Congress, NASA

No extension for Progress purchases

While NASA is not focusing on crew transfer services as part of the COTS program right now, it is pretty much going all-in on cargo resupply with COTS. Aerospace Daily reported Thursday that NASA is not asking for an Congressional extension of its authority to purchase Progress missions after the current authority to purchase Progress and Soyuz missions, granted in the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act of 2005, expires at the end of 2011. NASA has formally requested to Congress that it be able to purchase Soyuz flights for crew transfers after 2011, but instead plans on relying on one more commercial providers to transport cargo to the station. (The NASA proposal would end authorization for Soyuz purchases once Orion or a commercial crew transportation provider enters service.)

And what if SpaceX, Orbital, or anyone else isn’t ready by the end of 2011? NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier told Aerospace Daily that NASA would “live off the spares” that the final shuttle flights will bring to the station. (Presumably there will be enough consumables brought on Progress, ATV, and/or HTV missions for this strategy to work.) It does suggest that NASA feels confident enough that someone will be ready to start carrying cargo to the station by the beginning of 2012, but that confidence doesn’t extend to crew transportation.

26 comments to No extension for Progress purchases

  • Charles in Houston

    Didn’t Space News just advocate more use of the ATV? At least that is a proven (with a single flight perhaps) logistics vehicle and is built by a more reliable partner.

    It would almost certainly be a better alternative than Progress for many reasons – and would allow the Russians to put more of thier resources into producing Soyuz vehicles. If we are ever going to have more than three people on board Station, we need to increase production of Soyuz, particularly once Shuttle is retired. Suddenly, we will have only one vehicle that can get people to and from Station so of course we better hope that it does not have any problems.

    Then perhaps one day we will have a COTS vehicle – after many delays, reviews, controversies, and redesigns.

    Probably the Constellation program is going to be dramatically changed once a new Presidential Administration takes office, so at least ATV will not be as susceptible to the turmoil – both in the US and between the US and Russia.

  • Allen Thomson

    The (somewhat) specifics of this, according to the Aerospace Daily report:


    In a request for proposals (RFP) published April 14, NASA says it intends to purchase transportation to the ISS for at least 20 metric tons of cargo between 2010 and 2015, when NASA’s Orion crew exploration vehicle is scheduled to begin flying astronauts and cargo. Overall NASA expects to require delivery of 39.6 metric tons of pressurized cargo to the station during that same period, not counting bartered transportation services on Europe’s new Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and Japan’s planned H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). Another 8.3 metric tons of external “upmass” will be required during the same period, according to an estimate published with the RFP.

  • Charles in Houston

    Allen posted:

    In a request for proposals (RFP) published April 14, NASA says it intends to purchase transportation to the ISS for at least 20 metric tons of cargo between 2010 and 2015, when [snip].

    Another 8.3 metric tons of external upmass; will be required during the same period, according to an estimate published with the RFP.

    And do you wonder what that external cargo will fly on? No one has any external cargo carrier that is near the flight test stage.

  • Lockheed Martin is developing a vehicle to deliver cargo to space. No word on weather there would be an unpressurized version.

  • Dennis Wingo

    And do you wonder what that external cargo will fly on? No one has any external cargo carrier that is near the flight test stage.

    The HTV is specifically designed to carry Express Pallets in its center compartment. These are external payloads and if you go and check out the latest assembly complete configuration of ISS there will be several of them laid out on the truss.

  • Charles in Houston

    Charles said: And do you wonder what that external cargo will fly on? No one has any external cargo carrier that is near the flight test stage.
    And then Dennis Wingo said: The HTV is specifically designed to carry Express Pallets in its center compartment. These are external payloads and if you go and check out the latest assembly complete configuration of ISS there will be several of them laid out on the truss.

    Certainly I should have qualified what I meant by “near the flight test stage”. I would consider something that is within six months of flying as “near” and HTV is well over a year from flight. Hopefully it will continue in its development but it will probably fly its first (test) mission (probably with a cargo) right as we are months from retiring the Shuttle.

  • me

    “And do you wonder what that external cargo will fly on? No one has any external cargo carrier that is near the flight test stage.”

    An external carrier is not needed early on. The last few shuttle flights will be prepositioning external spares on the ISS. The RFP doesn’t require external cargo untill 2011

  • Charles In Houston

    “Me” wrote:

    First he quoted me (not in quotes): “And do you wonder what that external cargo will fly on? No one has any external cargo carrier that is near the flight test stage.” Actually I should have qualified that statement some about the HTV, as a wise observer pointed out.

    And then “Me” said, very optimistically I might observe:

    An external carrier is not needed early on. The last few shuttle flights will be prepositioning external spares on the ISS. The RFP doesn’t require external cargo untill 2011

    It is good to see someone who is very optimistic about the next couple of years, for Shuttle flights. We will see how the flight rate goes and how many spares get up to Station. We are painting ourselves into a very small corner and hope that things work out ok.

    The RFP may not require external cargo, but the Station might.

  • me

    Very optimistic? We are already in a small corner, the shuttle could go down next flight. Nothing can change the near term and actually, prepositioning spares and having the CSR capabilities is a way out. The RFP manifest is there so that competitors have something to bid on. One offeror might have external capability available earlier.

  • […] as NASA is asking Congress to extend its authority to purchase Soyuz spacecraft after 2011, Russian officials are making statements that may raise a few eyebrows in the US. The Associated […]

  • […] Work by Chinese Grad Student Leads To Deemed Export Conviction – Export Law Blog No extension for Progress purchases – Space […]

  • DataPoint

    Commercial Station Servicing Payoff!

    While this announcement blows the costs savings argument from COTS to pieces. Nearly Five times as much per kg then Shuttle!

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/21/223088/nasa-offers-3.1-billion-for-international-space-station-cargo.html

    NASA offers $3.1 billion for International Space Station cargo supply
    By Rob Coppinger

    Under NASA’s new International Space Station commercial resupply contracts logistics providers can expect minimum cargo requirements of 20,000kg (44,000lb) and maximum awards of $3.1 billion. But companies will probably have to provide their own cargo processing facilities that meet the US space agency’s standards.

    $3.1 Billion dollar for 20,000 kg comes out to $155,000/kg or $70,000 lb.

    By contrast a $1 billion Shuttle launch delivers $22,727 kg to the ISS. For a mere $44,000 kg or $20,000. The shuttle also delivers 7 astronauts as part of the package.

    If you assume a 3/1 split of the Shuttle costs, ($750,000,000 for cargo and $250,000,000) since the Shuttle also delivers crew to the ISS the cost of cargo deliver to ISS is only $33,000 kg and $15,000 /lb This is only !/5 as much as the COTS estimate from the article above.

    Note the $3.1 billion doesn’t include the $500 already used to subsidize the COTS winners, (SpaceX, RpK, and Orbital) to build their COTS systems.

    No wonder New Spacers are fighting so hard for COTS and to insure the Shuttle is retired. $3.1 billion on top of the $500 million already given to New Space is quite a pay day for them. Looks like there will be a parking lot full of Teslas at the Space Access conference in a couple of years.

  • anonymous.space

    “$3.1 Billion dollar for 20,000 kg comes out to $155,000/kg or $70,000 lb.

    By contrast a $1 billion Shuttle launch delivers $22,727 kg to the ISS. For a mere $44,000 kg or $20,000. The shuttle also delivers 7 astronauts as part of the package.”

    Apples and oranges — compares five years of COTS costs to the cost of one Shuttle flight.

    A more appropriate comparison is the cost of the COTS capability over 2011-2015 (the aforementioned $3.1 billion) versus the cost of the Shuttle capability over the same five years (which, at a rate of $4-5 billion per year plus an estimated $10 billion in Shuttle recertification costs post-2010, is somewhere in the neighborhood of $30-50 billion).

    By the standard, which are the dollars that would actually have to be put in the NASA budget and paid for by taxpayers, COTS is a bargain by an order-of-magnitude or more.

    Not bad, assuming it works (which is another discussion).

    FWIW…

  • Habitat Hermit

    In addition presumably NASA wouldn’t pay the maximum of 3.1 billion unless they requested delivery of something close to the maximum mass (the same number of launches as the maximum mass would require)

    Allen Thomson quoted from Aerospace Daily earlier in this thread:

    “Overall NASA expects to require delivery of 39.6 metric tons of pressurized cargo to the station during that same period… [2010-2015]”

    Let’s take one fifth away from that number since the request is for 2011-2015:
    39.6 – 7.92 = 31.68

    So if the maximum mass required is about 31,000 kg we get a very clean:
    3,100,000,000 $ / 31,000 kg = 100,000 $/kg

    Cargo processing facilities (and cargo processing for that matter) not included.

    Although continuing with the Shuttle would be far more expensive it does seem a bit high. SpaceX is currently aiming for 36,000 $/kg to ISS (based on 2500 kg Dragon capability and Chuck Lauer’s comment on last known good ISS price of 90 million in this RLVnews thread). I guess Orbital’s price will be something similar.

    Maybe NASA is being a cautious customer. Will be interesting to see how it turns out.

  • DataPoint

    SpaceX is currently aiming for 36,000 $/kg to ISS

    Which is still more then the conserative estimate of 33,000 $/kg for Shuttle.

    Wasn’t the idea that costs would do down per lb with COTS?

  • GM

    DataPoint is still comparing apple to oranges.

    The Shuttle capability to ISS of approx. 22,000 kg is what is carried in the payload bay. For an MPLM mission, it is includes the weight of the MPLM, the payload attach hardware and the hardware in the MPLM to hold the logistics items (transfer bags). The actual weight of logistics items (bags) transferred to the ISS is less than 1/2 of the 22,000 kg shuttle capability.

    The CSR requirements are for weight of bags to be transferred to the ISS and not the weight of the spacecraft delivering the bags.

    Habitat Hermit, the 39.6 metric tons is the number in the CRS contract, so no need to subtract 1/5

    Also the proper term is CSR (Commercial Station Resupply). COTS is only for some “demo” missions

  • GM

    Correction, the proper term is CRS (Commercial Resupply Services)
    there is the CRS website
    http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/issresupply/

  • Al Fansome

    DATAPOINT: By contrast a $1 billion Shuttle launch delivers $22,727 kg to the ISS.

    GM: The actual weight of logistics items (bags) transferred to the ISS is less than 1/2 of the 22,000 kg shuttle capability.

    GM,

    I was going to point out the data error, in Datapoint’s assertion, but you beat me to it.

    Datapoint — you need to start sourcing your “data”, or stop using the name “datapoint”.

    Since “Datapoint” did not provide a source for his “data”, let me do so.

    I present to you the following NASA website, which shows a theoretical maximum of 10 tons of actual cargo.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/mplm.html

    It can carry up to 10 tons of cargo packed into 16 standard Space Station equipment racks.

    FWIW,

    – Al

    “In God we trust; all others must bring data.” — W. Edwards Deming

  • Once again, “False DataPoint” lives up to her name.

  • Datapoint

    The Shuttle has been limited for resupply because it has been bringing up other payloads as well, like modules etc. It could be modified to provide more cargo for CRS if needed.

    And even while limited by bringing modules it is still able to provide more CRS one mission then in the entire CRS purchase.

    By contrast where is your growth for COTS? Or ability to bring large spares so they won’t have to be hung on the sides of the ISS against the day the Shuttle is not available to help save the ISS? Or the ability to return cargo to Earth?

    Really, CRS is not only turning out to be more expensive, but far more limited as well. Hopefully the near disaster of last Soyuz landing will wake NASA up.

    .

  • GM

    “And even while limited by bringing modules it is still able to provide more CRS one mission then in the entire CRS purchase”

    Incorrect again on many counts.

    Why don’t you read the RFP

    1. The contract is for 39 MT internal payload, shuttle can’t lift it in one flight,
    2. Even thought the MLPM can carry “10 tons of cargo packed into 16 standard Space Station equipment racks.” , the shuttle can’t carry the full MPLM
    3. and again the racks weights subtract from the logistics to be transferred
    4. CRS does call for 8 MT of external payload ( above the 39 MT internal) for the large spares.
    5. CRS calls for returned hardware
    6. Who says there isn’t growth
    7. Again read the RFP

  • Datapoint

    The $3.1 billion was for 20,000 kg up mass in the story I referenced. And there are alteratives that could be developed to replace MLM for internal cargo. MLM was to allow Modules to be fitted as well carry internal cargo.

  • me

    “there are alteratives that could be developed ” Yes, it is called CSR.

    But where do you account for the money for those “developments”

    All modules will be outfitted by the time shuttle is finished. No need for more outfitting.

    Your whole point is wrong. Wrong data, wrong assumptions and wrong analysis

  • Vladislaw

    I thought that the Dragon’s 2500 kg was based on the standard Falcon 9 and not the F9 heavy. If the dragon goes through future upgrades wouldnt it stand that the dragon could/would be upgraded to push closer to the 10-20 ton range?

    The 20,000 kg for 3.1 billion would take 8 flights with the 2500 kg dragon. That would mean 387,500,000 dollars per flight. I doubt NASA would pay that much more then the roughly 90 million per flight estimated.

    At the 90 million NASA would get closer to 34 launches for 3 billion. If Bigelow comes online I would think Musk would consider using a modified dragon on the heavies as well for bigger spare parts et cetera.

    “By contrast where is your growth for COTS? Or ability to bring large spares so they won’t have to be hung on the sides of the ISS against the day the Shuttle is not available to help save the ISS? Or the ability to return cargo to Earth?”

    I believe their is expanded capability and growth for cots.

  • Nobody of Consequence

    DATAPOINT: And even while limited by bringing modules it is still able to provide more CRS one mission then in the entire CRS purchase.

    NASA has received at least one credible commercial offer for deliveries that exceeded the capability of the Shuttle/MPLM.

    Check out http://www.constellationservices.com

    If NASA wanted “larger” deliveries they would have bought CSI’s service.

    Obviously, the ability to “deliver larger amounts of cargo per mission” was not important enough to NASA.

    DATAPOINT: By contrast where is your growth for COTS? Or ability to bring large spares so they won’t have to be hung on the sides of the ISS against the day the Shuttle is not available to help save the ISS?

    NASA received at least one credible commercial offer for deliveries of large spares from the Loral/CSI team. Loral stated they could even deliver the AMS-02.

    If NASA wanted deliveries of large external payloads, they would have accepted the Loral offer.

    Obviously, the ability to “deliver large external payloads” was not important enough to NASA.

    DATAPOINT: Or the ability to return cargo to Earth?

    NASA received an offer from SpaceHab to return cargo Earth. If NASA wanted this capability, they should have picked SpaceHab.

    Obviously, the ability to “return cargo to Earth” was not important enough to NASA.

    DATAPOINT: Really, CRS is not only turning out to be more expensive, but far more limited as well.

    If NASA wanted a very low-cost, highly flexible, cargo delivery, they would have picked the CSI system.

    They obviously don’t care enough about “cost”.

    DATAPOINT: Hopefully the near disaster of last Soyuz landing will wake NASA up.

    If NASA wants to mitigate the possibility of a Soyuz disaster, they would agree to fund Option D (crew) for Elon, and also agree to hold another COTS competition for crew version, such as a number of Members of Congress want to do.

    MY POINT: The cheapest way, by far, to solve ANY strawman problem you can suggest related to ISS transport is commercial. You either don’t know enough about the available solutions, or you don’t care. You have a hammer (e.g., the Shuttle), and thus everything looks like a nail.

    – Nobody of Consequence

  • GM

    “NASA has received at least one credible commercial offer for deliveries that exceeded the capability of the Shuttle/MPLM

    If NASA wanted “larger” deliveries they would have bought CSI’s service.

    Obviously, the ability to “deliver larger amounts of cargo per mission” was not important enough to NASA.

    NASA received at least one credible commercial offer for deliveries of large spares from the Loral/CSI team. Loral stated they could even deliver the AMS-02.

    If NASA wanted deliveries of large external payloads, they would have accepted the Loral offer.

    Obviously, the ability to “deliver large external payloads” was not important enough to NASA.

    NASA received an offer from SpaceHab to return cargo Earth. If NASA wanted this capability, they should have picked SpaceHab.

    Obviously, the ability to “return cargo to Earth” was not important enough to NASA.

    If NASA wanted a very low-cost, highly flexible, cargo delivery, they would have picked the CSI system.

    They obviously don’t care enough about “cost”.”

    All those points are wrong

    1. COTS was not about station logistic
    2. Yes, the COTS winners can be used for station resupply but see below.
    3.. CSR is station logistics and the contractors have not been selected.
    4. CSI is not the end all for single launch capability and again, NASA hasn’t selected CSR contractors. CSI can still compete
    5. OSC, spacehab and spacex proposed methods of delivering large external cargo. again, NASA hasn’t selected CSR contractors.
    6. Spacex and OSC have methods of returning cargo. again, NASA hasn’t selected CSR contractors.
    7. CSI is not the answer for everything and there is no proof that it meets all those factors (except in a marketing pitch which you seem to be delivering). CSI had many holes, one being using Energia hardware

Leave a Reply to Al Fansome Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>