Author Topic: Rand Report (Read 4989 times)

Dexter · « **on:** 09/15/2006 06:29 am »

Interesting Read.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdf

There is a memo from the white house on page 59 of the document (page 89 of the pdf file) that talks about using EELV for ISS resupply.

I wonder why NASA awarded COTS to Kistler and SpaceX.

Jim · « **Reply #1 on:** 09/15/2006 11:59 am »

COTS phase 1 is a demo. Phase 2 is open to competion

Dexter · « **Reply #2 on:** 09/15/2006 02:40 pm »

I certainly hope NASA can create more competition than USAF did with EELV.

My interpretation of the memo is that EELV will be mandated for use on 5-20 metric ton missions. That does not seem like competition.

aero313 · « **Reply #3 on:** 09/15/2006 03:30 pm »

Whenever a document like this has a glaring error, I question the rest of it. The following is not true:

"A third competitor, Microcosm Inc., also in El Segundo, was originally being considered for its Eagle space launch vehicle. Despite a successful engine test in May 2005, the company broke up its subcontract agreements in August 2005, eliminating itself from competition."

Microcosm didn't "eliminate itself from competition", it was not selected for the next phase of the DARPA/FALCON program. They had no choice but to cancel subcontracts - there was no further money.

Jim · « **Reply #4 on:** 09/15/2006 03:35 pm »

Quote

Dexter - 15/9/2006 10:27 AM

I certainly hope NASA can create more competition than USAF did with EELV.

My interpretation of the memo is that EELV will be mandated for use on 5-20 metric ton missions. That does not seem like competition.

There are 2 EELV contractors, that is a down select from 4 (which was a competition). Two is still a competition. Anyways, who else is out there with the same demostrated capability

Dexter · « **Reply #5 on:** 09/16/2006 02:33 am »

You are correct that two is still a competiton. Would you still consider the number to be two upon the formation of ULA which is imminent.

Also, the only demonstrated capability for ISS resupply to my recollection is the Shuttle and Soyuz. There may be others but I do not think EELVs have demonstrated capability to fly to ISS to date.

My original question however was why would NASA award two seperate $200M contracts to develop this capability in light of the memo I referred to.

Perhaps (my speculation) NASA sees that ULA will not offer the competition they are looking for.

Jim · « **Reply #6 on:** 09/16/2006 09:10 pm »

No, EELV's can do station resupply. They can team with ATV or/and HTV. Phase 2 is the real competition

Dexter · « **Reply #7 on:** 09/17/2006 02:57 am »

I guess I am struggling with the expression "demonstrated capability". To me that would suggest that one or both EELVs have flown to ISS and demonstrated that capability meaning you don't need to spend any additional $$$$ to develop the vehicle.

D

Jim · « **Reply #8 on:** 09/17/2006 03:03 am »

Quote

Dexter - 16/9/2006 10:44 PM

I guess I am struggling with the expression "demonstrated capability". To me that would suggest that one or both EELVs have flown to ISS and demonstrated that capability meaning you don't need to spend any additional $$$$ to develop the vehicle.

D

Any LV with the performance can fly the proper trajectory to allow a spacecraft to rendevzous with the ISS. The hard part is the rendevzous and docking and the EELV's would need a spacecraft like the ATV or HTV to do it.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #9 on:** 09/19/2006 10:47 pm »

A quote from the article:

"Both DoD and NASA will utilize the EELV for all intermediate and larger payloads for national security, civil, science, and ISS cargo resupply missions in the 5-20mT class to the maximum extent possible. As specified in NSPD-40, new commercially-developed launch capabilities will be allowed to compete for these missions if it becomes available."

It basically says to use EELV as much as possible, but if other companies pop up with similar capabilities they can be considered as well. DoD just wants space launch capabilities to be maintained, but probably don't care if EELV get replaced with something cheaper on someone else's dime. COTS-1 in no way goes against this.

Kayla · « **Reply #10 on:** 09/23/2006 01:56 pm »

Quote

josh_simonson - 19/9/2006 5:30 PM

A quote from the article:

"Both DoD and NASA will utilize the EELV for all intermediate and larger payloads for national security, civil, science, and ISS cargo resupply missions in the 5-20mT class to the maximum extent possible. As specified in NSPD-40, new commercially-developed launch capabilities will be allowed to compete for these missions if it becomes available."

It basically says to use EELV as much as possible, but if other companies pop up with similar capabilities they can be considered as well. DoD just wants space launch capabilities to be maintained, but probably don't care if EELV get replaced with something cheaper on someone else's dime. COTS-1 in no way goes against this.

Josh, you have exactly expressed the current difference between NASA and the DoD.

The DoD has a mission that it needs to perform. They don't care who provides the "delivery truck" to get their payloads to orbit as long as it is reliable, timely and cost effective. Future DoD launch orders are structured to allow the start ups to compete once they have proven themselves.

NASA on the other hand is doing everything it can to control its launch vehicle. Shuttle for the past 30 years is a prime example of this. The Ares vehicles looking forward follow this example. NASA HQ has tried to force Ares I into missions where it can't even perform. For example the LPRP (lunar robotic missions). After extensive trades, MSFC told HQ that the Ares I could not perform Earth escape missions.

EELV's can easily support the LAUNCH needs for ISS servicing. But NASA views EELV's as competition to the development of the Ares vehicles, and thus has gone out of its way to make sure that EELV options were not selected for COTS and that no one even mentions an EELV launching the CEV to ISS, even in cargo only mode. Why do you think that HQ's is so upset about the announcement of the Bigelow-Atlas teaming for commercial crew launch.

NASA is completely renigging on the Griffin - Sega letter stating that EELV's will be used for ISS servicing. NASA is baselining the use of the Ares I to launch the CEV to support ISS servicing, with some words about maybe if it develops allowing commercial industry to do COTS 2. I have no issue with NASA bringing in competition in the form of the startups, that is great. But NASA spending tax payer dollars on the Ares I and then using that to compete against the startups and EELV's in a market that commercial industry can obviously do very well today, that is what ruffles my feathers. Let EELV's and new rockets launch the CEV to ISS.

rocketmantitan · « **Reply #11 on:** 09/24/2006 05:26 pm »

Quote

Kayla - 23/9/2006 6:39 AM

Josh, you have exactly expressed the current difference between NASA and the DoD.

The DoD has a mission that it needs to perform. They don't care who provides the "delivery truck" to get their payloads to orbit as long as it is reliable, timely and cost effective. Future DoD launch orders are structured to allow the start ups to compete once they have proven themselves.

NASA on the other hand is doing everything it can to control its launch vehicle. Shuttle for the past 30 years is a prime example of this. The Ares vehicles looking forward follow this example. NASA HQ has tried to force Ares I into missions where it can't even perform. For example the LPRP (lunar robotic missions). After extensive trades, MSFC told HQ that the Ares I could not perform Earth escape missions.

EELV's can easily support the LAUNCH needs for ISS servicing. But NASA views EELV's as competition to the development of the Ares vehicles, and thus has gone out of its way to make sure that EELV options were not selected for COTS and that no one even mentions an EELV launching the CEV to ISS, even in cargo only mode. Why do you think that HQ's is so upset about the announcement of the Bigelow-Atlas teaming for commercial crew launch.

I have trouble understanding the thought process/logic used by NASA managers behind the first phase of the COTS demonstration as well as using unmanned version of Orion/Ares to provide space station resupply. (Actually I don't have trouble understanding it, it just doesn't align well with the President's policy and NASA/DOD agreement!)

One of the Air Force/DOD goals in the letter between Mr Sega and Mr Griffin (included in the RAND report) was clearly to get NASA to use EELVs for unmanned space station resupply. That was a 'market' that would decrease EELV costs, leverage an existing capability, and improve understanding of EELV mission reliability. It also echoed direction in the President's space policy. (The President's Space Policy of Dec 2004 made it clear that the taxpayer/government had made a significant investment in the two EELV families and that the government was to use these families.)

Although the President's policy established a SecDef, DCI, NASA Administrator review of EELV requirements, funding, and management responsibilities no later than 2010, I don't think that could be construed as a loophole for NASA to press forward with non-EELV components of ISS resupply. I think it reflected the reality that the EELV business model be reevaluated for proper cost sharing between all parties (government and contractor), linked with a determination whether two EELV families were still needed for assured access to space. Since the EELV program was designed to be around until at least 2020, there was no threat from the government to end it before ISS resupply missions would begin. While there was a threat that one or both EELV rockets might not be around because of a corporate decision to withdraw from the launch service business, NASA did not appear to use this as an argument to fund the COTS demo or go off and develop an unmanned version of Orion to fly on the new Ares I.

Both the Presidential policy and the Sega/Griffin agreement envision that commercial capabilities that demonstrate reliability could compete for government business. It is not clear that these provided that the government should fund that development, ala COTS demo. After all, the taxpayer/AF had funded over one billion dollars for the EELV program which was to be the cornerstone of government launches. Why fund new commercial entrants that had the potential to compete for the limited launch market and further weaken the already tenuous survivability of EELVs?

Kayla · « **Reply #12 on:** 09/28/2006 01:33 am »

The COTS 1 entrants are still paper entries, non-threatening to the Orion/Ares I vehicle. NASA can claim that these commercial vehicles failed to meet NASA requirements for almost any reason. Is NASA truly committed to commercial ISS support? If COTS works, what would NASA do with Orion and Ares I between 2014 and 2020??? NASA has never allowed American expendables to support ISS supply despite the incredible cost of Shuttle, not to mention down times. This could reduce the nations dependency on shuttle, whose only real mission is ISS. NASA is continuing it same old policy.

EE Scott · « **Reply #13 on:** 10/08/2006 06:30 pm »

One point I found interesting within this paper is Rand's pessimistic viewpoint on Arianespace. They state that Arianespace prices their launches below cost, and without large additional subsidies from Euro governments, it will not be able to continue under its current business plan. Arianespace of course spins their future in the opposite light. I suppose the truth is somewhere in the middle.