RpK COTS $ to????

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

docm

Guest
Oops....<br /><br />IMO it's better for everyone if they don't let this drag out.<br /><br />Aviation Week article....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>COTS Funds May Shift If RpK Fails</b><br /><br />Jul 16, 2007<br /><br />By Frank Morring, Jr./Aerospace Daily & Defense Report<br /><br />NASA may shift seed money for private rocket development to another company under its Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) program if Rocketplane Kistler (RpK) can't meet its financial milestones, according to Scott Horowitz, the agency's outgoing exploration systems chief.<br /><br />At a July 13 press conference to discuss his planned Oct. 1 departure from NASA (DAILY, July 12), Horowitz stressed that it is far from certain that RpK won't be able to meet its milestones. The company missed a May 31 deadline to raise $500 million and has asked for more time.<br /><br />"It's not black and white," Horowitz said. "There are shades of gray -- what if they get 90 percent of the money? What they have to come forward to us with is a viable plan to continue development of the vehicle."<br /><br />Horowitz said NASA's COTS funding -- about $500 million in total to divide between RpK and SpaceX -- will be spent on spurring a commercial route to the International Space Station and other low-Earth orbit destinations regardless of the outcome of the RpK effort. That could mean shifting it to one or more of the five companies -- Constellation Services International, PlanetSpace Inc., SpaceDev, Spacehab and Transformational Space Corp. -- that have signed unfunded Space Act agreements with NASA to compete for COTS transportation contracts without the benefit of government help in developing their vehicles.<br /><br />"We're looking at what are all the options out there," Horowitz</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
Why not? There were 6 COTS finalists. NASA could give the money to the "3rd place" COTS contractor.
 
S

spacelifejunkie

Guest
I was suprised and disappointed when I found that RpK was chosen last year. I knew SpaceX was going to get it but I figured TSpace or SpaceDev was next. I'd like to see the money transferred to one of them. RpK can use their $500 Million to build a vehicle and see if they can get a NASA contract in subsequent COTS money contracts.<br /><br /><br />SLJ
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
The rest of the COTS funding would be better spent to develop a domestic cargo craft that can be flown on a generic launcher. There isn't time for any of the other competitor to produce a launch vehicle. SpaceX and RPK both had head-starts on LVs - the others don't. We need payloads more than rockets these days anyway.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">RpK can use their $500 Million to build a vehicle and see if they can get a NASA contract in subsequent COTS money contracts.</font>/i><br /><br />I bet whatever money RpK has raised is contingent on them receiving the COTS money. If the COTS money goes away, much of the other money probably will too.</i>
 
S

spacelifejunkie

Guest
Yes, you're probably right.<br /><br /><br /><br />
 
S

spacelifejunkie

Guest
"SpaceX and RPK both had head-starts on LVs - the others don't. We need payloads more than rockets these days anyway."<br /><br />We certainly need payloads but I think we also need the launch vehicles. The US only has the shuttle right now and it's going away. "The Stick" is mired in controversy and who knows whether VSE will ever pan out in a reasonable time frame anyway. The more options we have the better. I would love to see AT LEAST three competitors for ISS resupply. If SpaceX, TSpace, and SpaceDev each could compete to resupply ISS and Bigelow stations, we will see the budding of a real, thriving space community, not just government, pie-in-the sky projects. Those three come to mind immediately but there are others as well. We DEFINITELY need the rockets to spur innovation, exploration, and to drive down cost as much as possible.<br /><br />This is a unique time in history. Never have we seen so much interest and capital being thrown into aerospace by the private and corporate community. NASA may not even have to be involved although I hope they are. Let's spur it on, not restrict it.<br /><br /><br />SLJ<br />
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"I would love to see AT LEAST three competitors for ISS resupply. If SpaceX, TSpace, and SpaceDev each could compete to resupply ISS and Bigelow stations, we will see the budding of a real, thriving space community, not just government, pie-in-the sky projects."<br /><br /><br />Why not Atlas or Delta with an ATV or HTV?
 
S

spacelifejunkie

Guest
Delta or Atlas would be fine, too. Those three came to mind because they were COTS finalists.<br /><br />SLJ
 
S

solarspot

Guest
Wait a minuite Jim, are you talking about ESA's ATV and JAXA's HTV? How could a US gov't agency justify buying international products if less than a billion USD could be used avoid it? I'd think a spacehab product on Atlas or Delta would be more likely, and I have heard that possibility already discussed (on Spacehab's website none the less).<br /><br /><br />
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
The US gov't wouldn't be buying them, Atlas or Delta would be. <br /><br />The COTS II (the actual contract for cargo services) will probably include the requirement for a demonstrated capability. spab has no flight demonstrated system or anything beyond powerpoint charts.<br /><br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts