Congress

SpaceX makes a big push for COTS-D

SpaceX has made clear to anyone who would listen its interest in Capability D of NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program—usually simply called COTS-D—for crew transportation to and from the ISS. SpaceX has a COTS-D option in its existing Space Act Agreement with NASA, but that option is not funded. Now, as the House and Senate meet to reconcile their versions of the stimulus bill, SpaceX is making a public appeal for support for including COTS-D funding in the package. Overnight the company sent out the following message through its mailing list:

This will be a very big year for SpaceX and the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. In 2006, SpaceX won the NASA COTS competition to demonstrate transport of cargo and optionally crew to and from the International Space Station. Under that agreement, SpaceX will conduct the second flight of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle and first flight of its Dragon spacecraft in 2009. The final flight, scheduled for 2010, will demonstrate Dragon’s ability to berth with the Space Station.

Immediately thereafter, SpaceX will begin conducting the first of 12 operational cargo flights to the Space Station, awarded under the Cargo Resupply Services contract a few months ago. The CRS contract has a minimum value of $1.6B and a maximum value of $3.1B and, as stated by NASA, its success is vital to the future of the Space Station.

However, what most people aren’t aware of is that SpaceX designed the F9/Dragon system to carry astronauts as well as cargo, and even the word “cargo” here includes biological payloads like plants and mice. F9/Dragon meets all the NASA human rating requirements, such as extra structural safety margins, multi-redundant electronics and acceptable g loads through all phases of flight and abort.

Dragon even has several windows and hatches that open both inwards and outwards to ensure astronauts can exit if a pressure relief valve fails. Moreover, NASA will certify Dragon as habitable for crew even under the COTS A-C program, as it necessarily becomes an integral part of the Space Station and is occupied by astronauts when attached.

The only significant missing element is the launch escape rocket, which carries the Dragon spacecraft to safety in the event of a launch vehicle failure. That can be developed within two years, which means F9/Dragon can be ready to transport astronauts by mid to late 2011. By that date, Falcon 9 will have flown a dozen times and Dragon will have done a round trip journey to the Space Station roughly half a dozen times with cargo, proving out reliability well in advance of carrying people.

What this would mean for taxpayers and high tech jobs in the United States is very significant. Let’s consider the default plan under way, which expects that our country will use the Russian Soyuz at the currently negotiated price of $47 million per seat for the period between Shuttle retirement (2010) and Ares/Orion reaching Space Station (2016). Even assuming that we drop the number of US astronauts going to Station from the current 30 per year with Shuttle down to 14 per year, the cost will be approximately $3.3 billion. However, there is also a human cost in the thousands of jobs that the money could have supported back home.

In contrast, F9/Dragon would cost less than $20M per seat and it is 100% manufactured and launched in the United States. We are estimating that it would create well in excess of a 1000 high quality jobs at Cape Canaveral and an equivalent number in California and Texas, where we do our manufacturing and testing. Moreover, the total cost would only be $1.5B, so taxpayers would save nearly $2B.

NASA has already reviewed our cargo F9/Dragon and is comfortable enough to assign it the bulk of the operational transport duties following Shuttle retirement. Although a lot more work would be needed to certify it for astronaut transport to and from the Station, that work can readily be accomplished before the end of 2011, particularly given the empirical flight history it will have by then.

COTS Capability D can be completed within two years from date of funds receipt. In fact, with a little extra money and some modifications to the plan, it can be accelerated even further.

Since COTS Capability D is an existing option in an already competed contract, NASA could exercise it right away, resulting in immediate job creation. It is also worth noting that COTS D, like the COTS A-C funding, is a fixed price agreement and is only awarded as each milestone is achieved. If SpaceX is unable to pass the milestones, no taxpayer money is spent.

If you think this makes sense, please contact your representatives in the House and Senate, as well as Rep. Mollohan and Senator Mikulski who lead the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittees. Please encourage them to fund NASA Exploration in the Stimulus Bill and provide the $300M in funding necessary to begin COTS Capability D.

Phone calls are best, but email is great too. The information for your support options are below. Thanks in advance for supporting our efforts to supply an American solution to astronaut transportation.

–Elon

[Emphasis in the above is from the original.] The email also includes email addresses and phone numbers for Sen. Mikulski and Rep. Holloman, as well as some “Key Points”:

  • Providing NASA Exploration with $500 million to help close the space gap will stimulate the economy by creating new high-value, high-wage manufacturing and engineering jobs and the development of domestic manufacturing capabilities.
  • The $500 million in proposed funding will immediately create a significant number of domestic jobs and develop critical space transportation infrastructure.
  • Unless action is taken now, once the Shuttle retires, NASA will be left with no option other than sending hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Russia for the transport of US astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).
  • If COTS Capability D is executed, it could save taxpayers nearly $2 billion.
  • Funding for COTS Capability D is only paid when milestones are met so there is no risk to the taxpayer.

It’s not surprising that SpaceX would make this push, given that the stimulus package is perhaps the best opportunity to get the additional COTS-D funding they have been seeking for some time. What’s a little odd is that they’ve waited until this late in the process—negotiations have already started between House and Senate conferees—to make this call for public support, especially since a deal on a final version of the bill could be reached as early as today.

17 comments to SpaceX makes a big push for COTS-D

  • Major Tom

    If Space-X is on its game, they’ve been lobbying congressional members and staff behind closed doors for weeks prior to this public announcement. No idea if that’s actually been happening, but one can only hope.

    I have some healthy skepticism about the claimed schedule and prices for Dragon. Given the quoted 1,000 person workforce, I bet Dragon will take a couple years longer than 2011 to field and cost more than $20 million per seat. That said, providing COTS D funding should still be a no-brainer for Congress and the White House given that:

    1) NASA could immediately exercise the COTS D option on Space-X’s Space Act Agreement, creating a very near-term economic stimulus;

    2) Technical problems (mass margins, thrust oscillation, flight control, stage separation, etc.) continue to mount on Ares I/Orion, and the nation needs an alternative for human space transport; and

    3) Even if the program overcomes its technical problems, Ares I/Orion won’t be fielded until the latter half of the next decade and will be an incredibly expensive means of human LEO transport, especially if the lunar effort is deferred or terminated.

    If the $450 million that the Senate provided for Constellation survives the conference bill, a portion or all of that funding should be applied COTS D. It’s a no-brainer, win-win from both an economic stimulus and a human space flight gap perspective.

    FWIW…

  • One thing I wonder about that “1000 jobs” quote, is if he means all of those as SpaceX jobs? Because I agree, getting to $20M per seat with a headcount of over 1500 seems unlikely. That big of a headcount would imply a burn rate north of $200-300M per year. Though admittedly, if they’re flying 4 manned flights per year and 4-6 cargo flights, as well as several F1 and F9 satellite flights, it might work…I’m just curious if he really meant hiring 1000 people to work at SpaceX’s Canaveral operations. I just don’t see how they could possibly effectively use that many people…

    ~Jon

  • He’s been telling Florida that he plans to hire 500.

  • Dave Huntsman

    It would be wrong to get caught up in arguing whether the numbers given by one possible supplier for a COTS D are likely or not. The main message is more important: if $300-$500m is to be supplied to help ‘close the gap’, it should be by giving the money to a (competively-awarded) COTS D program, rather than go into Orion.

    Mike Griffin, in the past year, publicly made it clear to Congress that ‘closing the gap’ by adding money to the currently-planned Orion system would take much, much more than the $300-$500m that (might) come out of the stimulus package. In short – that amount of money, even if we got it, won’t help Orion (a system meant for exploring beyond Earth orbit, and not to serve as a low-earth orbit taxi).

    However, $500m into a COTS-D development and demonstration – competitively bid, cooperative with NASA – is: 1. something that the U.S. wants to do anyway; and, b. Conceivably could make a difference. What would be extremely important to any such competition is that it be completely wide open; including no restrictions on the use of current expandable boosters, like Atlas 5 or Delta IV. In fact, that would be the only real way to get honest competition against Elon’s Falcon/Dragon combination.

    (For example: SpaceDev’s Dreamchaser mini-shuttle on top of an Atlas V; though that’s not the only possibility, it’s the one that’s had the most work done). A key evaluation point for the competition could be the percentage of U.S. content; something our European friends do all the time.

    If there is one thing the space industry could agree on, I think it would be to get that amount of money approved to come up with American solutions to our space transportation problem; and there are companies like SpaceEx, SpaceDev, ULA, and others who would put people to work immediately doing it.

    ANY messages to Congress should focus on the need for COTS-D in general; not Elon in particular. He’s already one of the leaders in the race even if his name isn’t mentioned.

  • […] SpaceX is lobbying for COTS D funding to be included in the stimulus. It would be nice to see something worthwhile included in it, but it’s not enough to make it worth it to me. I’d rather have no stimulus and no COTS D. […]

  • Major Tom

    “What would be extremely important to any such competition is that it be completely wide open; including no restrictions on the use of current expandable boosters, like Atlas 5 or Delta IV. In fact, that would be the only real way to get honest competition against Elon’s Falcon/Dragon combination…

    ANY messages to Congress should focus on the need for COTS-D in general; not Elon in particular. He’s already one of the leaders in the race even if his name isn’t mentioned.”

    While not disagreeing with Mr. Huntsman’s point about the importance of open competitions (for launch development and services or anything else), in terms of the economic stimulus bill, Space-X is currently the only game in town. They’re the only company with a COTS D option in an existing Space Act Agreement, which means they’re the only company that could pursue a crew launch alternative on a timeline that’s relevant to stimulating the economy this year. NASA would have to hold a competition to bring any other company on board, which would take many months to award and likely not contribute to the economic stimulus in a timely manner.

    I wish it were otherwise, but that’s the reality of the situation. Of course, as Congress has done with most of the other NASA funding in the House and Senate bills, nothing prevents Congress from ignoring the purpose of the economic stimulus, and putting in funds for a COTS D competition that would take the better part of the rest of the year to play out. But if Congress is being honest about what should and should not be in the economic stimulus bill, then competitions that wouldn’t be awarded until late this year (at the earliest) don’t belong.

    COTS D funding in the economic stimulus bill should be used to activate existing COTS D options, and only Space-X has one. Due to the long timelines involved, funding for additional COTS competitions should be pursued in other funding bills, not the economic stimulus. (Again, if we’re being honest with ourselves.)

    FWIW…

  • Scott

    I thought the contract for this was on hold due to a challenge by lockheed/boeing….is that over?

    Anyway I like what space x is doing

  • Major Tom

    “I thought the contract for this was on hold due to a challenge by lockheed/boeing….is that over?”

    That’s a different (and actual) contract for the cargo transport services to/from ISS. (And GAO is still reviewing the protest.)

    COTS D is an option on an existing Space Act Agreement (not contract) for the development and demonstration of vehicles capable of providing cargo and crew transport services to/from ISS (but not the actual service). There is no ongoing protest to either of the existing COTS Space Act Agreement awards, so there would be no delay if the COTS D option on the Space-X agreement was exercised.

    FWIW…

  • I made my calls, and I specified COTS-D without mentioning SpaceX.

    — Donald

  • Dave Huntsman

    Space-X is currently the only game in town. They’re the only company with a COTS D option in an existing Space Act Agreement, which means they’re the only company that could pursue a crew launch alternative on a timeline that’s relevant to stimulating the economy this year. NASA would have to hold a competition to bring any other company on board, which would take many months to award and likely not contribute to the economic stimulus in a timely manner.

    Tom –

    While I understand what you are saying, I think you’re ignoring something very important: Elon is saddled with creating both a new Falcon 9 launcher and a new Dragon vehicle. They don’t (really) exist – yet. While I hope that I’m proven wrong, I’m concerned he has woefully underestimated the integration issues for developing a safe, cost-effective Falcon 9.

    On the other hand, Atlas V and Delta IV are more than hangar queens; though mods would be necessary, they would be mods on known vehicles. An alternative using one of them, such as SpaceDev’s proposal, has a very big jump on Falcon 9 right out of the gate in terms of reality of any numbers given for changes and design mods. In short, the risk management matrix for the two launch vehicles would look radically different – and in SpaceDev’s (in that example) favor, not Elon’s.

    Elon might reasonably make the claim that Dragon is further along than DreamChaser, simply because they’ve been working aggressively on Dragon for the last couple of years; whereas Dreamchaser work, while it has continued, has of necessity been at a lower level. But Dreamchaser is itself one step higher than viewgraph level in its pedigree.

    That is why I disagree with you that a sole-source award to Elon might be the only realistic alternative (which is my interpretation of what you said). He has much more launch vehicle risk to retire than anyone using EELVs et al; and a risk level that is about on the same page, or maybe the same chapter, as far as a human vehicle that would go on top of it. That is why the best option – especially legally, but even technically – is to take a couple of months and pick two options, again, with no arbitrary exclusion of ELVs this time. Because Elon, while he probably would be one of the winners all things given, might still be beaten in the end by someone using an already proven launch vehicle they don’t have to prove from scratch.

    (The legal issue should not be discounted. Elon is the poster child for that: NASA used a previous authority it had to award a contract to Kistler without a competition; and Elon officially complained – and essentially ‘won’. I would expect any attempt at using an existing agreement to sole-source to Elon to be protested – not be Elon, I assume, but by someone following his earlier example).

  • Major Tom

    “I think you’re ignoring something very important: Elon is saddled with creating both a new Falcon 9 launcher and a new Dragon vehicle. They don’t (really) exist – yet…

    On the other hand, Atlas V and Delta IV are more than hangar queens; though mods would be necessary, they would be mods on known vehicles.”

    I’m not ignoring this issue. It’s just not relevant to the point I was making about the incompatibility between the long timeframe involved in a new COTS competition and the bill’s short timeframe for stimulating the economy.

    I actually agree with you that, in a perfect world, we’d have an open competition where the EELVs would be allowed to compete.

    But we don’t have a perfect world. We have a bill that suppossed to simulate the economy in the next few months — not late this year or early next year. If Congress stays true to the purpose of the bill, then a new COTS competition doesn’t fit. That has nothing to do with the merits of EELVs over Dragon 9.

    ” That is why the best option – especially legally, but even technically – is to take a couple of months and pick two options, again, with no arbitrary exclusion of ELVs this time.”

    Unfortunatley, it’s going to take a lot longer than “a couple of months”. In the first COTS round, it took NASA eight months from the announcement release to make the Space-X and Kistler awards. In the second COTS round, it took NASA five months from announcement release to make the OSC award. And these timeframes don’t include the time NASA spent preparing the announcements or the possibility of a protest by one or more losing proposers. The earliest NASA could optimistically make a new COTS award is mid- to late-fall, and that is just not “shovel-ready” compared to what the bill is suppossed to be doing in terms of a timely stimulus that starts turning the economy around this spring/summer.

    “That is why I disagree with you that a sole-source award to Elon might be the only realistic alternative (which is my interpretation of what you said).”

    It’s the only alternative that matches the purpose of the bill in terms of providing a near-term economic stimulus.

    “I would expect any attempt at using an existing agreement to sole-source to Elon to be protested”

    There is an existing COTS D option on an existing Space-X agreement that can be exercised at the federal government’s discretion at any time. If the government exercised that option, there’s no competition involved and therefore the government’s decision would not represent a sole-source award and would not be subject to protest by anyone. The agreement is between Space-X and the federal government and no one else. If someone wanted to protest the Space-X award, including the COTS D option, they would had to have done so when the award was made back in August 2006.

    Again, I’m not debating your principles about open competition or the technical viability/desirability of having the EELVs in that competition. (Forget SpaceDev and the Dreamchaser/Atlas V combo — the Bigelow/ULA work on the simpler CTV/Atlas V combo demonstrates the viability.) All I’m pointing out is that conducting another COTS competition will take months longer than the timeframe that the economic stimulus bill is suppossed to be targeting, while NASA can exercise the COTS D option in the existing Space-X Space Act Agreement practically overnight.

    I’m just making a point about the stated intent of the legislation and the schedules involved. I’m not arguing technical issues about the various launcher options.

    FWIW…

  • But if Congress is being honest about what should and should not be in the economic stimulus bill

    Don’t worry about that — it’s not.

  • […] That’s what the Orlando Sentinel is reporting this evening, based on a message from an aide to Sen. Bill Nelson. Of that $1 billion, $400 million would go to exploration, only slightly less than what the Senate approved earlier this week (and a major victory for spaceflight supporters given the House version contained nothing.) The breakouts for science, aeronautics, and facility repairs were not disclosed. How that $400 million for exploration would be spent isn’t clear; the Sentinel reports that “Presumably that money would go to NASA’s Constellation program”, although one suspects SpaceX is hoping that $300 million or more would be available to exercise its COTS-D option. […]

  • I agreee with Major Tom. We have a possible 5 year gap in manned space flight and access to the ISS. Because NASA has an existing COTS D option that it can exercise with SpaceX, it could be implimented very quickly and that is what we need. A follow-up COTS D competition can and should be implimented for other companies, but NASA’s COT D option with spaceX should be implimented immediately.

    SpaceX is saying 2 years to attain COTS D capability. Even if takes them 3 years, that still is only the early part of 2012. They could eliminate most or possibly even all the manned flight gap.

  • Dave Huntsman

    Tom and Saber –

    I guess we’ll disagree a little. The ‘implement quickly’ criteria vis a vis the stimulus bill is something that can be done with Elon asap, EXCEPT:

    – the actual implementation of his concept will take longer than he says, especially for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle; something that won’t exist with an ELV option.

    – if it is the sole thing done, IMO, there will be a legal challenge to it, right or wrong. (I feel NASA’s earlier award to Kistler was legal also). The only thing that might mitigate that is if, as Saber suggests, the Agency simultaneously does another competition – and again, it must be a competition with no artificial restrictions this time.

  • Al Fansome

    Anybody who understands economics knows that competition is absolutely critical. Giving a sole source contract to ANY one company is a really bad idea. Two winners is the absolute minimum. Three companies is much better than two. Four is even better.

    Giving a sole source to Elon would be a bad idea, just like giving a sole source to Kistler was a bad idea.

    For more than one reason.

    Beyond the competitive aspects, giving a sole source to Elon would take some of the pressure off to create a real COTS-D competition. Elon would obviously stop his lobbying efforts for COTS-D on Capitol Hill. We might even find that Elon lobbies behind closed doors to make sure there is no competition.

    IMO, we have to set this up as a competition from the start.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Al Fansome

    MAJOR TOM: It’s just not relevant to the point I was making about the incompatibility between the long timeframe involved in a new COTS competition and the bill’s short timeframe for stimulating the economy.

    Major Tom,

    First, nothing in the stimulus legislations constrains the Administration to make “bad policy decisions” on how it spends the stimulus funding just because of the general desire for near-term stimulus.

    Nor should it be.

    Doing so would invoke “The Law of Unintended Consequences”.

    Second, we don’t need to choose. As Peter Diamandis used to point out, when confronted by a choice, you can choose to do both.

    The new NASA administrator could decide to exercise the SpaceX option immediately, AND also immediately decide to hold a COTS-D competition for everybody else. The $500M would be a down payment on a much larger COTS-D initiative.

    The FY2009 appropriations (for the rest of the year) is still open, as is the FY2010 budget proposal. These documents could be quickly and easily adjusted, by the new NASA Administrator, to support both of the decisions above.

    – Al

Leave a Reply to Dave Huntsman 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>