This might also be in opposition to the U.S. Space Transportation Policy. See:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=15010

Section IV, Item 1 seems applicable, as does possibly Section V, Item 1.

Take the Euro stuff:
ATV Payload: 7,667 kg (16,900 lb)
HTV Payload: 6 tons
(Wikipedia)

Hi from Germany
HCFalkenberg

My God, talk about a knife being driven into the heart of America's commercial space industry. Buying space craft from Japan for 14 BILLION apiece. That's insanity. If we start buying space craft, our space industry will go the way of our television industry. We will lose it and never get it back.

Give that 14 BILLION or 28 BILLION or 42 BILLION to "Spacex" and "Scaled Composites", so that they can build an American commercial space industry for us.

If we spend this money to buy space craft from Japan or any other nation, there will be little or no money left to help fiance our own space industry.

I hate the idea of buying launch space from the Russians, but that's better than buying space craft from another counry.

I think NASA should name names. Who is in favor of buying these space craft?

Congress needs to pass a bill right NOW, saying we (America) will NOT buy space craft from another country.

"NASA has began unofficial negotiations with Japan's space agency on purchasing units of an unmanned cargo transfer spacecraft as the successor to its space shuttles, the Yomiuri newspaper said on Sunday."

There may be a translation misunderstanding at work here.

"Units" may be just space on board an HTV vs a whole one. The HTV can carry racks and unpressurized cargo unlike the ATV. NASA will fly cargo on all logistics vehicles to the ISS, no matter the country of origin.

Or is it really NASA or is it a US contractor vying for the CSR contract by proposing an HTV on a US launcher?

i think its a really good move on griffin/nasa's part. anything to forge stronger relations with another space faring nation, all while serving a purpose for america's space program. cots will still have a chance to compete, but thus far has not shown that it will certainly be up and running when we need it.....and its about time we have another option.......yay nasa

As you might guess from my comment in the July 17 "NASA/ESA Exploration Concepts" article, I agree with the Editor's note. NASA's not buying Progress flights was seen as a vote of confidence in U.S. space transportation, whether SpaceX, Orbital, or other. If this news is true, that vote of confidence is watered down to a political preference for one foreign supplier over another. This type of thing may have made it tougher for RpK to get COTS investments. Current COTS investors had better beware.

I will note that, while the COTS systems haven't proven themselves, neither has the HTV. I'll also note that each $131M mission would be a huge percentage of NASA's actual COTS investment per company. If NASA has this much cash, let's see a COTS D crew phase competition started. Even if the COTS D winner winds up having major foreign components (even a foreign rocket launching a U.S. crew vehicle, or vice versa), it still would be an improvement over the current situation.

I do appreciate the situation NASA is in with ISS supply. This decision is not as clear-cut as the "Exploration Concepts" one, given NASA's ISS obligations. Nevertheless, NASA funding foreign competitors to U.S. space transportation should be avoided. NASA isn't a private business; part of its purpose is fostering U.S. commercial space development. Now, if the foreign space agency opens NASA-sized business opportunities to U.S. companies, the problem goes away, but I don't see that happening. If a U.S. COTS competitor has foreign components, fine (up to a point). If NASA needs a service that U.S. companies aren't interesting in providing, then see what the rest of the world has to offer.

ISS should be stocked up by the Shuttle enough to give COTS cargo transportation plenty of time.

'the ATV's transport capacity is smaller than that of the HTV.'

By which metric is this affirmation true?

AFAIK, HTV has a maximum cargo capability of 6,000 kg, while that of ATV is 7,500 kg ( ie a 25% difference ). In addition, HTV doesn't have the ISS refueling capability that ATV has ( though ATV can fly without this and replace the fuel with dry cargo ). The first ATV, Jules Vernes, flew with less, but that was a policy decision to send only uncritical spares and consumables on a demonstration mission.

Is it a question of internal volume? Number of standard racks on board?

I like Mike Griffin, but I am very leery. I think COTS is one of the more well-advised projects NASA has undertaken in recent years. I will hope, and give Griffin the benefit of the doubt, that the tone of the Reuters article is correct: this is a contingency plan. I think the Agency would be remiss in not having one; but, if this is a substitute to the contracts that have already been let, this is a serious step backward.

Saber,
It's 14 billion yens not dollars. That's equilvent to 137 million dollars.

Above,the article says, "promting NASA to discus buying foreign spacecraft." When I click on the July 20, 2008 Reuters article, it talks about the H-2 transport viehicle costing about 14 billion yen, about 131 million dollars.

The point is, every dollar spent on foreign equipment and or services, helps to fiance other countries to move ahead of our own developing private/commercial space companies.

Also, what is the difference in price between using Russian launch services and Japanesse launch services. If there is a large difference, then we should use the cheapest, even if it's the Russians. Every dollar we save, can go towards developing our own commercial space industry. Advancing us more in the long run.

I'll also bet, that which ever country we don't choose, will then lower thier prices.

This is not new.

At the NASA website:

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/cots/ (no longer active)

there was a Q&A section posted from the very beginning (~2003-2004) that clearly stated that the HTV was always identified as the back up should the commercial sector fail to build tranfer vehicle.

This is not Mike Griffen trying to kill COTS or NASA stabbing the back of the American private sector.

It looks like just a case of NASA hedging its bets in case SpaceX and Orbital Sciences fail (remember Rocketplane/Kistler anyone?)

SpaceRef.com itself linked to this website:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18891

Apparently the reports are not true.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/jul/HQ_08181_HTV_statement.html

Given the wording of the article it seems that the consideration of the idea of ordering HTV's is based on the premise of commercial alternatives not being available in 2 years time. Sounds like a wise precaution to me.

Keep the money (and jobs) in OUR economy! Proceed with a mid-life re-certification of the Shuttle (as recommended in the CAIB report), and continue to use the shuttle for ISS re-supply and crew rotation while we decide on what the next manned space program should look like.

1) "Keep the money (and jobs) in OUR economy!"

2) "Proceed with a mid-life re-certification of the Shuttle (as recommended in the CAIB report), and continue to use the shuttle for ISS re-supply and crew rotation"

3) "while we decide on what the next manned space program should look like."



1) Those are laudable sentiments and, perhaps, NASA should have funded the COTS teams mopre fully to enable them to meet the deadlines that were established when the shuttle program termination date was set. But it didn't and the shuttle is still going to be terminated in 2010 (maybe 2011 in a pinch) and the COTS teams are not looking to be ready in 2 years for sustainable ISS resupply. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is looking. NASA would have to hedge it's bets and at least consider a "plan B".



2) Well, OK, but if the shuttle continues to fly, an alternative manned system simply _isn't_ going to be designed and built in parallel. There just isn't enough money. Add 3-4 billion to NASA's budget and perhaps you can manage both at once.



3) What the next manned program looks like is VSE, that much, at least, has been established. The current implimentation of the VSE is Constellation. I grant you that it's not a terribly good interpretation of the desires of the VSE, but that's what's being built and, therefore, has also already been established.



On the budget it has, NASA simply can not build COnstellation _and_ fly the shuttle. It just can't. I would surely favour increasing NASA's budget, but I don't get a say in that...



Paul

Let me see... COTS - Commercial Orbit Transport Services. Why wouldn't NASA consider all commercially available transport services, be it a US provider or an international one? Sorry, I don't buy into the protectionist vision. Let the lowest cost provider who demonstrates success win the business and continue to thrive and let the uncompetitive wither and die. And above all else, get NASA out of the cargo transport business to ISS. The same holds true for LV's. I will always go to the provider that successfully gets me where I want to go for the lowest $/kg.

This is most likely a negotiating ploy to get the Russians to back down from their extremely high up mass cost.

Naturally, I would prefer to see the private sector, particularly the American private sector, fill the gap. That said, NASA needs to keep all options on the table. SpaceX hasn't gotten anything to orbit yet. Backups--European, Japanese, U.S. commercial--are all viable alternatives and should be pursued. Any or all of them have to be better than depend solely on Russia. I see no cause for alarm.

The reason NASA is looking at the HTV from Japan is because it is the only thing besides the space shuttle, Orion, or COTS, that will have the Common Berthing Mechanism to dock with the U.S. side of the space station.

The Russian Progress and European ATV all dock on the Russian side.

The CBM is big enough to allow passage of the Internation Standard Payload Racks (ISPR) through its berthing ring. The Russian docking rings are too small.

The space shuttles will go away, so that eliminates use of the CBMs to delivery supplies through those vehicle.

Orion is not ready yet.

COTS still has to be proven and will require an adapter since it will use a newer docking system.

HTV is scheduled to fly next year so this is the most mature design and fabrication of the a vehicle that has CBM other than the shuttles.

The last post has many errors.

1. The shuttle doesn't use a CBM, it uses an APAS on the PMA's. ISPR's can not fit through the APAS. The shuttle only can "use" a CBM when it carries a MPLM.

2. Also the Orion is going to dock in the same place a the shuttle.

3. Both COTS vehicles use CBM's and need no adapter

4. Both COTS entrants are not guaranteed CSR contracts and there could be other contractors.