The current issue has a survey called “The Entrepreneur’s Guide to Outer Space.” There is nothing here that anyone reading this list — or any entrepreneur interested in our field — won’t already know. While generally accurate, the articles could have benefited from a final proof by someone knowledgeable in commercial space. What is interesting is to see it all in one place. All the things going on “out there” make a surprisingly impressive list.

— Donald

That cannot be true. He never makes mistakes.

Don’t forget cutting the Centennial Challenges budget request from $35 million to $10 million in FY07.

After NASA failed to answer repeated questions from the Senate about Centennial Challenges funding, resulting in the funding being zeroed for FY06.

And you wonder why I don’t trust NASA any more?

Mike is correct. Keith is mixing up the CaLV and the CDV. The CDV is the unpressurized cargo-delivering variant of the CEV. The CDV was taken out of the CEV “call for improvements” that NorBo and Lockmart are currently finishing their proposals for.

This procurement is simply an announcement of the cheapo-version of the SSME which will be used in the 1st stage of the CaLV.

– Jim

P.S. I’m neither endorsing nor attacking the CaLV. The fact that NASA removed the CDV from the CEV contractor procurement is a very good sign for COTS offerors.

The CaLV using the expendable SSME is the Heavy Lifter 125MT booster.

The pictures are for the cargo delivery module for the ISS delivered via the stick.

Since when does NASA make sense?

Dennis

At first, I thought this was just the engine development program for their heavy lift upperstage. But I went down the page and saw your real point — the “Releasable Cargo Pallet” that carries upwards of 20 FRAMs. FRAMs are for ISS.

This has got to be a billion-dollar development program, minimum, since it will need to be certified for ISS operations. Maybe more considering MSFC’s recent track record. It is also likely to take much longer than MSFC thinks it will take. (Think ATV development costs and schedule).

Since this is clearly a non-starter, in terms of budget availability and schedule, wouldn’t this study money be better spent on COTS? NASA might be able to fund an additional COTS demonstration (or since this is a study, they could fund design studies of the runner-ups to keep their engines idling), creating more competition (lowering long-term prices) and lowering the overall COTS program risk.

Alternatively, they could use the funds to:
1) Pay for some Methane engine development (since it is an engine development program)
2) Put some money back into science
3) Pick your favorite program that is being cut

– Nemo2

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19725

I guess the COTS procurement was just an afterthought to the agency.

Dennis

— Donald