COTS money to stay with COTS companies [Update]

I'm not able to reach the full article but an introductory blurb for Aerospace Daily & Defense Report says that NASA's Scott Horowitz (who recently announced that he will quit as head of exploration systems) will shift COTS money to another company within the program if RpK fails to achieve its financial milestones. That is, it won't be shifted to Ares 1/CEV.

[Update: The full article is now available: COTS Funds May Shift If RpK Fails - Aerospace Daily - July.16.07]

Posted 07/15/07 | 18:52:37 by TopSpacer | Filed under: Commercial ISS Resupply

Comments

Great news. Maybe Scott Horowitz wants to redeem himself after the Ares 1 fiasco.

The money should probably be split between T/Space (demonstrated track record of achieving very much with little money) and constellation services as a conservative backup plan in case the more radical approaches fail.

Posted by Anonymous at 07/16/07 01:17:15

or Send it to PlanetSpace

Posted by Anonymous at 07/16/07 05:50:07

Have you guys forgotten SpaceDev? They built the hybrid engines for Space Ship One. They have also had a number of space related military contracts that they have successfully executed and as a result keep getting new military contracts (proving that when given a contract they can deliver). Furthermore, they've got a lot of time and money invested in the research and development of their Dream Chaser orbital craft and its associated hybrid engine launch system.

Posted by Rick Boozer at 07/16/07 06:05:35

the Dream Chaser glide range sucks!

Posted by ED at 07/16/07 08:58:21

assuming no money is added, it's just going to become more ridiculous.

The RpK contract was $225M, they spent about 25M,
so, a new contract is $200, with a year shot off
the timeline.

So any winner needs to line up a minimum of $400M
of financing, and work faster then ever to fly.

That's just not going to work. If you split it,
then you have 2 firms below critical mass.

Schedule matters because COTS is supposed to
service ISS, which is aging and dying.

Posted by anonymous at 07/16/07 13:21:23

The Dream Chaser's glide range doesn't suck when you compare it to Space X's Dragon, since Dragon is a capsule rather than a glider and thus has NO glide range! Besides, Dream Chaser's cross range is 1600 km - not a lot worse than the current space shuttle's 2000 km.

Posted by Rick Boozer at 07/16/07 13:55:32

Rick, it dose suck...
the comparison was not with Dragon..but the other glider in the bid for COTS, PlanetSpace "Silver Dart" (FDL7)
6,437km cross range. vs Dream Chasers
1600km
Big Difference!
Dream Chaser Sucks!

Posted by Ed at 07/16/07 19:57:07

Neither Planetspace nor SpaceDev has built a prototype, so stacking up their vapor against each other doesn't mean much.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at 07/16/07 23:31:49

ED, considering that you are assigning an email address to yourself of bogus@bogus.com and you're using language like "Dream Chaser Sucks!" (instead of just letting your facts speak for themselves) leads me to think that you are a teenager with an axe to grind. I think that it's great for you or anyone else to express an opinion on anything regardless of their age, so here is some friendly advice. If you want people to take you seriously, leave out the adolescent expletives and false identities.

Posted by Rick Boozer at 07/17/07 04:55:19

Rick,if you think that a cross range of 1600km is better than 6437km...so be it
As for an Axe to grind...not really I just hate to see ignorance from fan boys.
as for the email...well that was a joke, but if it makes you feel better you can send me an email and I can explain how a larger number indicates a greater distance that can be traveled.

Posted by Ed at 07/17/07 05:35:43

Ed, I'm not disputing your facts and being an open minded fellow) might even be willing to concede the rightness of your position, but again pointless phrases like "Dream Chaser Sucks!" and "ignorance from fan boys" detract from rather than advance your position. Let the facts and your reasons that you list speak for themselves without the extra derogatory baggage. Such statements could cause someone else not to accept your position even when you make a good point.

Posted by Rick Boozer at 07/17/07 07:07:40

Rick...Jim Benson has even gone away from "Dream Chaser" because he thinks it sucks!
Now he is making a DaVinci style rocket!
But please Rick...it is truly very important to me, that you accept my position.

Posted by Ed at 07/17/07 10:07:00

T-Space, Space-Dev, PlanetSpace . . . DaVinci ???

Oh why not. Not-Son-Flyin Brian's got as much chance to get a successful demonstration flight to the ISS as any of these guys.

RPK? Done. WHEN they fail to meet their milestone, stick the funds back into the general budget. It'll do as much good there as throwing it away with any of these others(take a good look at the calendar people). (Except for the Entertainment Quotient (Qf), that Brian would give us.)

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 07/17/07 10:41:12

Buck.Bundy:

call me cynical, but the chances of T/Space making it to the ISS until 2010 are significantly higher than the chances of Ares 1/Orion ever flying.

I don't mean to say that the chances of a T/Space success are very high. But giving the money to T/Space would definitely be better value for the money than pouring it into the bottomless Ares/Orion pit.

Of course if you just want a commercial way to service the ISS, just give the money to constellation services. They are planning to use existing boosters and existing docking technology (progress).

Posted by Anonymous at 07/17/07 11:23:38

Cynical,

Well you did ask me to call you cynical :).

If your looking for Bang for your buck to resupply the ISS, just put the COTS money that RPK will be forfeiting back into the general budget and buy progress and soyuz flights with the Russians. No one will be better value or as reliable.

At least with my plan of giving the cash to Brian F. We would have gotten 2.5 years of entertainment. It might be worth it. Then again Benson seems to be going down the same road as Feeney with his spaceship of year design.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 07/17/07 12:49:10

Re: Buck.Bundy

You should really take a look at the constellation services proposal. It has very low technology risk, yet it would make ISS resupply much more flexible since it does not rely on a single launcher.

http://www.constellationser...

Even NASA acknowledged that this is the lowest risk approach, but it obviously can not do crew rotation and it relies on russian docking technology.

Posted by Anonymous at 07/17/07 13:05:42

Anonymous,

Yeah, I know about constellation. Like I said if you want the MOST bang for the buck, buy the services from the people that make and fly the vehicles. Constellation is another middle man. If there is one thing I've learned from selling shoes, it's that to save the most money, cut the overhead.

Go the the Russians and ask for a bulk package of 20 Progress and 20 Soyuz flights. Constellation and anyone else repackaging someones elses services are nothing more than overhead.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 07/17/07 13:17:13

Wow such rampant cluelessness, keep it up Bundy.

Posted by Impressed at 07/17/07 16:44:11

WOW you're impressed !

Now i'm impressed.

Instead of making non-contributing comments, how about contributing to the discussion.

You may disagree with me, but how about taking a typing course and put it to good use. Tell me what you think about the topic.

Hell I might even become less clueless and learn something from you.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 07/17/07 16:51:28

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.