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

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

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.

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.

Don’t worry about that — it’s not.

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…

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).

— Donald

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…