COTS II RFI Solicitation

[Ducati94]

Looks 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.

[Norm Hartnett]

Ducati94 - 23/12/2006  2:30 PM

Looks 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.

All very confusing.

[Ducati94]

Russians are disqualified on both payload mass and ITAR

But the closest thing out there. So NASA starts laying the ground work to get the laws changed.

[jongoff]

Norm,

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.

How is Russia disqualified due to ITAR?  Russia flies US payloads all the time.  Sure you have to *deal with* ITAR, but while annoying it isn't a showstopper--just another cost of business.

~Jon

[Norm Hartnett]

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]

Norm,

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.

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]

Yup you are right I was confusing the two. My bad. So now we are down to the payload issue for the Progress.

[wingod]

jongoff - 23/12/2006  9:18 PM

Norm,

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.

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

I found the RFI Q&A somewhere last night and the answers specifically state that it has to be an existing system that has flown by the end of 2007.  That pretty much rules out anyone except NASA, the Russians, or the ATV.

[wingod]

Norm Hartnett - 23/12/2006  8:25 PM

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.

To say this to me means that you don't quite understand the nature of the ITAR regime.  Russia and the U.S. co-manifest payloads all the time and ITAR is specifically related to the export of technical information and hardware from the U.S. to any foreign country.  A technical assistance agreement with clearly defined rules and operating procedures is all that is required.  NASA needs at TAA with ESA for the same reasons.  As 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.

[Ducati94]

IRAN non proliferation act which is an entirely different animal that NASA already has a blanket exemption to until 2012.

NASA wants to push the eximption to 2016 and maybe beyond.

[halkey]

Is COTS open to competitors outside of the USA?  I was under the impression that only proposals from American companies could be chosen.  I hope I'm wrong.

[Jim]

COTS entrant must use a US launch vehicle

[Danderman]

Jim - 25/12/2006  6:59 AM

COTS entrant must use a US launch vehicle

This is correct, but the COTS II solicitation apparently does not have this constraint.

[Jim]

This solicitation  is not COTS II.  My mistake.   Also, it is an RFI and not an RFP

[Jorge]

wingod - 24/12/2006  8:52 PM

As 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.

The exemption is far from "blanket".
--
JRF

[bmuniz]

Jim - 17/12/2006  7:13 PM

CSI didn't have a viable proposal.

Jim,

Could you elaborate on what we did not provide to have "viable proposal"?

Ben
-------------
Benigno Muñiz Jr.
Chief Technical Officer
Constellation Services International, Inc.