COTS II RFI Solicitation

[meiza]

Danderman - 18/12/2006  2:58 AM

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.

What's the biggest constraint? Pressurized volume? Some adapter? Some structural part or attachment?

[Danderman]

meiza - 18/12/2006  6:56 AM

Danderman - 18/12/2006  2:58 AM

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.

What's the biggest constraint? Pressurized volume? Some adapter? Some structural part or attachment?

The Progress cargo compartment has a pressurized volume of about 6 cubic meters. At the cargo density called out in the RFI (230 kg per cubic meter), that is about 1400 kg of cargo. It happens that Progress rarely, if ever, carries more than 1400 kg of dry cargo in practice.  So, to squeeze in another 600 kg in the cargo compartment would be difficult, if not impossible (carrying the types of cargo called out in the RFI).

Stretching the cargo compartment requires a modification to the Soyuz payload shroud, a big project.

Another alternative would be to fly a stretched cargo compartment, minus the propellant compartment, sort of like the Pirs module, which carried 800 kg of cargo.  However, that vehicle would be radically different than Progress.

I am not saying that some Alt Space company can certify its solution faster than a modified Progress, only that Progress itself cannot meet the requirements of the NASA RFI.

[meiza]

Ah! It's now more convincing when we hear the reasons behind and not just a categorical statement. Thanks.

[hektor]

This 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.

[Jim]

I agree.

[Ducati94]

I 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.

[wingod]

Ducati94 - 18/12/2006  12:35 PM

I 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.

[Ducati94]

NASA is not stupid or naive. They are typical 2 or 3 moves ahead of what is public knowledge. Some of the time you ask a question to get an answer and some of time to prove there is not an answer. Your choice.

[Danderman]

hektor - 18/12/2006  7:59 AM

This 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?

[Danderman]

wingod - 18/12/2006  10:52 AM

Ducati94 - 18/12/2006  12:35 PM

I 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.

NASA is not a monolith.

[Ducati94]

Agree

[wingod]

Danderman - 18/12/2006  3:50 PM

hektor - 18/12/2006  7:59 AM

This 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?

Why could a modified Progress not get through review in two years?  The Russians have already produced a deriviative that ESA is buying for flight in 2008 for external payloads.  I see nothing that keeps a modified progress from flying in time.

[Norm Hartnett]

Modification II to the RFI:

http://procurement.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=123132

Specific things I noticed are:
The response to questions 13-18 which seem to preclude any request from NASA to waive ITAR

The 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?

[Norm Hartnett]

My only theories are that either NASA has carefully set this up so that there can be no successful applicants so that they can use this as justification for flying one or more of the Shuttle Contingency flights (probably STS-131) or they know of another program (American?) that can fly a demonstration flight by June 2007, which seems unlikely.

[marsavian]

Norm Hartnett - 23/12/2006  11:27 AM

Modification II to the RFI:

http://procurement.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=123132

Specific things I noticed are:
The response to questions 13-18 which seem to preclude any request from NASA to waive ITAR

The 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]

marsavian - 23/12/2006  1:27 PM

Norm Hartnett - 23/12/2006  11:27 AM

Modification II to the RFI:

http://procurement.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=123132

Specific things I noticed are:
The response to questions 13-18 which seem to preclude any request from NASA to waive ITAR

The 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

[hektor]

ATV on Atlas V would have been a good back-up. I am sure a 551 would do.

[marsavian]

Jim - 23/12/2006  2:47 PM

marsavian - 23/12/2006  1:27 PM

Norm Hartnett - 23/12/2006  11:27 AM

Modification II to the RFI:

http://procurement.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=123132

Specific things I noticed are:
The response to questions 13-18 which seem to preclude any request from NASA to waive ITAR

The 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

True but COTS also includes crew transport and they may just want a simple cargo backup just in case.

[jongoff]

Jim,

CSI didn't have a viable proposal.

Could you elaborate?  CSI has publically released at least some info about their approach, and I didn't see anything technically inviable in what they released.  Are you talking about political viability since it involved using Russian hardware for part of the system?  Or was there something else?

~Jon

[hektor]

All I know is that Lockheed was involved as well.

If i had to guess, I think the issue was the fact that the waiver on Russian purchase for the Iran stuff does not extend far enough in the future.