COTS 1.5

docm · Sep 11, 2007

http://www.space.com/spacenews/ <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />NASA Plans New COTS Competition if it Terminates Rocketplane Kistler Deal WASHINGTON -- NASA said Sept. 10 that it would hold a competition for $175 million in unspent funds should the U.S. space agency terminate Rocketplane Kistler's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) agreement. The competition would be open to all comers, NASA spokeswoman Melissa Mathews said, including Rocketplane Kistler. <hr /></blockquote> [subscription to read the rest] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

crix · Sep 11, 2007

Huh... great! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> So technically SpaceX could compete for the funds it seems... from that one paragraph of info. I'd like to see what Rutan or Carmack could do with that kinda dough!

MeteorWayne · Sep 11, 2007

I guess reports of Kistler's demise were not wrong then. Life (and business) is tough. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

j05h · Sep 11, 2007

> I guess reports of Kistler's demise were not wrong then. Life (and business) is tough. Both are very unforgiving, too. Kistler has been almost flying/ almost dead for so long I feel like I'm watching a zombie movie. They've been doing this in various incarnations for 15 years! They supposedly have a warehouse of Russian NK33 and 43 engines, yet still haven't ever managed to hook one up and test-launch it. Later, they merged with another vaporware purveyor to continue being 80% complete indefinitely. Plus some of their staff were arrogant wankers (personal experience). This down-select was inevitable. I don't want to diss on them, but they've received so much cash from so many sources they should have done something by now. RpK's only public achievement that I'm aware of is flying a LearJet with a Heads-Up Display of the Rocket Racing League at last year's X Prize Cup. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

holmec · Sep 11, 2007

Wow! Didn't see that one coming. I'd love to see t/Space get it. (I really like their capsule design). It would also be good to see SpaceDev and ULA compete jointly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

no_way · Sep 12, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'd like to see what Rutan or Carmack could do with that kinda dough!<hr /></blockquote> I am actually quite sure that spending lots of money is counterproductive when you wanna achieve cheap spaceflight ...

gunsandrockets · Sep 12, 2007

COTS 1.5? How about that! Good thing for the other competitors that RPK died so quickly and left a big pile of cash unspent. I don't imagine SpaceX will be eligible to compete since they already have most of the COTS 1 money locked up. NASA would sensibly want to minimize risk from potential failure of SpaceX by having a different company to fall back on. So good luck to t/Space!

docm · Sep 12, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The competition would be open to all comers NASA spokeswoman Melissa Mathews said<hr /></blockquote> Sounds to me like SpaceX is open to make their case, along with anyone else (ULA/SpaceDev?). IMO this would be a nice leg up for the winner when COTS-II comes along. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

themanwithoutapast · Sep 12, 2007

"Sounds to me like SpaceX is open to make their case, along with anyone else (ULA/SpaceDev?). IMO this would be a nice leg up for the winner when COTS-II comes along. " NASA could have selected just one COTS-1 winner last year if they wanted to. They could also have chosen three or four. They went for two in order to diversify risk but still allocate enough money to each of the winners in order for them to have a chance to achieve the goals COTS wants to achieve. I would be more than surprised if NASA would revert their decision to diversify their investment now + how should SpaceX convince NASA that they need additional 170 million USD in seed money for the same task that they have agreed on doing for the initial 280 million USD they will be receiving in total under their space act agreement? I hope NASA is smart enough to see that the best way to ensure that Soyuz and Progress are not the only options between 2010 and 2015 to get cargo and crew to the ISS, is to choose a proposal that merely deals with developing the spacecraft - which is going to fly on an existing US launcher (Atlas or Delta).

vulture2 · Sep 12, 2007

Good point, but will ULA send a proposal? They are contractors and will do what they think NASA wants. So the real question is, does NASA _want_ ULA to submit a proposal for COTS?

themanwithoutapast · Sep 12, 2007

It does not have to be ULA. It can be someone else that would then just buy the launch vehicle from ULA.

crix · Sep 12, 2007

So COTS is doomed to failure because NASA is offering a lot of money? I think you're making some sort of underhanded remark but it doesn't make much sense to me. Carmack especially is someone that I'd like awarded vast sums of money because he would use it wisely.

gunsandrockets · Sep 12, 2007

Impeccable logic.

gunsandrockets · Sep 12, 2007

Could be. That might be reading too much from a single sentence of eight words however.

holmec · Sep 12, 2007

IE SpaceDev with Dreamchaser??!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Sep 12, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I am actually quite sure that spending lots of money is counterproductive when you wanna achieve cheap spaceflight ...<hr /></blockquote> "That is most logical." said the Vulcan. I hear you. Its almost a contradiction in terms. But the reality is that it takes a lot of money to do research regardless. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

PistolPete · Sep 12, 2007

Ironically, spending more money in R&D with reusable spacecraft means lower reoccurring costs in the long run. Take for example the Space Shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

themanwithoutapast · Sep 13, 2007

No ranking after the two winners - all others lost. Loosing finalists were SpaceHab, SpaceDev, Andrews Space and t/Space and therefore all sharing the third place.

spacelifejunkie · Sep 13, 2007

My vote is for SpaceDev. I like the versatility of the Dreamchaser. It is capable of lunar return flights as well as orbital ones with a few mods. I do like t/space as well. Good luck to all. SLJ

themanwithoutapast · Sep 13, 2007

My vote is for SpaceDev. I like the versatility of the Dreamchaser. It is capable of lunar return flights as well as orbital ones with a few mods. I do like t/space as well. Good luck to all. ---------- The problem with Dreamchaser is, it is too expensive and too heavy. The CXV proposed by t/Space has the same "problem" that Dragon has - it is designed to do both crew and cargo missions and therefore is not optimized for one of those two missions. In contrast SpaceHab's current proposal focuses on what NASA actually desperately needs - cargo transports (no crew transports) - their proposal is comparably simple to other proposals and leverages SpaceHab's years of experience with actual space hardware.

j05h · Sep 13, 2007

> No ranking after the two winners - all others lost. "Second place is the first loser", as they say in racing. on DC, CXV, Dragon, etc: DreamChaser is based on 'old.space' ways of doing things - not the suborbital one, but the BOR/HL20 sled they have now. Maintenance and materials are guaranteed issues with it. My guess is that by the time SpaceDev builds a crewed orbital craft, it will be reengineered considerably. Interesting comparison of Dragon and CXV - both would be alleviated with variant craft (already proposed by t/space, not sure about SpaceX) SpaceHab seems to be working on something to survive post-Shuttle - APEX or whatever they're calling it this quarter. It's interesting, because they do have a lot of operational experience. The thing that makes the most sense for ISS is definitely cargo resupply. Crew is secondary in keeping it running. This is a perfect opportunity for someone to step up with an American "Progress" clone. This is somewhat outside of COTS, though, since it doesn't need to do crew or cargo return without modification. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

docm · Sep 13, 2007

I think Dragon is more like Soyuz/Progress than anything else. In cargo mode the guts are stripped, racks added and it's automated. Take out the racks, add the seats, life support, escape system & manual control panel and you have a crew vehicle. My bet is that SpaceX has made this as close to Plug-n-Play as possible. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />To ensure a rapid transition from cargo to crew capability, the cargo and crew configurations of Dragon are almost identical, with the exception of the crew escape system, the life support system and onboard controls that allow the crew to take over control from the flight computer when needed. This focus on commonality minimizes the design effort and simplifies the human rating process, allowing systems critical to Dragon crew safety and ISS safety to be fully tested on uncrewed demonstration flights.<hr /></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

COTS 1.5

docm

Guest

crix

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

j05h

Guest

holmec

Guest

no_way

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

docm

Guest

themanwithoutapast

Guest

vulture2

Guest

themanwithoutapast

Guest

crix

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

themanwithoutapast

Guest

spacelifejunkie

Guest

themanwithoutapast

Guest

j05h

Guest

docm

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page