Norm Hartnett - 12/12/2006 10:22 AMAccording to the RIF it is open to foreign companies, is there any reason Progress could not be entered?
spacedreams - 13/12/2006 8:25 PMWould 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?
Norm Hartnett - 12/12/2006 8:22 AMAccording to the RIF it is open to foreign companies, is there any reason Progress could not be entered?
Danderman - 13/12/2006 10:00 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 12/12/2006 8:22 AMAccording 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.
hektor - 17/12/2006 5:13 AMOnly ATV and Progress can make the deadline, and ATV is much more expensive than Progress. This RFI has 'Progress' written on it.
Jim - 17/12/2006 8:07 AMNot true. Someone could come up with something in 2 years. and there is HTV
hektor - 17/12/2006 2:13 AMOnly ATV and Progress can make the deadline, and ATV is much more expensive than Progress. This RFI has 'Progress' written on it.
sammie - 17/12/2006 7:51 PMThey 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
Ducati94 - 17/12/2006 4:21 PMWhat if a Progress launch pad was built at an equatorial launch site?
Danderman - 18/12/2006 2:58 AMQuoteDucati94 - 17/12/2006 4:21 PMWhat 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.
meiza - 18/12/2006 6:56 AMQuoteDanderman - 18/12/2006 2:58 AMQuoteDucati94 - 17/12/2006 4:21 PMWhat 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.What's the biggest constraint? Pressurized volume? Some adapter? Some structural part or attachment?
Ducati94 - 18/12/2006 12:35 PMI also agree. The point may be there are no viable solutions in the stated time frame. I wanted to tease out thoughts for global solution not just US centric solutions.
hektor - 18/12/2006 7:59 AMThis is not very coherent, on one hand Jim says that someone could come up with something in two years, and on the other hand you tell me that two years is too little to modify the Progress to increase its performance by 10%.I think that if you believe that the Russians cannot do a Progress mod in two years, the Kistler and Space-X plans which include a brand new launcher and a brand new vehicle in about the same periods are far from believable.
wingod - 18/12/2006 10:52 AMQuoteDucati94 - 18/12/2006 12:35 PMI also agree. The point may be there are no viable solutions in the stated time frame. I wanted to tease out thoughts for global solution not just US centric solutions.NASA is not stupid in this area. They would not have put this out if there was not something lurking out there.
Danderman - 18/12/2006 3:50 PMQuotehektor - 18/12/2006 7:59 AMThis is not very coherent, on one hand Jim says that someone could come up with something in two years, and on the other hand you tell me that two years is too little to modify the Progress to increase its performance by 10%.I think that if you believe that the Russians cannot do a Progress mod in two years, the Kistler and Space-X plans which include a brand new launcher and a brand new vehicle in about the same periods are far from believable.I did not state that a Progress modification could not fly in two years. I did say that such a modification would require passage through the various review boards, since its not trivial. Nor did I state that the COTS winners would be faster than the Progress modification.My point was that Progress cannot meet the RFI requirements. Does anyone disagree?
Norm Hartnett - 23/12/2006 11:27 AMModification II to the RFI:http://procurement.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=123132Specific things I noticed are:The response to questions 13-18 which seem to preclude any request from NASA to waive ITARThe response to question 28 which would seem to limit the successful applicants to 0 since no one has docked a supply ship to the ISS except Russia and the ATV is not scheduled until July/August.Does anyone have any idea what NASA is trying to accomplish with this?
marsavian - 23/12/2006 1:27 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 23/12/2006 11:27 AMModification II to the RFI:http://procurement.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=123132Specific things I noticed are:The response to questions 13-18 which seem to preclude any request from NASA to waive ITARThe response to question 28 which would seem to limit the successful applicants to 0 since no one has docked a supply ship to the ISS except Russia and the ATV is not scheduled until July/August.Does anyone have any idea what NASA is trying to accomplish with this?"7. How does this relate to the Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) Program? – It is intended to bridge the gap before COTS is ready. It is not intended to replace or duplicate COTS."In other words oh crap what a gamble we made on RPK and SpaceX. Let's get a working backup ready just in case both flop
Jim - 23/12/2006 2:47 PMQuotemarsavian - 23/12/2006 1:27 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 23/12/2006 11:27 AMModification II to the RFI:http://procurement.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=123132Specific things I noticed are:The response to questions 13-18 which seem to preclude any request from NASA to waive ITARThe response to question 28 which would seem to limit the successful applicants to 0 since no one has docked a supply ship to the ISS except Russia and the ATV is not scheduled until July/August.Does anyone have any idea what NASA is trying to accomplish with this?"7. How does this relate to the Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) Program? – It is intended to bridge the gap before COTS is ready. It is not intended to replace or duplicate COTS."In other words oh crap what a gamble we made on RPK and SpaceX. Let's get a working backup ready just in case both flop Not quite. COTS II is not dependent on the COTS I contractors succeeding
CSI didn't have a viable proposal.
Ducati94 - 23/12/2006 2:30 PMLooks like the RFI strategy is to see what’s out there they may not be on the table currently and if necessary lay the ground work to keep the Russians in the up mass supply business. And keep the US companies from complaining.
But nothing is going to qualify as having flight experiance before June 2007 as required by the responce to question 28 and the Russians are disqualified on both payload mass and ITAR.
Answer to #13-18:"NASA will comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies regarding ISS cargo services. NASA cannot address this issue in more detail at this time since the purpose of this RFI is to gather information. Specific answers may depend upon the capabilities that exist if or when a RFP is released. "While this does not specifically rule out requesting another waiver on ITAR it seems to cast some doubt about it. Note that Russia is clearly in violation of ITAR and requires congressional approval to waive as vs other countries which you simply need a ton of paper work.
jongoff - 23/12/2006 9:18 PMNorm,QuoteAnswer to #13-18:"NASA will comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies regarding ISS cargo services. NASA cannot address this issue in more detail at this time since the purpose of this RFI is to gather information. Specific answers may depend upon the capabilities that exist if or when a RFP is released. "While this does not specifically rule out requesting another waiver on ITAR it seems to cast some doubt about it. Note that Russia is clearly in violation of ITAR and requires congressional approval to waive as vs other countries which you simply need a ton of paper work.Are you confusing ITAR with something else? Like the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 maybe? My understanding was that there was a bill that passed the Senate allowing NASA to buy Soyuz and Progress launches through 2012 if needed. I don't know if it cleared the House, but I think it may have.But as for ITAR, you don't need it waived to work with Russia. You just need to get a TAA setup. It's not that expensive or difficult. Time-consuming, yes, annoying, yes. But a showstopper? No.~Jon
Norm Hartnett - 23/12/2006 8:25 PMAnswer to #13-18:"NASA will comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies regarding ISS cargo services. NASA cannot address this issue in more detail at this time since the purpose of this RFI is to gather information. Specific answers may depend upon the capabilities that exist if or when a RFP is released. "While this does not specifically rule out requesting another waiver on ITAR it seems to cast some doubt about it. Note that Russia is clearly in violation of ITAR and requires congressional approval to waive as vs other countries which you simply need a ton of paper work.
Jim - 25/12/2006 6:59 AMCOTS entrant must use a US launch vehicle
wingod - 24/12/2006 8:52 PMAs John stated you are probably thinking about the IRAN non proliferation act which is an entirely different animal that NASA already has a blanket exemption to until 2012.
Jim - 17/12/2006 7:13 PMCSI didn't have a viable proposal.
