Briefs: NASA to count on COTS; Florida liability bill; Old boomers vs space

That's good for the commercial ISS cargo folks; let's hope they deliver.

If NASA doesn't have confidence in commercial crew transport for ISS by a specific date, but they need that commercial transport so Ares ISS support doesn't use up too much of NASA's budget during planned years of big NASA lunar expenses, it would be prudent to get some kind of COTS or other commercially-oriented crew transport incentive phase under way as soon as possible.

Even a cramped, 2 (quite small) person, 0 cargo system that won't come online for many years would be better than nothing, as long as it's safe, reliable, and cheaper to operate than Ares. I suspect with reasonable NASA (and Bigelow?) incentives, the results would be a lot better than that, too.

Posted by Ray at 04/17/08 18:42:15

.

as already explained in my "What's wrong in COTS" article, the COTS vehicles used for ISS resupply (rather than better things) are a GIANT WASTE of money, since...

1. within 2010 the Shuttle can carry everything the ISS needs in the next 3-5 years

2. the ISS is an international program that will have (at least) three cargo vehicles: Progress, ATV and HTV

3. the COTS vehicles will born from ZERO in the next years, so, they may have a final (hardware+R&D) cost HIGHER than the existing ISS cargo

4. it's not sure that COTS vehicles will work well nor they'll fly as scheduled

5. since NASA will withdraw from ISS in 2020, the COTS cargo will be used just a few times (probably less than half dozen, since great part of the cargo will be carried with Progress and ATV)

6. if NASA and USA absolutely wants to have an independent ISS cargo vehicle, an Orion can be modifyed to carry over 3.5 mT per launch

.

Posted by gm at 04/17/08 19:41:59

.

as shown on Astronautix, the Progress-M has a max cargo mass around around 2.55 mT, an engine propellents mass around 0.9 mT (used also for ISS reboost) and a total mass around 7.5 mT

http://www.astronautix.com/...

since the Orion CM+SM will be around 20 mT (then, about three times the Progress) it will need (at least) 2 mT of propellents to reach the ISS, reboost it and deorbit at then end of a mission

but the Orion SM tanks can be filled with 8.5+ mT of propellents... 6.5 mT more than necessary for an ISS mission

so, the Orion can be modifiied to carry 3.5+ mT of PRESSURIZED cargo (in the capsule) PLUS over 6.5 mT of (Shuttle-cargo-bay-like) UNPRESSURIZED cargo in a modified SM with smaller tanks

well, 3.5 mT + 6.5 mT = 11 mT of cargo to ISS is over FOUR times one Progress and (about) HALF the max Shuttles' cargo payload (that's 24 mT max)

then, WHO needs the COTS for ISS cargo?

.

Posted by gm at 04/17/08 20:15:39

I think NASA has just made a generous offer to support private aerospace development. Now let’s see if private space is up to the task. All those Griffin basher out there should take notice of this. Perhaps its time to stop bashing the guy along with Ares/Orion and show some support. It might be a silk purse but I think it will work. The main obstacle right now is the “Obama factor”. Obama is threatening to jerk the rug and funding right when things are starting to gain momentum and jell.

Posted by Doug at 04/18/08 08:49:28

gm - you do realize that nothing outside of COTS provides for return capablity? And that COTS will be substantially cheaper than Orion? And as far as arguing that COTS vehicles might not fly, well, is there are more than a few people who think Dragon is more likely to fly than Orion

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 04/18/08 09:57:30

Ferris,

a cargo-Orion can have that capability and, also, it's reusable safely since unmanned

today's Falcon's per-kg-launched costs are just a few hundred dollars less than other existing rockets, so, the real price of COTS will be known only when their rockets will fly (a date we can't know for sure, now)

.

Posted by gm at 04/18/08 10:37:50

As already explained in many posts, gm is clueless and doesn't know what he is talking about. Cargo Orion was canceled. Also Orion (any version) is not available in 2010 or 2015. NASA has stated that it will need to fly almost 40 mT cargo from 2010 to 2015, not including what is flown on Progress, ATV and HTV, which only meet Russian, ESA and JAXA obligations and not NASA's

Posted by GM at 04/18/08 10:59:32

.

(clearly) "gm's fan that uses my nickname" GM,

I'm tepted to answer your insults with... "uuuuuuuuuuuuffffffffffhhhhh!!!!"

(doesn't "uufh" means in english the same thing that in italian?)

however...

I know that the cargo Orion was canceled from the plan

and, not only... since """I""" have suggested (AS FIRST!) to cancel (both) the (unpressurized and pressurized) cargo Orion in my posts on uplink (in 2005) since (both) too expensive compared with vehicles like Progress & C. !!!

and NASA has done that in 2006 (for the unpressurized Orion) and in 2007 (for the pressurized Orion) so I WAS RIGHT (again) in my opinion... :)

also, I was the FIRST to say (in 2005) that an Orion launch will be very expensive and (on uplink) I've made an evaluation of its costs pers launch TWO YEARS BEFORE ALL OTHER "EXPERTS" ...and NOW my calculations perfectly match with costs evaluated by GAO and members of the US Concress !!!

despite the cargo-Orion was cancelled, it can be restored modifying the Orion and its SM

about the COTS... I hope they will succeed in their efforts, but, if they will be not ready in the years you quote and/or if their prices will be higher, it will be NOT my blame... :)

.

Posted by gm at 04/18/08 17:45:31

You haven't said anything that is original. Everything you say has been said before. You are just a copy cat, nothing more. You are just an annoying pest on these websites

Posted by GM at 04/18/08 17:50:37

angry-GM,

you're not the "judge of everybody and everything"

peoples that read my comments and my article are perfectly able to judge by theirself :)

Posted by gm at 04/19/08 02:50:45

I know I am not the "judge of everybody and everything"

But I do know a lot about spaceflight and I can judge that your posts and website are full of nonsense and unworkable concepts.

So I am doing a public service by telling them to avoid reading your "stuff" so they don't waste their time.

Posted by The only right GM at 04/19/08 04:53:38

wrong-GM,

the only way you have to save your time (and the readers' time) is to stop post your useless and angry comments against me (also using MY nickname) since your claims have ZERO effects on me... :)

Posted by the BEST, the original and the only gm at 04/19/08 07:21:03

I will stop posting when you stop posting nonsense and start bringing something valid and meaningful* to a discussion.
* This excludes all your non viable ideas

Posted by The only right GM at 04/19/08 09:43:44

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me