The more mouths to feed in space the more cargo launches needed to feed them. I would think COT-D would be a good start.

Bigelow will need both human and cargo launches, COTS and COTS-D, is not only a help to NASA, but it will help America develope space more in general.

So aside from the Shuttle, there is one vehicle operational today which can transport crew to the ISS and no vehicle which can transport all the cargo needs of the ISS.”

This is a red herring. HTV is scheduled start flying next year (2009). Even if delayed, HTV is very far along in development and is highly likely fly before or shortly after Shuttle is scheduled to retire in September 2010. (HTV can even launch on EELVs if the H-II launcher has issues.)

The same cannot be said about the lead times associated with a COTS D vehicle. Again, there are multiple capabilities existing and coming online for ISS cargo transport (to both the American and Russian sides). A backup for crew transport is still the gaping hole.

FWIW…

But he wants to spend the money on a paper project, and paper projects are always better than actual projects, so how can COTS-D fail?

We should cancel MSL? So you would throw away a 1.6 billion investment just to save 400 million? Isn’t that penny-wise and pound foolish?

Anon

Is Griffin factually incorrect as you say? Or is ISS cargo truly the more critical need?

There are only two cargo craft currently operational besides the Shuttle today and both can only dock at the ISS Zvezda module, so neither one can transfer some of the bulky kinds of cargo to the ISS which the Shuttle can. Only the Japanese HTV which will berth at the ISS Harmony module can fill that role and the HTV has yet to fly.

So aside from the Shuttle, there is one vehicle operational today which can transport crew to the ISS and no vehicle which can transport all the cargo needs of the ISS. Sound to me like Griffin is right after all, cargo is the more critical need for ISS.

In conclusion

As much as I think Griffin screwed up the lunar architecture, it seems clear to me that Griffin never intended for Orion to support ISS. The Ares I + Orion is grossly oversized and inefficient for the ISS mission. I think that’s why Griffin supported COTS in the first place.

If Griffin were to continue as NASA administrator (unlikely as that might be) I believe he would support COTS D once the cargo-only COTS proves successfull. That way Griffin could save even more money from ISS support which he wants to divert to his lunar plan.

QUIT whining !

Griffin’s statement is just factually incorrect. Even without COTS, there are multiple alternatives for ISS cargo transport existing and coming online: Progress, ATV, and HTV. COTS will add two more.

But without COTS D or its equivalent, there’s only one crew transport option, Soyuz. Given Soyuz’s recent reentry issues, given that Ares I/Orion continues to move to the right, and given that some ISS failure modes require a human presence onboard to prevent ISS loss, COTS D is arguably more critical to the ISS than COTS A-C.

Forget whether it’s the right thing to do from an industry perspective. It’s the right thing to do from an ISS perspective. Holding back COTS D just to preserve a rationale for Ares I/Orion puts the U.S. human space flight program at great and unnecessary risk.

FWIW…

Penny wise and pound foolish, as usual.