COTS-D to get $80M

Though not "technically" going to the COTS-D program, NASA will essentially do that by providing $80M for a commercial crew spaceflight demonstration: COTS D - Commercial Human Spaceflight to get at least $80m - Write Stuff/Orlando Sentinel. There will be a total of $150M total going to commercial spaceflight operations from the $400M in stimulus money that NASA received.

According to industry insiders, about $80 million of the $150 million is specifically for a "crewed launch demo." The rest was broken down into $42 million for a docking system to the international space station, $20 million for a cargo transportation demo and $8 million for miscellaneous aspects of the COTS program, including human rating. The remaining $250 million of the stimulus money for human exploration will go to the Constellation program.

The $80M will almost certainly go to SpaceX and its Falcon 9/Dragon program since Orbital Sciences has indicated that the Taurus II/Cygnus system is intended only for cargo.

[Update: Rob Coppinger says in the comments here and on his blog that the $80M does not automatically go to SpaceX but will be competed for: When is COTS-D not COTS-D, when only SpaceX can bid for it - Hyperbola.

Also: COTS-D: NASA says you're all wrong - Hyperbola]

Posted 04/29/09 | 14:09:43 by TopSpacer | Filed under: Commercial ISS Resupply

Comments

I would not discount Planetspace here. They still are well positioned to apply for this money because of two factors.

At first, they already said they secured funding for the program even without NASA contract.

And secondly, they can still do COTS-D using Silver Dart through expanding their unfunded SAA with NASA that they already have going.

Posted by groovy le fanbois at 04/29/09 14:21:23

COTS-D is a toilet that you dump money into and will get nothing usefull except fertilizer.

NASA should use any money available towards invesigating Orion on an EELV.

The COTS companies more than have their hands full wil the A,B&C cargo comminments they have undertaken.

Groovy,

Interesting point about thier continuing work on Planetspace's Golden Dart.

I'm getting a funny feeling in my stomach about thier unfunded agreement. There is still no additional information on the NASA site about their revised schedule.

Bueller . . . Bueller . . .

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 04/29/09 14:29:53

Clark, Scolese said today that they could not do COTS-D as only one organisation could apply for it, namely SpaceX. So I think this mooted $80 million for the launch demo will actually be competed for and then split to more than one winner. It must be for a phase one selection and early design work I guess. I can't imagine that they will have another competition and then just give it all to SpaceX anyway. Then again... Rob.

Posted by Rob Coppinger at 04/29/09 15:06:29

This is a 'sop' to both New Space and Old so they can delay decisions on Exploration. A lot better than nothing towards (effectively) COTS -D, and with Scolese's comments a delay looks positive to me.

Of course, the sop to Old Space - $250million - is a lot more expensive than that to New.

Posted by Charles Lurio at 04/29/09 15:31:05

stop it! Stop! I don't speak mexican.
"SOP" ???

Posted by Ron Burgandy at 04/29/09 15:48:12

Ron,

I gather SOP stands for "Snake Oil Propulsion", a kind of rocket science emloyed by some members of this industy.

Posted by groovy le fanbois at 04/29/09 16:03:12

SOP == Standard Operating Procedure

http://www.aerospace-techno...

Posted by Jonathan lee at 04/29/09 16:06:09

http://www.merriam-webster....

"...a conciliatory or propitiatory bribe, gift, or gesture..."

Posted by Rand Simberg at 04/29/09 16:14:06

This is too funny. got to love acronyms.

I guess it could be a bribe and at the same time standard operating proceedure.

by the way the Snake Oil, what kind of specific Impulse with LOX will it get?
and do you need Geoff math to calculate it?

Posted by Ron at 04/29/09 16:22:33

Thanks, Rand...

Posted by Charles Lurio at 04/30/09 00:29:41

Then why didn't NASA originally pick crew capable COTS winners?? Or more than two?

Did they really think back then that Ares I / Orion would be on track?

It's always been crazy. A simple capsule on an existing, proven launch vehicle has always been the obvious choice. Right back in 2005 already. Now it seems to be Soyuz since the Americans didn't want to develop a capsule on their own and have been just wrestling with the Ares disaster for the last four years.

I've heard in comments, paraphrasing, that Hanley might be smart but he doesn't have any experience with large technology development programs. Probably someone with some industry or other development experience could help.

Nasaspaceflight.com is the place to watch this all unfold, news break weeks before the rest (who just forward NASA PAO), and they're even earlier on L2...

Posted by gravityloss at 04/30/09 01:49:23

"Scolese said today that they could not do COTS-D as only one organisation could apply for it, namely SpaceX."

And it was a problem that NASA couldn't competitive bid out for a solid rocket motor first stage for Ares I with ATK being the only supplier?

I'm sure Lockheed Martin and Boeing would gun for a COTS-D contract with a modified EELV as the launcher. Back in 2006, Lockheed and Bigelow signed a human-rated EELV deal: http://www.nasaspaceflight....

Posted by John Kavanagh at 04/30/09 12:30:08

The straight forward answer has always been Orion on an EELV with Shuttle C with reusable RS-68B's for heavy lift. What's the problem?

Posted by Tony Rusi at 05/01/09 12:29:51

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.