The RFI is for a single mission in the relative near-term, 2009 IIRC, and has no foreign restrictions. If NASA acts on the RFI, the resulting procurement would be suited to offerers employing existing hardware. CSI fits into this category (Ruskie hardware), as do various combinations of SpaceHab/ATV/HTV upper stages on Atlas/Delta/etc.

It’s not really for the T-Space/Bensons of the world and the money would come from ISS operations, not the Space-X/Kistler pot (to my knowledge).

“Maybe not in cash, but, say, in government-backed loan guarantees. . .”

Although it would be wonderful if such financing mechanisms could be worked out, I rate things like loan guarantees and zero-g tax breaks at a very low probability of happening. These are things that require the cooperation of Congressional committees outside those that oversee NASA (e.g., those involved with the Treasury, the tax code, etc.), and I don’t see those committees taking much of an interest.

Would this be wise? Wouldn’t it spread the money even more thinly? Wouldn’t it be better to put any additional money into the incumbants. Maybe not in cash, but, say, in government-backed loan guarantees. . . .

That said, I think your implication in another thread that additional funding is unlikely is correct.

— Donald

Until your post, COTS Fan, Mr. Muncy had not participated in this thread. I don’t see how you can accuse someone of being anything when they have yet to write something.

“that he and his nutjob parter Chas did not get any more money from NASA.”

We’ll see. If NASA responds positively to the industry input on the recent RFI, I would guess that CSI (and SpaceHab and some others) will have another — and take another — shot at some COTS business.

“You have your hand in everyone’s pocket, Muncy. You want more money for COTS because you want more money in your pocket as well.”

I have a hard time thinking of someone who has worked longer and more consistently to turn the policy tide in favor commercial space markets than Mr. Muncy. He may benefit moderately from his advocacy, but unless you’re in the leadership of one of the “newspace” companies, he’s put in far more work than you or I to help those companies.

It’s rather hypocritical to launch a personal, ad hominem attack using an anonymous handle. It’s even more hypocritical to criticize someone for making a living advocating the viewpoint you favor. And it’s really hypocritical to criticize someone for earning a buck when the viewpoint you favor is pro-capitalist.

I don’t mean to attack you, COTS Fan, but let’s please keep these forums civil.

As Anonymous pointed out, on behalf of t/Space I advocated many of the changes that led to COTS going down the crew road, which is what turned out to hurt all-cargo options, like CSI.

But NASA made its selections. COTS is what it is, and the world will judge “commercialization”, broadly defined, by the results from COTS.

That is one reason I think COTS needs — and deserves — more money now, to help both the existing winners and to broaden the “investment portfolio”.

But I’m sure you will attack me for saying even that. From behind the safety of your nom de plume.

– Jim

Yeah, tough guy, they’re up there in my five consecutive rambling posts.

“Slow day at church?”

Silly boy, it’s a Monday. No one is at church today.

“You know … ideas of the … ‘how do we get past the space impasse’ variety?”

You obviously do. Please enlighten me and stop boring me with your ad hominem attacks and personal insults.

This forum is better than that.

You know … ideas of the … ‘how do we get past the space impasse’ variety?