Spacehab is the only credible option as they have been involved with NASA for decades, and knowing how that system works is very important. Also they have figured out the microgravity equation which is much more commercially viable than tourists.

That’s why most of US are livid because NASA chose ESAS over EELV COTS.

I think now the COTS II solicitation is about alternative access to space, and it’s pretty sad that EELVs are now considered alternative, when they should have been primary. However, with ESAS in line for near term failure, what we need is to shift the EELVs back to primary, and find another credible COTS proposal, which dovetails with EELVs and SpaceX on the high end, and has the promise of reduced launch costs and higher payload fractions.

Remarkably, that is precisely the proposal I am working on right now.

NASA invested ~$2 billion in the HL-20 lifting body spaceplane, and has extensively studied the plane’s aerodynamics, ergonomics, integration issues, etc. SpaceDev is proposing using an HL-20 derived vehicle atop an Atlas V. According to SpaceDev, the HL-20 vehicle will be capable of landing at a standard airport. Bigelow has already made public that he would prefer a solution that provides a dry landing and carries 6-8 people. I don’t believe NASA needs another cargo-only provider during the gap years. They should fund a company (any company) that will be capable of providing a service to NASA as well as a service to what will likely be a franchise customer in Bigelow.

PS I don’t mean to be on the bandwagon of any particular company, but as a supporter of NASA, I really want to see COTS succeed.

If the NASA OGC is on their toes, they’ll argue that the future FAR solicitation for actual ISS services (i.e., “services for the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government”) was made separate from the COTS OTA development effort (i.e., industry/NASA cost-sharing to develop national launch and in-space transportation capabilities) for this very reason. Heck, even the COTS announcements allow the demonstrators to choose targets other the ISS.

I need to read the whole RpK complaint, but I don’t see where they have a leg to stand on from Mr. Fansome’s excerpts.

FWIW…

They make (IMO) an extremely weak case for stopping the OTA acquisition, and going to a FAR based procurement. If the GAO follows RpK’s logic then almost any OTA procurement would be overturned. In fact, it would probably destroy the OTA as an R&D tool.

“NASA’s Solicitation calls for a Research and Development effort that requires th satisfaction of specific technical milestones for the direct benefit of the United States to allow NASA the ability to fulfill critical, time-sensitive, missions of the United States involving the International Space Station. Because the principal purpose of the NASA solicitation of this R&D effort “is the acquisition of supplies or services for the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government,” the use of a procurement contract in these circumstances is required. FAR 35.003″

Now, if I followed this logic, neither the X-33, the EELV, the DARPA Falcon program, nor many other innovative space procurements would be alllowed.

In addition, RpK explicitly ignores that the COTS Announcement explicitly states:

The objectives of the Commercial Crew & Cargo Program are to:

• create a market environment in which commercial space transportation services are available to Government and private sector customers.

So, on the fact of it — NASA’s COTS program has objectives that are very clearly above & beyond just ISS cargo services.

But to argue that a Government can’t not have any interest in buying a good or service that might result from an R&D program that utilizes “other transactions authority” is a pretty difficult argument. I am betting that almost every OTA the government has competed to date could be linked to a good or service that a federal agency wanted to buy.

– Al

The real problem is the human transport; where after 2010 we’ve got a Soyuz monopoly and ever rising prices at the very least. In American English we refer to that as ‘bad’. The human transport issue is where the greatest help is needed. If one (or more) companies can plug into both COTS (for development), Bigelow (initial customer) and ISS (first government customer), that could form a real workable scenario.”

I think NASA’s approach is to wait for any COTS vendors to prove they can do cargo reliably first before even considering astronauts. With lives at stake that seems reasonable enough to me. Of course with such a 2-phase approach I’d have all hands (or in this case dollars) on deck to help the stages happen quicker.

I agree that the potential Bigelow/Space Florida deal could help a lot. It won’t work if Bigelow and NASA wind up with different requirements, so I hope they’re sitting down together and working them out so that they’re compatible.

anonymous.space: “After that, COTS and senior NASA management needs to think deep and hard about the upcoming COTS selection and ensure that the content selected matches the remaining resources in a way that’s consistent with other, successful, launch industry cost-sharing development programs (like EELV) — or bring more NASA resources to the table in the form of up-front development dollars, hard flight purchase options, or both.”

I agree with anonymous that NASA shouldn’t offer X dollars just because that’s what’s left over it COTS after RpK expenditures. The amount needs to be reasonably matched with the business and technical tasks the company or companies will be face with. It would be better not to go through the exercise at all (or just continue with SpaceX) if the funding isn’t realistic – and NASA will have to use some judgement on this, rather than just listening to optimistic projections by the hungry company.

I don’t see why NASA wouldn’t agree to a minimum number of ISS service purchases – if it really wants them in non-Ares form! – as long as the company meets technical and business conditions that NASA carefully specifies with ample contract and legal scrutiny. Such an agreement would allow NASA to attempt to purchase more services, of course. This is a cheap way for NASA to help ensure it has U.S. transportation services. For new launchers, I’d also present similar NASA incentives for non-ISS launch business.

I’m not part of the COTS process or anything. But there is something else potentially out there. Bigelow is the only entrepreneurial space company to maintain or advance their schedule. His first attempt to jump-start some (affordable) transportation to service his modules was well-intentioned, but didn’t work; ie, America’s prize. But with his second – and more serious- attempt, to actually sign a service contract for up to $700m sooner, not later – and to put $100m cash down on signing – could conceivably dovetail very well with the one (or two) funded COTS ‘winners’ in their human transport formulations. ie, NASA ends up being a funding partner on the actual development – with a credible commercial, non-governmental customer waiting in the wings, and willing to sign a service contract before the government conceivably would.

That then argues the question: what will be the emphasis on the COTS re-do? The real answer may be like the first COTS; ie, it depends on what the offers are, how credible they are, and what the relative chances are that they can do what they say they can. (The Agency can’t create a funded SAA out of whole cloth based on a composite of all those offered; at least one of the ones offered have to make sense across the board).

In terms of need, I think it is fair to say the greatest need is on the human transport side. Reason: there is – or soon will be – more than one way, after 2010, to be able to supply cargo to things like ISS (e.g. not only Progress from Russia, but ATV from Europe, and a couple of others that can be ready). I have much fewer qualms knowing there is some competition and choice to get cargo at least up there, if not down.

The real problem is the human transport; where after 2010 we’ve got a Soyuz monopoly and ever rising prices at the very least. In American English we refer to that as ‘bad’. The human transport issue is where the greatest help is needed. If one (or more) companies can plug into both COTS (for development), Bigelow (initial customer) and ISS (first government customer), that could form a real workable scenario.