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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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: 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