(Nit 2 – the Kistler K1 uses both NK-33s and NK-43s, three of the former on the first stage and one of the latter on the second. See Kistler’s page or Encyclopedia Astronautica. The NK-43 is just an NK-33 with a high-altitude nozzle for upper stage operation.)

— Donald

You are correct.

Kistler uses the NK-33s, which were originally developed for the N-1 moon rocket. After the first N1 failures, the Soviet Union kept working on improving the engines, until they were perfected. When the order came down from above to destroy all of the work, the company that built the NK-33s put them into storage and hid the engines. (Nit – during the COTS press conference Horowitz mistakenly called them the NK-43s, which is a different Russian engine, and not the NK-33 which is used by the Kistler K1.)

I finally saw the NASA press conference this weekend on NASA TV. Horowitz reported that they had 17 factors they considered. He stated that the SpaceX and Kistler solutions were high risk, and his statement included an implied acknowledgement that they were *higher* risk than some of the alternatives. Presumably on “technical risk”, as well as investment risk (Horowitz stated that if a company needs more investment, that this increases the risk. I was surprised to hear a NASA executive state this … as most NASA civil servants don’t appear to understand much about private financing).

Also, Horowitz was asked a direct question by a reporter about why NASA chose to buy brand new undemonstrated LVs on top of a brand new undemonstrated spacecraft, when some of the competitors had bid proven LVs, and were clearly lower total risk. Horowitz acknowledged this, and then pointed to the COTS announcement’s goal of much lower launch costs. In other words, bidding an existing LV (with its lower risk) appears to have been a disadvantage, and that NASA really wanted to buy the chance at a LV breakthrough.

After watching this, it is clear to me that NASA understands that SpaceX and Kistler are not the “lowest risk” solutions. I am even more convinced that the “skin in the game” and “big industrial payoff” discriminators were the deciding factors.

Botttom Line — NASA is throwing the bomb, and going for the big touch down … so to speak (if you use football terms).

This is going to be exciting.

– Al

NASA’s choices here involve a couple of interesting ironies. Kistler’s original design used left over Russian rockets updated and marketed by Aerojet that were first used on the N-1 moon rocket (anyone know if this is still true?). The early unreliability of these rockets was part of the reason for the N-1’s failures and Soviet Unions’ loss of the moon race. If the direct desendents of these rockets indeed end up supporting commercial cargo flights to the Space Station, freeing up resources for NASA’s return to Earth’s moon, this represents irony in its purest form.

Likewise, SpaceX now has a second chance to try to kill Kistler — this time, hopefully, on the technological and economic battlefield, rather than in the court room.

— Donald

I draw two preliminary conclusions from the existing data.

1) Major “Skin in the Game”

First, a data point. “Space News” reported (in their insider newsletter) that Rocketplane-Kistler probably has raised the private money it needs to complete the K1. If true, I estimate that this means a $300-400M commitment of funds by private investors. (Earlier reports were that Kistler needed $500-600M, less $200M from NASA in COTS, gives you my estimate.)

If true, both SpaceX and Rocketplane-Kistler had solid commitments of at least $100M in private capital.

It is possible that one or more of the others had similar hard commitments of large amounts of cash, but I am doubtful. This kind of money is not commonly available.

2) Huge breakthroughs for U.S. LAUNCH industry.

Both SpaceX’s Falcon IX and Rocketplane-Kistler’s K1 represent the possibility of a huge breakthrough for the U.S. LAUNCH industry.

SpaceHab and Andrews were reportedly bidding existing LVs. They may have bid the Falcon IX, but making this choice would not have increased the chance of a launch breakthrough.

tSpace was reportedly bidding an upgraded version of their Air launched Quickreach. “Space News” reported a NASA HQ rumor (earlier this week) that tSpace was technically lower risk than Kistler, but that Kistler was probably going to win because of the large investment commitment.

SpaceDev was reportedly bidding a hybrid rocket, but it is possible that SpaceDev was bidding a Falcon IX too and was only bidding hybrids for in-space transportation (NOTE: SpaceDev announced that it had signed some contract options). I don’t anybody who believed that a large Earth-to-orbit hybrid rocket made economic sense, and if they bid the Falcon IX, it had the same drawback mentioned above.

CONCLUSION:

The 2 following factors were the primary disciminators in NASA’s selection of the COTS winners.

1) The possibility of a very large breakthrough for the U.S. launch industry.

2) The amount of “skin in the game”, and the hardness of the commitment, by private investors.

– Al

Boeing and Lockheed never would have accepted the same terms, for development of the Delta IV and Atlas V, that SpaceX and Kistler are accepting for development of their systems.

SpaceX and Kistler are each accepting $200Mish in cash, in objective-based milestone payments. That is a lot less cash, and a lot more risk, than Boeing and Lockheed ever accepted in their EELV programs. They all are putting up hundreds of millions in private capital.

At the same time, if either the K1 of Falcon IX works, the U.S. government will get MUCH more than a 20-30% improvement in launch costs.

The U.S. government is getting a much better deal in this case.

I would take this deal any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

I do agree the overall risk is higher of each investment, but the correct way to mitigate this risk is to adopt best practices from private industry and to diversify the overall risk by using a portfolio approach. This means investments in more companies, not less.

– Al

Sam:

“Charitable” is paying Lockheed Martin and Boeing $2.03 billion to build “affordable” EELV launch systems that are now estimated to cost the government $13.2 billion more over their lifetime than was initially promised.

“Questionable Bets” are not placed with the COTS milestone-based payment approach with which NASA engages SpaceX and Rocketplane-Kistler. If those teams don’t meet their milestones they aren’t going to see the disbursement.

Ares V takes care of the political considerations of keeping Shuttle contractors and infrastructure engaged. It also makes contemplation of ambitious missions more realistic. All the studies done over the last several decades have pointed to heavy-lift as the number one priority for any human missions beyond earth orbit.

— Donald

Isn’t the acronym for that C C TOP?

And if it is both crew and cargo, why didn’t they go with t/Space for the crew part?

The reason I support greater use of EELVs for the VSE is because we have idle factory capacity that already exists to provide these vehicles. The reason that -both- NASA and DoD should be buying them is because it makes them cheaper for everyone. As they get cheaper more demand will enter into the market. Commercial satellites have been launched on the Atlas V. Folks need to quit obsessing on the whole “why should government subsidize these vehicles” and move on to the question of “how can we get more customers for our fine American launch vehicles?”