NASA will not use Progress despite waiver....

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

docm

Guest
<p>Link....</p><p><strong>Quote:&nbsp;</strong></p><p><font face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3" color="#1b4872"><strong>Despite Waiver, NASA To Stop Using Russian Cargo Vehicle </strong></font></p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">WASHINGTON &mdash; NASA has no intention of paying Russia to help deliver supplies to the international space station (ISS) beyond 2011 despite winning congressional and presidential approval to do so.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">"NASA's policy has not changed," NASA spokesman David Steitz said Oct. 2. "NASA will rely on U.S. commercial cargo services to resupply ISS following retirement of the shuttle, and does not intend to purchase Progress cargo services after 2011."</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">The U.S. space agency's recommitment to the guiding principal of its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program came on the heels of U.S. President George W. Bush signing into law a $630 billion temporary spending measure to keep the federal government operating at current spending levels until early March. Among the many pieces of unfinished business Congress addressed in the so-called continuing resolution was extending NASA's existing waiver to a 2000 weapons proliferation law that bars the agency from buying space station-related goods and services from Russia as long as Russian aerospace firms continue to aid Iranian weapons programs.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">Had Congress not acted to extend the agency's waiver from having to comply with the Iran-North Korea-Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA), NASA insists it would not have been able to conclude a new deal with Russia for the three-person Soyuz capsules needed to transport U.S., Canadian, European and Japanese astronauts to the international space station beyond 2011 when the existing waiver would have expired.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">NASA Administrator Mike Griffin pushed U.S. lawmakers all year to extend the waiver, even going so far as defying the White House Office of Management and Budget by bringing up the issue during budget hearings this past winter.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">The White House, however, eventually got behind the waiver and sent Congress a legislative proposal in April that would grant NASA permission to continue buying Soyuz vehicles, but not unmanned Progress flights, through 2016. Progress flights were left out of the equation at NASA's request in order to reassure U.S. launch firms that the agency remained committed to buying ISS resupply flights from proven commercial providers.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">The White House proposal, introduced in July as the International Space Station Payment Act of 2008 (S. 3103), stalled in the Senate after Russia invaded neighboring Georgia in August. Shortly after the invasion, the bill's main congressional proponent, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) declared chances of passage all but dead.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">A series of last-minute developments, however, combined to help win NASA the Soyuz waiver. The INKSNA issue was given new impetus Sept. 22 when Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, a senator from Illinois, wrote House and Senate leaders urging extension of the waiver. The next day, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, normally chaired by Obama's running mate Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, approved S. 3103, clearing the bill for the full Senate's approval.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">That particular bill, which would have limited NASA's authority to buy Soyuz vehicles, went no further. Instead a simple extension of the current waiver was included in the continuing resolution, the House of Representatives passed Sept. 24 by a vote of 370-58.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">The Senate followed suit Sept. 27, clearing the way for the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act for 2009 (H.R. 2638) to be signed into law by Bush.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">While NASA now has the legal authority to put in an order for post-2011 Progress flights when it sits down at the bargaining table with Russia this fall, the outspoken chief executive of one of the companies vying to sell resupply flights to NASA said he is not worried.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">"I'm not super concerned about that," said Elon Musk, chief executive and chief technical officer of Hawthorne, Calif.-based Space Exploration Technologies. "I think it's probably a good thing NASA's hands aren't tied there. It's possible we may lose a few flights to the Russians but we are not going to lose more than that. There is no way Congress would tolerate sending millions of dollars to the Russians rather than to a U.S. company and keeping that money domestic."</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">Musk said he does not see that changing regardless of who is elected U.S. president Nov. 4.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">"Neither [U.S. political party] likes sending money overseas if there's a U.S. supplier," Musk said.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">In addition to permitting NASA to buy Soyuz and Progress spacecraft through 2016, the newly enacted continuing resolution also keeps most federal agencies funded at their 2008 levels for the first five months of the new budget year, which began Oct. 1.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">NASA officials have been bracing for months for having to get by without a budget increase for all or part of 2009.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">NASA's 2008 budget was $17.3 billion, some $300 million less than the White House was seeking and $500 million less than Congress appeared likely to approve had it completed separate spending bills rather than resorting to a continuing resolution for the second time since 2006.</font></font></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">Steitz said NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate &mdash; the division building Orion and Ares &mdash; and institutional spending (what NASA calls Cross-Agency Support) would be hardest hit since the continuing resolution leaves them "funded less than planned" for the first five months of the new budget year. "This requires them to re-plan and defer activities that would have been accomplished under the original plan, which is less efficient, and limits our ability to accelerate Constellation," Steitz said.</font></font></span></p></span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

trailrider

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Link....Quote:&nbsp;Despite Waiver, NASA To Stop Using Russian Cargo Vehicle WASHINGTON &mdash; NASA has no intention of paying Russia to help deliver supplies to the international space station (ISS) beyond 2011 despite winning congressional and presidential approval to do so. "NASA's policy has not changed," NASA spokesman David Steitz said Oct. 2. "NASA will rely on U.S. commercial cargo services to resupply ISS following retirement of the shuttle, and does not intend to purchase Progress cargo services after 2011." The U.S. space agency's recommitment to the guiding principal of its Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program came on the heels of U.S. President George W. Bush signing into law a $630 billion temporary spending measure to keep the federal government operating at current spending levels until early March. Among the many pieces of unfinished business Congress addressed in the so-called continuing resolution was extending NASA's existing waiver to a 2000 weapons proliferation law that bars the agency from buying space station-related goods and services from Russia as long as Russian aerospace firms continue to aid Iranian weapons programs. Had Congress not acted to extend the agency's waiver from having to comply with the Iran-North Korea-Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA), NASA insists it would not have been able to conclude a new deal with Russia for the three-person Soyuz capsules needed to transport U.S., Canadian, European and Japanese astronauts to the international space station beyond 2011 when the existing waiver would have expired. NASA Administrator Mike Griffin pushed U.S. lawmakers all year to extend the waiver, even going so far as defying the White House Office of Management and Budget by bringing up the issue during budget hearings this past winter. The White House, however, eventually got behind the waiver and sent Congress a legislative proposal in April that would grant NASA permission to continue buying Soyuz vehicles, but not unmanned Progress flights, through 2016. Progress flights were left out of the equation at NASA's request in order to reassure U.S. launch firms that the agency remained committed to buying ISS resupply flights from proven commercial providers. The White House proposal, introduced in July as the International Space Station Payment Act of 2008 (S. 3103), stalled in the Senate after Russia invaded neighboring Georgia in August. Shortly after the invasion, the bill's main congressional proponent, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) declared chances of passage all but dead. A series of last-minute developments, however, combined to help win NASA the Soyuz waiver. The INKSNA issue was given new impetus Sept. 22 when Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, a senator from Illinois, wrote House and Senate leaders urging extension of the waiver. The next day, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, normally chaired by Obama's running mate Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, approved S. 3103, clearing the bill for the full Senate's approval. That particular bill, which would have limited NASA's authority to buy Soyuz vehicles, went no further. Instead a simple extension of the current waiver was included in the continuing resolution, the House of Representatives passed Sept. 24 by a vote of 370-58. The Senate followed suit Sept. 27, clearing the way for the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act for 2009 (H.R. 2638) to be signed into law by Bush. While NASA now has the legal authority to put in an order for post-2011 Progress flights when it sits down at the bargaining table with Russia this fall, the outspoken chief executive of one of the companies vying to sell resupply flights to NASA said he is not worried. "I'm not super concerned about that," said Elon Musk, chief executive and chief technical officer of Hawthorne, Calif.-based Space Exploration Technologies. "I think it's probably a good thing NASA's hands aren't tied there. It's possible we may lose a few flights to the Russians but we are not going to lose more than that. There is no way Congress would tolerate sending millions of dollars to the Russians rather than to a U.S. company and keeping that money domestic." Musk said he does not see that changing regardless of who is elected U.S. president Nov. 4. "Neither [U.S. political party] likes sending money overseas if there's a U.S. supplier," Musk said. In addition to permitting NASA to buy Soyuz and Progress spacecraft through 2016, the newly enacted continuing resolution also keeps most federal agencies funded at their 2008 levels for the first five months of the new budget year, which began Oct. 1. NASA officials have been bracing for months for having to get by without a budget increase for all or part of 2009. NASA's 2008 budget was $17.3 billion, some $300 million less than the White House was seeking and $500 million less than Congress appeared likely to approve had it completed separate spending bills rather than resorting to a continuing resolution for the second time since 2006. Steitz said NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate &mdash; the division building Orion and Ares &mdash; and institutional spending (what NASA calls Cross-Agency Support) would be hardest hit since the continuing resolution leaves them "funded less than planned" for the first five months of the new budget year. "This requires them to re-plan and defer activities that would have been accomplished under the original plan, which is less efficient, and limits our ability to accelerate Constellation," Steitz said. <br />Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>As I posted on the main part of this topic, at least we <em>can</em> buy Progress flights if necessary...if no alternatives are available.&nbsp; Don't forget that Soyuz spacecraft are a requirement for lifeboat if the ISS is to be manned continuously.&nbsp; Shuttle orbiters only have a two-week staytime capability!</p>
 
J

job1207

Guest
This is a big boost to SPACEX. I hope they can live up to the expectations. Of course, there is another COTS awardee, when are they going to fly???
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>I bet they don't deliver on time and NASA will use the tried and tested Progress.&nbsp; More than 120 of these have been launched, all successful.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
N

newtons_laws

Guest
&nbsp;Obviously NASA will prefer to use US COTS cargo vehicles if they are available.&nbsp; However, if they are not then using ESA's ATV may be a politically more acceptable alternative to using more Progress flights. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I bet they don't deliver on time and NASA will use the tried and tested Progress.&nbsp; More than 120 of these have been launched, all successful.Jon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>Jon, you're such a pessimist when it comes to private companies. I'm willing to bet you a couple pints of Fosters that COTS will be successful. On time? Who cares? So we have to buy a couple of Progress or ATV flights until Dragon arrives at ISS. In the long run, private enterprise will take care of business and we won't need to rely on Russia or anyone else. </p><p>It's called keeping the money in the country and having the ability to do it ourselves. If push comes to shove, NASA may throw more money and technical help at SpaceX and OSC to get the job down, but that's OK too.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Jon, you're such a pessimist when it comes to private companies. I'm willing to bet you a couple pints of Fosters that COTS will be successful. On time? Who cares? So we have to buy a couple of Progress or ATV flights until Dragon arrives at ISS. In the long run, private enterprise will take care of business and we won't need to rely on Russia or anyone else. It's called keeping the money in the country and having the ability to do it ourselves. If push comes to shove, NASA may throw more money and technical help at SpaceX and OSC to get the job down, but that's OK too.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Swampcat</DIV></p><p>Not a pessimist, a realist.&nbsp; </p><p>How many years behind schedule are SpaceX?&nbsp; It took them four goes to launch their smallest rocket successfully.&nbsp; Kistler bit the dust.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; because these things are hard.&nbsp; We don't do anybody any service by naively promising otherwise.</p><p>Does that mean I think that COTS is a waste of time and money?&nbsp; Not at all.&nbsp; Virgin Galactic looks on track, and will offer COTS for ballistic missions.&nbsp; SpaceX will, I hope come though.&nbsp; And&nbsp;of course every time a payload is launched on a Zenit or Ariane ofr Proton, or Atlas or Titan we are seeing COTS in action.&nbsp;Progress and Soyuz are&nbsp;COTs too.</p><p>Where is the evidence that any supply craft other than Progress is going to be available in 18 months?</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not a pessimist, a realist.&nbsp; How many years behind schedule are SpaceX?&nbsp; It took them four goes to launch their smallest rocket successfully.&nbsp; Kistler bit the dust.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; because these things are hard.&nbsp; We don't do anybody any service by naively promising otherwise.Does that mean I think that COTS is a waste of time and money?&nbsp; Not at all.&nbsp; Virgin Galactic looks on track, and will offer COTS for ballistic missions.&nbsp; SpaceX will, I hope come though.&nbsp; And&nbsp;of course every time a payload is launched on a Zenit or Ariane ofr Proton, or Atlas or Titan we are seeing COTS in action.&nbsp;Progress and Soyuz are&nbsp;COTs too.Where is the evidence that any supply craft other than Progress is going to be available in 18 months?Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>ESA might be able to build ATV's in 18 months warning time...</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ESA might be able to build ATV's in 18 months warning time... <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV><br /><br />Maybe, maybe not. ATV 2 is still not on the schedule. I have written to ESA asking when the mission will be launched and have received no reply. SO far on their website and through inquiries I have not been able to find out if a second ATV even exists.</p><p>Hopefully, I'll get a reply one of these weeks.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
N

newtons_laws

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe, maybe not. ATV 2 is still not on the schedule. I have written to ESA asking when the mission will be launched and have received no reply. SO far on their website and through inquiries I have not been able to find out if a second ATV even exists.Hopefully, I'll get a reply one of these weeks. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p><br />From the ESA website:</p><p>http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMDYOK26DF_index_0.html</p><p>This says that ESA has contracted with industry to produce 4 more ATVs to be flown through to 2015. As it also mentions, the Japanese HTV will also be joining the scene soon, so there'll be a choice of 3 foreign (for the US) cargo transfer vehicles : ATV, HTV or Progress. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From the ESA website:http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMDYOK26DF_index_0.htmlThis says that ESA has contracted with industry to produce 4 more ATVs to be flown through to 2015. As it also mentions, the Japanese HTV will also be joining the scene soon, so there'll be a choice of 3 foreign (for the US) cargo transfer vehicles : ATV, HTV or Progress. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by newtons_laws</DIV></p><p>I poked around Jaxa website and it seems to hint that the US could contract the HTV to launch cargo.</p><p>This act with congress is good for "just in case" situations.&nbsp; Leaves NASA with options.</p><p>But about cargo launches, Progress, ATV, HTV, may not be enough to support a full crewed ISS so US has to have its own carrier.&nbsp; NASA says here it wants to use COTS for that.&nbsp; The two main players in COTS are SpaceX and Orbital.&nbsp; SpaceX got a good launch in to orbit, and is developing the Falcon9 with Dragon.&nbsp; Orbital is supposed to make a launcher with a non reusable cargo vehicle, but no word on their progress (no pun intended). </p><p>&nbsp;I expect ESA is quiet about the next ATV mission.&nbsp; I think that is normal for ESA.&nbsp; There were only a few articles about ATV developement, and those were sparce. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<div><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not a pessimist, a realist. &nbsp;How many years behind schedule are SpaceX? &nbsp;It took them four goes to launch their smallest rocket successfully.</DIV></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>I'm all for realism. The reality is that SpaceX has demonstrated their ability to get to orbit. The reality is that they are on track to perform their COTS demonstrations on Falcon 9. The reality is that NASA wants to see either SpaceX or OSC succeed and are assisting them. These are times to be optimistic about the reality of commercial spaceflight and opening up space to more than government employees.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Kistler bit the dust. &nbsp;Why? &nbsp;because these things are hard. &nbsp;We don't do anybody any service by naively promising otherwise.</DIV></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>IMO, Kistler was never a serious player. Why NASA chose them in the first place is a real mystery.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does that mean I think that COTS is a waste of time and money? &nbsp;Not at all. &nbsp;Virgin Galactic looks on track, and will offer COTS for ballistic missions. &nbsp;SpaceX will, I hope come though. &nbsp;And of course every time a payload is launched on a Zenit or Ariane ofr Proton, or Atlas or Titan we are seeing COTS in action. Progress and Soyuz are COTs too.Where is the evidence that any supply craft other than Progress is going to be available in 18 months?Jon&nbsp;</div><div>Posted by jonclarke</DIV></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>COTS is a specific program involving specific characters. Last time I checked, none of the players you mentioned were part of the COTS program.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Why do you mention an 18 month time limit? Officially, we have about two years before STS is grounded for good. If the NASA COTS program hasn't achieved its goals by that time, Progress, ATV and HTV, as others have mentioned, will be available and I'm sure NASA will make use of them if necessary. It's no big deal.</div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm all for realism. The reality is that SpaceX has demonstrated their ability to get to orbit. The reality is that they are on track to perform their COTS demonstrations on Falcon 9. </DIV></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Indeed, and kudos to them for succeeding.<span>&nbsp; </span>But it took four attempts and put them well behind schedule.<span>&nbsp; </span>It also cost the people who put their trust in them a lot of money in lost payloads.<span>&nbsp; </span>They have got two chances of delivering Falcon 9 on the advertised time, fat and slim (they are already a year behind schedule).<span>&nbsp; </span>Once they have proven Falcon 9 (how many launches will that take if there are failures?) they then have launch and test the supply spacecraft and then show they can do so reliably.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The reality is that NASA wants to see either SpaceX or OSC succeed and are assisting them. These are times to be optimistic about the reality of commercial spaceflight and opening up space to more than government employees. </DIV></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Of course they are.<span>&nbsp; </span>This is an important development.<span>&nbsp; </span>But there is no certainty that these companies will deliver on time.<span>&nbsp; </span>If they don&rsquo;t there are two options - continue shuttle flights or buy more Progress.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana"></DIV>IMO, Kistler was never a serious player. Why NASA chose them in the first place is a real mystery. </DIV></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Perhaps so.<span>&nbsp; </span>But they do demonstrate that starting up new launch businesses is a painful protracted and chancy affair, and new players should not be relied upon until proven.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>COTS is a specific program involving specific characters. Last time I checked, none of the players you mentioned were part of the COTS program. </DIV></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">COTS is a widely used acronym for Commercial Off The Shelf.<span>&nbsp; </span>COTS services are already widely used by NASA and others. SpaceX is simply one more supplier in a fairly large market. The NASA COTS program for ISS resupply is a pun on this, referring to the use of specific COTS services.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why do you mention an 18 month time limit? Officially, we have about two years before STS is grounded for good. If the NASA COTS program hasn't achieved its goals by that time, Progress, ATV and HTV, as others have mentioned, will be available and I'm sure NASA will make use of them if necessary. It's no big deal. </DIV></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">It is actually 19 months until the last shuttle flight.<span>&nbsp; </span>In that time SpaceX have to successfully fly the Falcon 9 (already a year behind schedule) and test the supply craft at least twice (assuming nothing does wrong).<span>&nbsp; </span>I hope they succeed, in fact I am confident they will succeed, but I suspect, based on their record it will take longer than their optimistic claims say.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">In the meantime NASA should continue to buy the cheap and proven Progress. It makes no sense to stop using one reliable supplier when you don&rsquo;t yet have a reliable alternative.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Jon</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"></span><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Indeed, and kudos to them for succeeding. But it took four attempts and put them well behind schedule. It also cost the people who put their trust in them a lot of money in lost payloads. They have got two chances of delivering Falcon 9 on the advertised time, fat and slim (they are already a year behind schedule). Once they have proven Falcon 9 (how many launches will that take if there are failures?) they then have launch and test the supply spacecraft and then show they can do so reliably.</DIV> <p>I would not be surprised to see some missions fail. You seem to be saying that there's some mystical cut off time where failure to succeed by then means success is not possible...or something like that. Yeah, they failed four times and they definitely need to prove their reliability. No question about that. But they <strong><em>did</em></strong> achieve orbit and lessons learned in the process will be applied to Falcon 9. A year behind schedule? They've still got at least 2 years to prove themselves. Schedules change.</p> <p>Of course, Mr. Musk could decide he's spent enough money and is tired of rocket science and that would be the end of it. I don't see that happening. Mr. Musk has bigger dreams than providing transportation to ISS and he has deep pockets.</p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course they are. This is an important development. But there is no certainty that these companies will deliver on time. If they don&rsquo;t there are two options - continue shuttle flights or buy more Progress. </DIV> <p>I still don't get your insistence on this time thing. There's no mystical cut off point where we say he hasn't delivered on time. OK, if he hasn't gotten a Dragon to ISS by some undefined time in the future then I guess we can all agree he's failed. When is that point? When STS if grounded? When Orion is operational?</p> <p>You keep insisting that the only option is continuing STS or using Progress. Why do you ignore ATV and HTV? Nothing against Progress, but there <strong><em>are</em></strong> other options.</p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps so. But they do demonstrate that starting up new launch businesses is a painful protracted and chancy affair, and new players should not be relied upon until proven.</DIV> <p>Agree on the reliability part, but it's really unfair to judge SpaceX by comparing them to Kistler.</p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>COTS is a widely used acronym for Commercial Off The Shelf. COTS services are already widely used by NASA and others. SpaceX is simply one more supplier in a fairly large market. The NASA COTS program for ISS resupply is a pun on this, referring to the use of specific COTS services.</DIV> <p>The COTS SpaceX and OSC is involved in stands for <strong><font color="#000099">"Commercial Orbital Transportation Services."</font></strong> This is a specific NASA program not to be confused with the commonly used meaning of the acronym.</p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is actually 19 months until the last shuttle flight. In that time SpaceX have to successfully fly the Falcon 9 (already a year behind schedule) and test the supply craft at least twice (assuming nothing does wrong). I hope they succeed, in fact I am confident they will succeed, but I suspect, based on their record it will take longer than their optimistic claims say. In the meantime NASA should continue to buy the cheap and proven Progress. It makes no sense to stop using one reliable supplier when you don&rsquo;t yet have a reliable alternative. Jon Posted by jonclarke</DIV> <p>No, neither SpaceX nor OSC have to do those things by that time. It would be nice, but some delays won't make a tremendous difference. Mr. Musk's "optimistic claims" should be taken with a grain of salt. He has customers to deal with. The owner of a pessimistic launch services provider wouldn't get far.</p> <p>You sound like a Progress salesman&nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />&nbsp;I don't believe anyone has suggested not using Progress at all. That would indeed be unwise. We'll see about the "reliable alternative" part in a couple of years.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts