COTS - status

cIclops · 2008-04-21 10:56:16

NASA offers $3.1 billion for International Space Station cargo supply - 21 Apr 2008

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.
With the Space Shuttle to be retired in 2010, NASA has opted to procure ISS cargo resupply on a commercial basis between calendar year 2010 and 2015. NASA's logistics estimate for that period are an up and down mass total of 82,400kg, based on an ISS crew of six. On 14 April NASA released its final request for proposals, setting out the process that will lead to a selection of one or more resupply contractors on 28 November.
As well as satisfying NASA's flight-operations requirements on paper, the contractors' spaceships must complete on-orbit tests during the first delivery mission before docking with the ISS. But the real test could be whether potential contractors can be competitive and still provide the cargo processing facility required.
Asked if NASA would obtain European Space Agency Automated Transfer Vehicle resupply should the contractors not be ready to deliver in 2010, NASA's ISS programme's transport office manager, Kathryn Lueders said: "The plan is secure all upmass through domestic services."
She says NASA arrived at the $3.1 billion figure through an internal assessment, but declines to give details. The cargo minimum of 20,000kg would be for a number of missions over many years.

That's a nice juicy incentive for Orbital and SpaceX!

RedStreak · 2008-04-21 12:47:25

Definetely inticing for commercial space companies!

I hope we soon hear from news on either Cygnus or Dragon.

cIclops · 2008-04-22 14:57:29

NASA Awards Launch Services Contract to SpaceX - 22 Apr 2008

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, a NASA Launch Services contract for the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 launch vehicles.
The NASA Launch Services contracts are multiple awards to multiple launch service providers. Twice per year, there is an opportunity for existing and emerging domestic launch service providers to submit proposals if their vehicles meet the minimum contract requirements.
The contract is an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract where NASA may order launch services through June 30, 2010, for launches to occur through December 2012. Under the NASA Launch Services IDIQ contracts, the potential total contract value is between $20,000 and $1 billion, depending on the number of missions awarded.
The contract seeks a launch capability for payloads weighing 551 pounds or heavier into a circular orbit of 124 miles at an orbital inclination of 28.5 degrees. Payloads would be launched to support three NASA mission directorates: Science, Space Operations and Exploration Systems.
Because an IDIQ contract has been awarded to SpaceX, it can compete for NASA missions using the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 launch vehicles as specified by the NASA Launch Services contract process.

SpaceNut · 2014-05-20 20:28:20

With what is happening with our Russian ISS partner it is creating an upsurge of efforts to get the US back in the drivers seat sooner rather than waiting.

The Sierra Nevada is to fly its Dream Chaser spacecraft into orbit from Florida's Space Coast in November 2016. Dream Chaser is capable of carrying crew and cargo, as well as performing service and science in low-Earth orbit.

Of course earlier this year it was announced to include the purchase of an Atlas V rocket from United Launch Alliance for the launch.

SpaceNut · 2014-09-16 19:12:45

Boeing-SpaceX Team Splits $6.8 Billion Space Taxi Award The Boeing and SpaceX may each conduct as many as six missions as part of the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contract to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station will pay a maximum of $4.2 billion to Boeing and $2.6 billion to closely held SpaceX with the third contender Sierra Nevada Corp., shut out. With Beoing launching its CST-100 capsule atop a ULA Atlas 5 rocket.

ULA and Blue Origin To Team Up for RD-180 Replacement

Aerojet Rocketdyne Establishes Advanced Hydrocarbon Propulsion Development Office in Huntsville, Alabama

Aerojet Rocketdyne has been pushing a kerosene-fueled, 500,000-pound-thrust concept dubbed AR-1, which the company says could be fully developed in four years for less than $1 billion.

Russia Says No Plans to Stop Selling Rocket Engines to U.S.

Excelsior · 2014-09-17 09:13:25

Yet another opportunity for SpaceX to provide twice as much for half the price.

So the CST-100 is slated for an unmanned flight in early 2017, and pending success, a manned flight in late 2017. Meanwhile, the Dragon V2 has a pad abort test in November, and a launch abort test early next year, and has ample unmanned experience with a closely related vehicle. So long as everything works right the first time, I don't see any reason why the Dragon shouldn't be flying manned flights significantly earlier than Boeing, perhaps as early as the end of next year, a full two years sooner, though probably not with all the Dragons fancy landing tricks that are not necessary to compete with Boeing.

With that out of the way, we can get around to cutting a check to Bigelow for a Bravo Station.

RobertDyck · 2014-09-17 15:34:07

I agree, Dragon is great. But I'm disappointed Dream Chaser didn't get any funding. What will happen to it now?

SpaceNut · 2014-09-17 17:48:12

From articles

NASA will continue to work with Sierra Nevada and another spaceflight company, Blue Origin LLC, which is backed by Amazon.com Inc. founder Jeff Bezos, as they refine spacecraft designs, according to Kathy Lueders, program manager with the commercial crew program which is looking to private industry for human missions near Earth with reusable craft to an overhauled space station to extend its life span into the next decade while focusing on far-off trips such as Mars.

Unfortunately with only 1 destination and lots of vehicle choices that have only a select low number of missions per year that would mean a rising vehicle launch cost so we need more places to go.....

Excelsior · 2014-09-17 20:02:51

RobertDyck wrote:

I agree, Dragon is great. But I'm disappointed Dream Chaser didn't get any funding. What will happen to it now?

The Europeans expressed interest in it. I doubt they have the money or desire though. The ESA discontinued its successful ATV program, despite still having perfectly good station modules in orbit.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-09-19 07:41:18

Excelsior wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
I agree, Dragon is great. But I'm disappointed Dream Chaser didn't get any funding. What will happen to it now?
The Europeans expressed interest in it. I doubt they have the money or desire though. The ESA discontinued its successful ATV program, despite still having perfectly good station modules in orbit.

As we know, Europe is too poor to afford a manned space capability, they like to play second string to Russia, which has an economy the size of Germany's

SpaceNut · 2014-10-20 18:53:45

ULA, Blue Origin and the BE-4 Engine

Almost overshadowed by NASA’s long-awaited announcement of its Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) awards on Sept. 16 to Boeing and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., totaling $6.8 billion, was another significant announcement made the next day. Jeff Bezos, founder of Blue Origin, and Tory Bruno, the new president and chief executive of United Launch Alliance, held a joint press conference in Washington.
ULA has signed an agreement with Blue Origin for the development of a liquid-oxygen (LOX)/liquefied natural gas (LNG) booster engine with 550,000 pounds of thrust.
This announcement followed months of debate in Washington over the supply vulnerability of the Russian-built RD-180 used on ULA’s Atlas 5 rocket. In the last several months, debate has heightened.
The companies issued statements to try to dispel the perceived purpose of the Blue Origin BE-4 engine: “The BE-4 is not a direct replacement for the RD-180 that powers ULA’s Atlas V rocket, however two BE-4s are expected to provide the engine thrust for the next generation ULA vehicles.
The details related to ULA’s next generation vehicles — which will maintain the key heritage components of ULA’s Atlas and Delta rockets that provide world class mission assurance and reliability — will be announced at a later date.”
Bruno did make clear, however, that ULA intended to employ existing upper stages of the Atlas and Delta rockets for these new launch vehicles.
Both Delta 4 and Atlas 5 launch vehicles use variants of the venerable LOX/liquid hydrogen RL10 engine built by Aerojet Rocketdyne. On the Delta 4, the second stage employs an RL10B-2 having 24,750 pounds of thrust. The RL10A-2 as part of the Centaur upper stage on the Atlas 5 has a range of 16,500–22,300 pounds of thrust.

On another note not kerosene and LOX...

The most powerful rocket engine Blue Origin has built and tested to date is the BE-3. This LOX and liquid hydrogen engine has performed over 160 starts with a combined engine operation of more than 10,000 seconds. It has a thrust of 100,000-110,000 pounds. The engine has completed a suborbital mission duty cycle in support of Blue Origin’s New Shepard capsule. The engine ran at full thrust for 145 seconds, then shut down for 4.5 minutes to simulate a coast sequence. This was followed by the engine’s restart and throttling to 25 percent of rated thrust to mimic a re-entry profile for the reusable suborbital booster, while the capsule lands via parachutes. Bezos stated in the press conference the BE-3 would undergo its first flight test soon.

SpaceNut · 2016-01-14 19:54:07

GW Johnson wrote:

On-line headline tonight: NASA adds third company to supply / astronaut ferry effort to ISS. Sierra Nevada is back in the game and funded for its Dreamchaser mini-shuttle. Hooray!
GW

This is actually good news.....

SpaceNut · 2016-01-14 21:55:15

As GW tweeted Which from past articles NASA agrees to aid Dream Chaser development to CDR level & Dream Chaser still fighting for her place in space on this page it is good to hear that NASA awards CRS2 contracts to SpaceX, Orbital ATK, and Sierra Nevada....

Sierra Nevada Space gets piece of space station resupply contract as Louisville-based unit was shut out of crewed missions 16 months ago, but says Thursday's win is even better with NASA contract on Thursday to ferry supplies to and from the International Space Station starting in 2019.

"This competition is quite a bit bigger than the one we lost — we came back and won a contract that has a $14 billion potential to it." Sirangelo said their mini space shuttle is "only vehicle that can meet all the missions" NASA requested, whether that's ferrying pressurized or unpressurized cargo to the station, disposing of the space station's trash upon re-entry or bringing science experiments safely back to Earth. It can also dock with the station in multiple ways.

NASA picks Dream Chaser space plane for ISS supply missions

The first CRS-2 mission is expected in late 2019.
The CRS-2 contracts have a maximum aggregate value of $14 billion, although, at this stage, NASA does not expect to reach that number. “The mix of flights we are looking at are nowhere near that value,” said Shireman

SpaceNut · 2016-01-16 18:32:05

The nay sayers of space would say spend your money here on what helps people here on earth but what COTS has done is create jobs here on earth which are way better than the help would be and long lasting.

Building a Robust Commercial Market in Low Earth Orbit En Route to Mars

Few would have imagined back in 2010 when President Barack Obama pledged that NASA would work “with a growing array of private companies competing to make getting to space easier and more affordable,” that less than six years later we’d be able to say commercial carriers have transported 35,000 of pounds of space cargo (and counting!) to the International Space Station (ISS) – or that we’d be so firmly on track to return launches of American astronauts to the ISS from American soil on American commercial carriers.
Across the board, about 80% of NASA’s activities are carried out by our partners in industry and at America’s academic institutions. We develop more than 1,600 new technologies a year and work with business partners to transfer thousands of products, services and processes into the market for job creation and economic growth. More venture capital was invested in America’s space industry in 2015 than in all the previous 15 years combined.

http://spaceref.biz/international-space … racts.html

Across the board, about 80% of NASA’s activities are carried out by our partners in industry and at America’s academic institutions. We develop more than 1,600 new technologies a year and work with business partners to transfer thousands of products, services and processes into the market for job creation and economic growth. More venture capital was invested in America’s space industry in 2015 than in all the previous 15 years combined.
For 15 years, humans have been living continuously aboard the space station to advance scientific knowledge and demonstrate new technologies, making research breakthroughs not possible on Earth that also will enable long-duration human and robotic exploration into deep space. A truly global endeavor, more than 200 people from 15 countries have visited the unique microgravity laboratory that has hosted more than 1,700 research investigations from researchers in more than 83 countries.

SpaceNut · 2016-01-17 17:18:14

With the continual growth of the industry and successful launchs there will be opportunity to have even more companies come into being with hopefully lower costs....
There are always some that will say we need to be cautious Charles D. Walker: Don't relinquish all space exploration to private firms but I am wondering why we should when its the bloat dollar sucking Nasa and member contractors that have kept space stagnent for so long.

SpaceNut · 2016-01-24 10:29:46

RobertDyck wrote:

kbd512 wrote:
I think it's fair to say that both ISPP and portable nuclear power generation require further development. The affordability aspect is just laughable when put into context. NASA has thrown billions left (Boeing), right (SpaceX), and center (Sierra Nevada) to develop multiple space capsules that all do the exact same thing or don't do what they were intended to do (Orion).
Some people want Apollo back. NASA and Congress are throwing billions at resurrecting Saturn V and Apollo.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … st-CDR.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … ATV_SM.jpg
And some people who grew up in the 1980s & 1990s want Shuttle back. Actually, in 1968 NASA wanted a small shuttle to deliver 7 crew members and a little luggage to an International Space Station. They would use Saturn 1B or its successor for cargo and to construct the station. Nixon slashed NASA's budget, forced them to use one vehicle for everything. And forced the military to share too. So Shuttle became a Frankenstein's monster that did everything, but nothing well. After the Challenger accident, it looked like Congress might not let NASA fly Shuttle again, so NASA started development of a mini-Shuttle to replace it, for crew only. They developed HL-20. Saturn 1B cost less than a single launch of Shuttle. So...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … ests.6.jpg

All of which has had a ripple effect in that Nasa must foster a comercial off the shelf approach to keeping the ISS and getting to orbit for manned flight.

It would seem that cargo has been solved by Space X Dragon and by Orbital/ ATK's Cygnus spacecraft with regular flights helping to reduce the overhead of keeping the station going. Orbital / ATK seem to have not skipped a beat as they made the cargo container compatible with the Atlas and still reviewed there existing rocket to make it safer for use.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/ … cond-life/

Lets not count out Siera's Dreamchaser just yet for being able to deliver cargo as well to the stay either as they are still in the hunt to do so.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/ … ra-nevada/

SpaceNut · 2016-02-21 16:52:50

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
If NASA properly funds the commercial spacecraft development programs they've already spent billions of our tax dollars on, the agency would have several different vehicles to choose from (CST-100, Dragon, and Dream Chaser), each offering unique capabilities for different purposes. The Orion capsule is not required nor even feasible for any space exploration mission other than lunar exploration. For lunar missions, Orion was only marginally feasible. Use of Orion as originally intended required not one but two launch vehicle programs.
I don't see any space exploration program sending humans anywhere but LEO until we're able to efficiently deliver payloads to higher orbits. The most important technological advancements to make for human space exploration are development of affordable reusable lift vehicles and more efficient in-space propulsion. I don't believe super heavy lift rockets or super heavy capsules do anything to lower the insane cost of delivering a payload to orbit or doing anything useful with it after it has been orbited.

SpaceNut · 2016-02-21 17:11:31

Well the history of COTs starts back in 2006 when we have no providers for services of cargo to be delivered to the ISS aside from Shuttle...There we no Boeing, Lockheed or Space x at that time.....

COTS: what does the customer want? was Nasa and only Nasa not even a military payload was even on the plate as all Nasa wanted was to provide supplies to the Station.

Space economies and economics

Right now, COTS is the pathfinder for that aviation-like model of support for the space industry, and the pressure is on

2012 NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services

Fast forward to 2013 when Dragon and Orbital have begun deliveries....
Life after COTS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercia … n_Services

The program was announced on January 18, 2006 and successfully flew all cargo demonstration flights by September 2013. NASA has suggested that "Commercial services to ISS will be necessary through at least 2015

So while we have the ability to deliver we still do not have anyone else asking for the product other than Nasa...
There in lays the problem and until other are asking for the srevice we do not have a commercial market as we know it.

Sure the providers do business of satelite shots to orbit but that is not quite the same as it take 6 years to complete from start to launch for those commodities.

GW Johnson · 2016-02-25 11:49:00

My guess is that Bigelow will get serious about his own space station, once Dragon v2 and one other ride are operational. That will be the first crack in the dike holding back commercial space.

I'd hazard the guess that once NASA is no longer the only customer for shipping to LEO, then somebody commercial will eye the moon more seriously than they have up to now.

GW

SpaceNut · 2016-02-25 19:41:54

The issue for Bigelow is the ownership and control of the station for non Nasa / partner nation useage... with no hard docked module first the Beam module will be just an ISS nations used as a trial module.....

SpaceNut · 2016-04-15 19:30:03

Concept's success buoys Commercial Crew's path to flight

Five years in, NASA's Commercial Crew Program is at the doorstep of launch for a new generation of spacecraft and launch vehicles that will take astronauts to the International Space Station, enhance microgravity research and open the windows to the dawn of a new era in human space transportation. Returning the capability to launch astronauts from American soil brings tremendous satisfaction for the team working toward it.
"One of the biggest paradigm shifts for NASA in commercial crew is developing new human space transportation systems under a fixed-price model," Manning said. "This has never been done before for a program of this magnitude, moreover with two partners in parallel."

SpaceNut · 2016-04-16 15:42:52

Ten company leaders of the red-hot Launch Industry Rivals Spar at Space Symposium squared off at the last panel discussion of the Space Symposium April 14 with long-time manufacturer Aerojet Rocketdyne and upstart Blue Origin touting their respective rocket engines and the presidents and CEOs of rivals SpaceX and United Launch Alliance exchanging barbs.

A question on whether space launches will ever be common enough to where they are considered commodities provoked an exchange, with Bruno maintaining that lofting heavy payloads will never be commonplace.
"Commodities are tires, commodities are cars, commodities are things like that. None of those items involve a million pounds of high explosives in a circumstance where years of work and hundreds of millions of dollars in investments can disappear in a fireball in less than 10 seconds," he said. "We are going to have a wonderful, vibrant competitive marketplace for space but heavy lift is never going to be a commodity," he said.

That sure needs to change if the future is to open up for the common manned flights to start....

Terraformer · 2016-04-17 02:48:20

Ships are also things where millions of dollars of investment can disappear to the bottom of the ocean. Ships aren't commodities, but cargo is.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-17 16:44:14

So the car, truck, or van that you do you grocery hauling home from the store only counts the food as a commodity but yet we can buy any of these vehicles off the shelf from a great number of sales locations,,, and these are not a commodity....

Sure we do not have very many models of low cost rockets yet but that day is coming for the world to use as a made ready to use commodity.

RobertDyck · 2016-04-23 09:32:00

Sierra Nevada landed a contract this January to deliver cargo to ISS. They didn't get a contract for crew, but did for cargo. It will be launched on Atlas V. Dream Chaser was based on HL-20, which was designed to be launched on top of a rocket. However, for some reason they insist on a fairing. My guess is either NASA or the ULA are worried about aerodynamic effects from the lifting body during launch. That requires a hinge to fold the wings during launch. The hinge and fairing add additional mass, that's additional overhead mass. But at least it will fly. NASA signed a contract to purchase 6 Dream Chasers.

It will launch with a cargo module. Dream Chaser is reused, the cargo module is not. It's intended to launch on Atlas V, but has been designed so it can also launch on Ariane 5. But I like reusable stuff. Could it launch on Falcon Heavy?

SpaceX has Dragon. Falcon 9 does not have enough lift mass for Dream Chaser. Even if you use Falcon 9 "Full Thrust", aka v1.2, and even if you remove the cargo module. Even if you remove fairing and wing hinges. Falcon Heavy has more than enough; much more. You could launch Dream Chaser with hinges and fairing, and the cargo module could be expanded. Falcon Heavy has enough lift mass to launch Dream Chaser to ISS with a 22,000kg cargo module! That would be as big as Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) that Shuttle carried. In fact, Shuttle could carry 7 astronauts plus 16 metric tonnes to ISS. That 16 metric tonnes included hull of MPLM. Dream Chaser could carry 7 astronauts, plus 22 metric tonne cargo module. That's more than Shuttle! We would have a shuttle back!

I suspect RCS thrusters on Dream Chaser would difficulty manoeuvring a 22 metric tonne cargo module, so the module would needs its own thrusters. And the cargo module depicted has solar arrays. The space station arm is rated to move a maximum of 115,000kg, which would have allowed it to assist docking Shuttle with a full cargo hold. That was a design feature. So moving an 11 metric tonne Dream Chaser with 22 metric tonne cargo module is well within its capability. This would allow Dream Chaser to hover beside ISS the same as Dragon, Cygnus, or the Japanese HTV, and the arm could berth it to a CBM port.

Dream Chaser is reusable. All 3 core stages of Falcon Heavy are design to be recovered and reused. The upper stage is not, the fairing is not, and the cargo module is not. However, Shuttle's ET was not, and recovery/cleaning/refuelling SRBs cost 90% the price of new SRBs. So this would be a mostly reused shuttle. We would have a shuttle back!

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-04-23 14:30:40)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2008-04-21 10:56:16

Re: COTS - status

#102 2008-04-21 12:47:25

Re: COTS - status

#103 2008-04-22 14:57:29

Re: COTS - status

#104 2014-05-20 20:28:20

Re: COTS - status

#105 2014-09-16 19:12:45

Re: COTS - status

#106 2014-09-17 09:13:25

Re: COTS - status

#107 2014-09-17 15:34:07

Re: COTS - status

#108 2014-09-17 17:48:12

Re: COTS - status

#109 2014-09-17 20:02:51

Re: COTS - status

#110 2014-09-19 07:41:18

Re: COTS - status

#111 2014-10-20 18:53:45

Re: COTS - status

#112 2016-01-14 19:54:07

Re: COTS - status

#113 2016-01-14 21:55:15

Re: COTS - status

#114 2016-01-16 18:32:05

Re: COTS - status

#115 2016-01-17 17:18:14

Re: COTS - status

#116 2016-01-24 10:29:46

Re: COTS - status

#117 2016-02-21 16:52:50

Re: COTS - status

#118 2016-02-21 17:11:31

Re: COTS - status

#119 2016-02-25 11:49:00

Re: COTS - status

#120 2016-02-25 19:41:54

Re: COTS - status

#121 2016-04-15 19:30:03

Re: COTS - status

#122 2016-04-16 15:42:52

Re: COTS - status

#123 2016-04-17 02:48:20

Re: COTS - status

#124 2016-04-17 16:44:14

Re: COTS - status

#125 2016-04-23 09:32:00

Re: COTS - status

Board footer