Author Topic: COTS Cuts (Read 33729 times)

Jim · « **Reply #60 on:** 07/29/2006 03:59 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 28/7/2006 5:45 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....

Who else would be in charge?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #61 on:** 07/31/2006 03:39 pm »

This article provides some interesting comments on NASA and it's changing version of what COTS is supposed to be. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/672/1

By changing the playing field from a commercial opportunity to a "US industrial development program" with suitably foggy definitions of success, NASA has neatly avoided any need to make any commitment to purchase services from any of the participants. COTS has been changed from a business opportunity to another government handout for developing technology. I wouldn't be surprised to never see any flight hardware come out of NASA's redefined COTS program

Jim · « **Reply #62 on:** 07/31/2006 04:02 pm »

Phase 1 of COTS was never a "pay for service". That's why COTS is using Space Act Agreements. NASA is paying to see incremented demonstrations of capability. Phase 2 is the contract for services. If NASA really wanted to just send logistics to the station, they could have contracted ATV and HTV on Deltas and Atlases (see new thread on this) or paid Energia directly for Progress flights. That's why CSI, LM and Boeing didn't make the COTS cut. COTS is more of what SFF wants but it doesn't go far enough as they are concerned. Imagine what they would have said LM or Boeing made the cut.

Can't have it both ways. None of the COTS entrants would have been able to compete in a RFP for logisitcs services.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #63 on:** 07/31/2006 04:44 pm »

Quote

Jim - 29/7/2006 10:46 AM

Quote
mlorrey - 28/7/2006 5:45 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....

Who else would be in charge?

Aye, there's the rub. NASA has steadfastly avoided any efforts to move it toward supporting commercial access to space. If NASA had followed the original VSE plans they would have been buying a considerable number of launches from someone other than themselves. Furthermore many of the VSE proposals created infrastructure in space, at L1, LEO, and/or LLO. Many of these could have developed into commercial opportunities for logistical support and perhaps more.

Suppose that fifteen or twenty years ago NASA had announced that they would pay x amount per lb to any US firm that could deliver cargo to the ISS. Suppose that NASA had offered to pay x amount per pound for any firm to return cargo to Earth from the ISS or x amount per person. What would have developed within the industry? We will never know.

Suppose that NASA, instead of developing their 250 Billion dollar in-house VSE, had decided to offer commercial contracts for delivery of the parts, fuel, and men needed to construct a lunar/mars transport system within some overarching VSE. Offered contracts for delivery of supplies, modules, and equipment to LEO, L1 or the lunar surface. Would it have cost more? Would it have been more effective? I guess we won't know that either.

NASA is perfectly happy resurrecting Apollo (on steroids), retaining tens of thousands of contract employees under their massive bureaucratic domains, rather than see anything like the private development of space.

Who else would be in charge? NASA could be in charge, but until they change their vision, until they begin to lead instead of dictate, until they grasp the power that a free market and capitalism gives them, the answer is no one will be in charge.

Jim · « **Reply #64 on:** 07/31/2006 05:07 pm »

"NASA has steadfastly avoided any efforts to move it toward supporting commercial access to space." Other than maaned missions, NASA is required and does but commercial access to space. All of the ELV's are commercially procured.

"until they grasp the power that a free market and capitalism gives them," this line of reasoning has been discounted in many threads. Any firm can develop the service it they want, but they shouldn't rely on NASA. It does NASA no good to develop a market than it is the only customer.

Jim · « **Reply #65 on:** 07/31/2006 05:07 pm »

"NASA has steadfastly avoided any efforts to move it toward supporting commercial access to space." Other than maaned missions, NASA is required and does but commercial access to space. All of the ELV's are commercially procured.

"until they grasp the power that a free market and capitalism gives them," this line of reasoning has been discounted in many threads. Any firm can develop the service it they want, but they shouldn't rely on NASA. It does NASA no good to develop a market that it is the only customer.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #66 on:** 07/31/2006 05:09 pm »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 10:49 AM

Phase 1 of COTS was never a "pay for service". That's why COTS is using Space Act Agreements. NASA is paying to see incremented demonstrations of capability. Phase 2 is the contract for services. If NASA really wanted to just send logistics to the station, they could have contracted ATV and HTV on Deltas and Atlases (see new thread on this) or paid Energia directly for Progress flights. That's why CSI, LM and Boeing didn't make the COTS cut. COTS is more of what SFF wants but it doesn't go far enough as they are concerned. Imagine what they would have said LM or Boeing made the cut.

Can't have it both ways. None of the COTS entrants would have been able to compete in a RFP for logisitcs services.

Perhaps you're right Jim. I agree that none of the COTS entrants could have competed against LM or B or against government backed vehicles like ATV, HTV, or Progress. On the other hand there needs to be a solid business opportunities that spur competition to develop low cost LEO access. Half or a third of a billion dollars is a lot of money to a small company but is it enough to develop a new launch system? NASA is spending between 1 and 3 billion to develop its own CLV. And once the COTS system is developed is NASA offering enough business to keep it developing? While there is some 10 years left to the ISS how many missions does that leave the COTS? Is there any room in NASA's implementation of the VSE for the COTS winners or any private lift providers?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #67 on:** 07/31/2006 05:30 pm »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 11:54 AM

"until they grasp the power that a free market and capitalism gives them," this line of reasoning has been discounted in many threads. Any firm can develop the service it they want, but they shouldn't rely on NASA. It does NASA no good to develop a market that it is the only customer.

Of course it does NASA good, lower cost to LEO, alternate access to LEO to name a couple. If NASA had developed these markets years ago we would have had access to the ISS while the shuttle was grounded.

If these services were available now what would NASA's VSE look like? Who knows what the free market would have dreamed up, I don't think that NASA would have come up with the feathered wing reentry of SpaceShip One. Look at the wide varity of proposals the original VSE created. NASA needs to be thinking outside the box and while they would be the sole customer initially do you think that other countries would pass up on cheap prefab stations like Bigelow's if it were developed for a NASA purchase and then offered on the free market?

Jim · « **Reply #68 on:** 07/31/2006 05:42 pm »

NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system. The main part of COTS is the spacecraft. That is the drive with COTS. Spacehab has the right idea, design a spacecraft that can fly on any ELV, Atlas, Delta, falcon, etc

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #69 on:** 07/31/2006 05:54 pm »

"NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system." Hum... cough *CLV* cough.

No but seriously, what about the t/Space/Rutan "SpaceShip One on steroids" launcher? All weather/ possible major cost savings, now that's outside the box.

Jim · « **Reply #70 on:** 07/31/2006 06:37 pm »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 31/7/2006 1:41 PM

"NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system." Hum... cough *CLV* cough.

No but seriously, what about the t/Space/Rutan "SpaceShip One on steroids" launcher? All weather/ possible major cost savings, now that's outside the box.

I wasn't talking manned systems. COTS is not a manned system.

SpaceShip One on steroids" launcher isn't orbital.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #71 on:** 07/31/2006 06:59 pm »

Actually it is Phase 1 cargo, Phase 2 Manned.

Actually it is. I have not seen t/Space's COTS proposal but it seems to be based on the same thinking as their VSE proposal where they were planning on using the Quick Reach 2 air launched from an aircraft. Check it out on their web site http://www.transformspace.com/ .

mr.columbus · « **Reply #72 on:** 07/31/2006 08:30 pm »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 1:29 PM

NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system. The main part of COTS is the spacecraft. That is the drive with COTS. Spacehab has the right idea, design a spacecraft that can fly on any ELV, Atlas, Delta, falcon, etc

Totally agree. I also think that Spacehab's proposal is the only one that really is somewhat realistic. NASA knows Spacehab is an experienced company with people who know that they can built what they are proposing and stay within some kind of budgetary as well as time limit - that's the reason why they will chose them as one of the 2-3 competitors to get COTS money.

Also I think that if COTS will have any actual result, it is rather likely that it will be a Spacehab vehicle - probably launched on an Atlas V 401. The only bad thing about all that is, such a system will be nearly as expensive but will have less payload than the ATV, and while having a bit more payload but will be much more expensive than Progress. I hope Spacehab focuses on downlink capacity, then it would actually has a real advantage over other ISS supply vehicles.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #73 on:** 07/31/2006 08:42 pm »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 1:29 PM

NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system.

There is a need for new technology that will lower launch costs significantly. The problem is, the private sector, with its focus on short term returns, cannot invest heavily in technology development that would lead to an RLV down the road. That's where organizations like NASA come in. Private industry today to a large extent simply exploits technology that was developed with taxpayer dollars.

mlorrey · « **Reply #74 on:** 07/31/2006 11:59 pm »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 12:29 PM

NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system. The main part of COTS is the spacecraft. That is the drive with COTS. Spacehab has the right idea, design a spacecraft that can fly on any ELV, Atlas, Delta, falcon, etc

There is a glut of expensive expendable launch systems. That is all. There is no supply of affordable and/or reusable launch systems, and as much as you might deny it, NASA is an "anchor tenant" for such a system, provided they actually start putting the taxpayer ahead of keeping government employee unions happy. No matter what the market, anchor tenants have to pony up the cash: no bucks, no buck rogers.

Jim · « **Reply #75 on:** 08/01/2006 12:49 am »

What government employee unions?
Contractors at space flight centers out number civil servants 10 to 1.

Jim · « **Reply #76 on:** 08/01/2006 12:50 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 31/7/2006 4:29 PM

Quote
Jim - 31/7/2006 1:29 PM

NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system.

There is a need for new technology that will lower launch costs significantly. The problem is, the private sector, with its focus on short term returns, cannot invest heavily in technology development that would lead to an RLV down the road. That's where organizations like NASA come in. Private industry today to a large extent simply exploits technology that was developed with taxpayer dollars.

It is not NASA's job to make it easier on the private sector. That is up to market forces. You can't have it both ways.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #77 on:** 08/01/2006 12:53 am »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 8:37 PM

It is not NASA's job to make it easier on the private sector. That is up to market forces.

That's where I have a fundamental disagreement. It has always been NASA's job to perform research into new technologies that will benefit commercial interests down the road. The private sector has always relied on government funded research and development, which is why I cannot fully buy into the notion that private industry can do things better without the benefit of government support. It simply cannot afford to make the long term investment in research and development.

Jim · « **Reply #78 on:** 08/01/2006 12:56 am »

Quote

mlorrey - 31/7/2006 7:46 PM
There is a glut of expensive expendable launch systems. That is all. There is no supply of affordable and/or reusable launch systems, and as much as you might deny it, NASA is an "anchor tenant" for such a system,

NASA is not. The DOD and commercial manifests have more influence. 2 CLaV's and 2 CLV's are not enough requirements for commercial development.

The other launches on ELV's aren't enough in one class to drive commercial requirements. At the moment, small and medium class ELV's are on the verge of shutting down because NASA is the only user and can't itself sustain the market.

Jim · « **Reply #79 on:** 08/01/2006 01:01 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 31/7/2006 8:40 PM

Quote
Jim - 31/7/2006 8:37 PM

It is not NASA's job to make it easier on the private sector. That is up to market forces.

That's where I have a fundamental disagreement. It has always been NASA's job to perform research into new technologies that will benefit commercial interests down the road. The private sector has always relied on government funded research and development, which is why I cannot fully buy into the notion that private industry can do things better without the benefit of government support. It simply cannot afford to make the long term investment in research and development.

There is no magic technology that will make an RLV work better. The only thing that an RLV needs is development money. Unlike EU, NASA doesn't pay to develop airplanes. We are past the point for funding LEO LV development (DOD has its own unique requirements) for unmanned spacecraft. By law, NASA must by commercial launch services for unmanned vehicles.