SpaceX is wrong. If it is lucky it will be in a position for crew flights in 2013. NASA cannot afford to base the future of the International Space Station on "claims."

Even if SpaceX delivers, the spacecraft could not be used for rescue on ISS! It needs to be able to dock to the station and stay docked for six months!

Whether we like it or not (and we do not like it) Soyuz is our only viable option. There simply is not time for COTS D to deliver.

Musk needs to back off. His ambitions could put people and programs at risk.

From the article:

"... Nonetheless, some have questioned Administrator Michael Griffin's willingness to accelerate COTS D. Musk said that Griffin is a believer, but that accelerating NASA's Ares/Orion system is higher on his priority list."

There are a lot of problems with trying to accelerate NASA's Ares/Orion instead of COTS D. First, even a very large amount of money isn't going to make much of a difference in getting Ares/Orion operational sooner. We don't even know who would win a COTS D competition (I would not automatically assume SpaceX), but it's likely that an equivalent amount of money would be a lot more useful in COTS D directed specifically at ISS crew transport (not that plus the Moon and Mars) for reducing the size of the ISS crew gap. (Musk talks about eliminating the gap, but reducing it would be a victory too).

Second, COTS D is attractive because the competitors pitch in money, too.

Third, COTS D systems can be used for commercial business like potential Bigelow stations, which not only greatly increases their usefulness to the nation and the space community, but also makes them more sustainable as businesses.

Fourth, the COTs winners don't get the money unless they meet the milestones. That's good fiscal responsibility. Ares/Orion taxes get spent regardless of how long it's delayed. The COTs incentive structure helps.

Finally, Ares/Orion need something like COTS so they can be directed at the Moon, not waste their time at the ISS.

It isn't a matter, as the title suggests, of racing Orion to the ISS. If the U.S. doesn't have safe, economical commercial transportation to the ISS by 2016, Orion *loses* (as do we all). On the other hand, if we get COTS ISS transportation in, say, 2013 and Ares/Orion by say 2017 (with lunar say 2022), we all win, including Orion.

JSC_LIS: "Whether we like it or not (and we do not like it) Soyuz is our only viable option. There simply is not time for COTS D to deliver."

It's not right to judge COTS D on its ability or inability to completely removed the human transportation gap, which I assume is the measure of success JSC_LIS is using (understandably, since this is what Musk is claiming he can do). COTS D also shouldn't be judged on whether or not it can completely remove Soyuz - even the Shuttle can't do that.

Here are the criteria, in no special order, I would use to judge COTS D:

- Can it reduce or eliminate the gap?
- Can it provide redundancy in ISS crew transportation should any problems occur with Soyuz and/or Ares/Orion during development or operations?
- Can it result in services (cheaper or more reliable launch, commercial station transport, etc) that can be used by other customers besides NASA, promoting U.S. economic health? [NASA needs to show it can work this way now with the ISS and elsewhere, or the commercial justification that underlies the lunar part of the VSE is completely undermined.]
- Can it allow Ares 1/Orion to focus mainly on their roles in transportation beyond LEO, acting as more of a backup for ISS transportation?
- How does the COTS D development cost to the government compare to the cost to pull Ares 1/Orion back several years?
- What is the expected cost to the government to use a COTS D system?
- What is the expected safety of a COTS D system?

I don't think there's any way to judge these criteria until NASA actually runs the competition.

We've known for years the Shuttle is being retired, and we should have realized years ago there would be a huge gap (SpaceX isn't the only organization that's experienced schedule delays in this industry), so COTS D should already have been well underway by now.