Author Topic: COTS II RFI Solicitation (Read 15889 times)

Jim · « **on:** 12/12/2006 01:46 pm »

http://procurement.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=122992

mr.columbus · « **Reply #1 on:** 12/12/2006 02:29 pm »

Anybody have any guess who beside SpaceX and Kistler will send in proposals?

Jim · « **Reply #2 on:** 12/12/2006 02:32 pm »

Boeing and LM with ATV and HTV. Constellation Services Inc. Spacehab. Transpace. All the same ones as for COTS II

This is only a request for information

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #3 on:** 12/12/2006 03:39 pm »

According to the RIF it is open to foreign companies, is there any reason Progress could not be entered?

Ducati94 · « **Reply #4 on:** 12/12/2006 04:03 pm »

They can as long as :Respondents should assume they will be required to meet all U.S. laws and regulations.

Jim · « **Reply #5 on:** 12/12/2006 04:23 pm »

Anybody can respond to the request for information. When the RFP comes out, it may be different

Launch Fan · « **Reply #6 on:** 12/14/2006 12:37 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 12/12/2006 10:22 AM

According to the RIF it is open to foreign companies, is there any reason Progress could not be entered?

That could be interesting. RSC Energia sure would love the cash.

spacedreams · « **Reply #7 on:** 12/14/2006 12:42 am »

Would it be ULA with ATV/HTV or would it be considered commercial and have to go through Boeing or Lockheed?

How about a Lockheed/ULA Atlas + modified CEV or Bigelow module?

Jim · « **Reply #8 on:** 12/14/2006 01:25 am »

Quote

spacedreams - 13/12/2006 8:25 PM

Would it be ULA with ATV/HTV or would it be considered commercial and have to go through Boeing or Lockheed?

How about a Lockheed/ULA Atlas + modified CEV or Bigelow module?

No CEV, it is NASA's, There can't be a commercial version of the CEV, NASA provides hardware (LIDS, parachute, etc) and other support for it.

Bigelow's is a station not a manuvering spacecraft

It would be Boeing or LM and not ULA

Danderman · « **Reply #9 on:** 12/14/2006 02:17 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 12/12/2006 8:22 AM

According to the RIF it is open to foreign companies, is there any reason Progress could not be entered?

The requirement is for 2000 kg of "dry" cargo in a single flight, which Progress cannot meet.

mr.columbus · « **Reply #10 on:** 12/14/2006 07:54 am »

Quote

Danderman - 13/12/2006 10:00 PM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 12/12/2006 8:22 AM

According to the RIF it is open to foreign companies, is there any reason Progress could not be entered?

The requirement is for 2000 kg of "dry" cargo in a single flight, which Progress cannot meet.

Correct, Progress M1 can carry a maximum of 1800 kg of dry cargo, but a maxium of 2230 kg of total cargo. I am rather confident that the extra 200 kg of dry cargo could be achieved somehow using only a slightly modified vehicle.

hektor · « **Reply #11 on:** 12/17/2006 09:30 am »

Only ATV and Progress can make the deadline, and ATV is much more expensive than Progress. This RFI has 'Progress' written on it.

Jim · « **Reply #12 on:** 12/17/2006 01:24 pm »

Quote

hektor - 17/12/2006 5:13 AM

Only ATV and Progress can make the deadline, and ATV is much more expensive than Progress. This RFI has 'Progress' written on it.

Not true. Someone could come up with something in 2 years. and there is HTV

simonbp · « **Reply #13 on:** 12/17/2006 02:05 pm »

Quote

Jim - 17/12/2006 8:07 AM

Not true. Someone could come up with something in 2 years. and there is HTV

Considering that two years ago the K-1 was moribund and NASA wouldn't give the time of day to SpaceX, I'd agree that there is chance...

Simon

Danderman · « **Reply #14 on:** 12/17/2006 04:37 pm »

Quote

hektor - 17/12/2006 2:13 AM

Only ATV and Progress can make the deadline, and ATV is much more expensive than Progress. This RFI has 'Progress' written on it.

Progress cannot carry 2000 kg of dry cargo to ISS, as the RFI specifies.

Ducati94 · « **Reply #15 on:** 12/17/2006 11:38 pm »

What if a Progress launch pad was built at an equatorial launch site?

sammie · « **Reply #16 on:** 12/18/2006 12:08 am »

They are building a Soyuz launch site in Kourou for Ariane Space, thats as close to the equator you get with existing launch sites. I don't think uplift isn't the problem here. They could easily launch the Progress on a Soyuz-2b is they were really starved for performance. But what is the point for Energia or the RSA to write on for COTS, not like they stand a snowball's chance in hell anyway. The only viable (IMHO) option with Progress hardware was offered by Constellation Services International (CSI) for COTS I and got shot down. (article

Jim · « **Reply #17 on:** 12/18/2006 12:13 am »

Quote

sammie - 17/12/2006 7:51 PM

They are building a Soyuz launch site in Kourou for Ariane Space, thats as close to the equator you get with existing launch sites. I don't think uplift isn't the problem here. They could easily launch the Progress on a Soyuz-2b is they were really starved for performance. But what is the point for Energia or the RSA to write on for COTS, not like they stand a snowball's chance in hell anyway. The only viable (IMHO) option with Progress hardware was offered by Constellation Services International (CSI) for COTS I and got shot down. (article

CSI didn't have a viable proposal.

Danderman · « **Reply #18 on:** 12/18/2006 02:15 am »

Quote

Ducati94 - 17/12/2006 4:21 PM

What if a Progress launch pad was built at an equatorial launch site?

Progress could not carry 2000 kg of dry cargo even with a Saturn V launcher, unless it were structurally modified. Such modifications would probably require approval by the ISS safety review boards, and that is not likely to happen in time for a 2009 launch.

Ducati94 · « **Reply #19 on:** 12/18/2006 01:02 pm »

I don’t know where the other competitors stand as far has certification but I would think they would have to pass thru the ISS safety board also. But that is way to straight forward for the Alt. space community; I think I would work the mod thru the Russian launch services and then that as certification for the ISS (but more than likely still could not make a ’09 requirement, unless it’s already in the works).