart, boeing) but only 2 (soon 3) governments have the spacecrafts able to perform the rendezvous and docking manoeuvers, and that is no small task.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #46 on:** 07/26/2006 12:00 am »

Now why would a private company develop rendezvous and docking capability unless they were hired to do so? Even if they had wanted to would NASA allowed them to dock to the ISS? This is what both the COTS and the Commercial Space Act are intended to encourage. Why would NASA pay them to develop and market this capability? So that they could focus on the VSE.

Edit: and because the President and Congress told them to.

mong' · « **Reply #47 on:** 07/26/2006 12:08 am »

that is the point of COTS. let them show they can do it, then we might have a job for them. but we don't know if they will succeed, there is no reason to give them more money than necessary, especially in a tight budget.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #48 on:** 07/26/2006 12:33 am »

Hum and meanwhile we (NASA) will assume that they may not succeed so we will build our own system. But... we have a tight budget and need more money to develop our own system. So since they may not succeed anyway we will use some of that money for our system since we know it will work.

Meanwhile SpaceY is out hustling venture capital, "Please sir, give us money so we can convince NASA we can do the job" and venture capital is thinking 'Hum NASA is spending billions on their own system. I don't think NASA is going to hire SpaceY to do it when they can do it themselves' "NO!"

SpaceY can not provide NASA with proof that they have a sound business plan. SpaceY can not develop their system because the money in COTS has been reduced and they do not have enough cash to do it on their own.

NASA says "Well it is a good thing we developed our own system!"

But NASA has spent so much money on their own system that now they can not afford the VSE and so they go to Congress and say "Please sir, give us money so we can do what you told us to." and Congress thinks to themselves 'Hum NASA didn't do what we told them to in the first place.' "NO!"

End of VSE

zinfab · « **Reply #49 on:** 07/26/2006 01:04 am »

Norm, you're missing something here. They can actually SKIP NASA with the ISS. That's the WHOLE FREAKIN' point of COTS and the VSE.

NASA is no longer interested in LEO, except licensing the things they want done. NASA's mission is to push the boundaries of space.

If a company proves they can get to the ISS safely, they'll be allowed to visit. The ISS is INTERNATIONAL-- not just NASA. Remember when Russia started selling tourism seats? Remember how mad NASA got? Remember who won? If a commercial company proves the ability to get there, NASA won't be able to stop it, whether they want to or not. After 2016, NASA is supposed to be out of the ISS business. It'll be harder still to complain about international tourism after 2010.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #50 on:** 07/26/2006 01:31 am »

Hum, perhaps you are right and I am missing something, I am going to go do some more reading. I will leave with one last question. If "NASA is no longer interested in LEO" why are they developing the CLV?

Jim · « **Reply #51 on:** 07/26/2006 01:39 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 25/7/2006 4:39 PM

Jim their argument is that there is a Block I, with docking mechanisms for the ISS and no methane engine, and Block II with the LIDs docking mech and with the methane engine that was dropped to get to the ISS in a timely fashion.
They also argue that the COTS should lead to a procurement if not contain guarentees of a procurement. If fact they imply that NASA should issue a procurement for services to the ISS now.

Methane is not going to be added back for the "near term" lunar missions. And LIDS for APAS is a minor change.

If NASA were to follow what they want to the "t". They can do what NASA does for ELV's. Compete it one mission at a time.

First "COTS" mission let's say is approximately $80m total cost. Now how is a COTS startup going to fund their development? NASA hasn't funded ELV development since the 80's. What is the difference between funding COTS development and CLV development? If ATK/USA/upperstage contractor wanted to go commercial with the CLV, then NASA probably would let them.

Jim · « **Reply #52 on:** 07/26/2006 01:44 am »

Quote

zinfab - 25/7/2006 8:51 PM

If a company proves they can get to the ISS safely, they'll be allowed to visit. The ISS is INTERNATIONAL-- not just NASA. Remember when Russia started selling tourism seats? Remember how mad NASA got? Remember who won? If a commercial company proves the ability to get there, NASA won't be able to stop it, whether they want to or not. After 2016, NASA is supposed to be out of the ISS business. It'll be harder still to complain about international tourism after 2010.

You are missing the point. NASA still has to support the ISS its portion of the ISS, which is above and beyond the ATV, HTV and Progress. This will requires other logistics vehicles.

and no, not anyone can visit the ISS. Yes, NASA can stop them. Russia is different, they are a partner.

NASA doesn't get out the ISS untill 2017 and then everyone has to.

NASA still flys to LEO. ELV's still go there

lmike · « **Reply #53 on:** 07/26/2006 05:40 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 25/7/2006 2:03 PM

It is kind of amusing, these guys are space advocates after all, and so while they really want private carriers, they really really want a heavy lift vehicle, even if it is a government one. I would guess that there is a strong contingent at SFF that is arguing for multiple EELV (or COTS) to assemble the moon mission in orbit but an equally vocal group arguing for heavy lift. Kinda like around here.

Well, they do take a spirited swing at the HLV CaLV under chapter number 2. And I qoute:

"...
Furthermore, the issue of whether or not such a
heavy-lift vehicle is the correct strategic path21
remains unresolved. There are valid arguments on
both sides, and this is a hotly debated issue.
Fundamentally, the correct answer depends on your
objective. If your primary goal is to place humans
on the Moon or Mars, as soon as possible in the
simplest and lowest risk manner, a super-heavy-lift
vehicle is arguably the best answer. However, if
your primary objective is to open up the frontier to
large numbers of people, or to produce large
reductions in launch costs, or to increase competition
and create redundant pathways to space, or to create
a breakthrough in space commerce for the benefit of
humankind, or to settle this new frontier, then logic
and history suggests a different choice...." and so forth.

Read further, and my take is they don't like it one bit.

[edit] btw, their mission goal is stated as "...the large-scale permanent settlement of space. " So it's not the "manned space is a waste... robots rule... " crowd. Quite the opposite. (perhaps too much opposite)

Avron · « **Reply #54 on:** 07/27/2006 05:46 pm »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 25/7/2006 9:18 PM

Hum, perhaps you are right and I am missing something, I am going to go do some more reading. I will leave with one last question. If "NASA is no longer interested in LEO" why are they developing the CLV?

CLV is to do one thing wrt to manned space flight.. is to launch the Crew .. i.e. CEV.. CLV is launch only.. CEV and other stages that the CEV may meet in LEO for longer flights is another matter... So the statement that NASA is not interested in LEO, is way off the mark.. First step is to get to LEO.. then onwards... right now the Only way to LEO is STS for NASA.. but again we see all the eggs in the same basket... CLV..

In terms of the cargo angle, there really should be a direction from Congress to use EELV or other launch vehicle that are made/owned in North America (eh.. hope for Canada here) and not use the CLV for Cargo in any form other than to launch crew.. Now that does not mean that the vehicle that carries the Cargo cannot be NASA owned and operated... when will be get international or even national standards for Payload/LV interfaces???

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #55 on:** 07/28/2006 03:10 pm »

Moved to specific section.

Jim · « **Reply #56 on:** 07/28/2006 03:37 pm »

Quote

Avron - 27/7/2006 1:33 PM

In terms of the cargo angle, there really should be a direction from Congress to use EELV or other launch vehicle that are made/owned in North America (eh.. hope for Canada here) and not use the CLV for Cargo in any form other than to launch crew.. Now that does not mean that the vehicle that carries the Cargo cannot be NASA owned and operated... when will be get international or even national standards for Payload/LV interfaces???

COTS requirements are US only (majority).

There are standard Payload/LV interfaces:
37, 47 and 66" clampband adapters (945, ,1194, 1666 mm)
37 and 61 pin connectors

mlorrey · « **Reply #57 on:** 07/28/2006 09:58 pm »

Quote

Jim - 21/7/2006 9:45 AM

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE

And so long as NASA is in charge, it never will....

mlorrey · « **Reply #58 on:** 07/28/2006 10:04 pm »

Quote

zinfab - 25/7/2006 7:51 PM

Norm, you're missing something here. They can actually SKIP NASA with the ISS. That's the WHOLE FREAKIN' point of COTS and the VSE.

NASA is no longer interested in LEO, except licensing the things they want done. NASA's mission is to push the boundaries of space.

If a company proves they can get to the ISS safely, they'll be allowed to visit. The ISS is INTERNATIONAL-- not just NASA. Remember when Russia started selling tourism seats? Remember how mad NASA got? Remember who won? If a commercial company proves the ability to get there, NASA won't be able to stop it, whether they want to or not. After 2016, NASA is supposed to be out of the ISS business. It'll be harder still to complain about international tourism after 2010.

I kinda doubt this. NASA won the ISS tourist fight, by being able to restrict Russias tourists to the Russian modules. No way nohow that NASA would allow a US company to operate space tours to ISS to use US modules without hefty fees, likely equal to what tourists already pay the Russians for both the ISS stay AND the Soyuz launch.

If NASA tried to give a US company cheaper access, the Democrats would be on the administrations case in no time for giving "corporate welfare".

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush sold off ISS access rights at about the same time as he issued his last presidential pardons....

DigitalMan · « **Reply #59 on:** 07/29/2006 03:57 am »

Seems kinda like wandering the desert for 30 years with another 10 still to go...

:-(