COTS Pick: A Sea Change?

Actually, Motley is the fool. ATK did win big as they are making the second stage for the Orbital Sciences vehicle. Don't forget Aerojet, who is providing the 1st stage engines; not a startup or a small contractor.

The real story here is that Orbital gets more money than SpaceX for less launches. Gee, who was the business fool on those bids.

How interesting someone posted:
Each flight (service) will be initiated (on ramped) individually with payment upon completion. NASA doesn't pay the bulk of the money unless it receives the service. NASA won't onramp a flight until there is a demonstrated capability

Thanks -- Reuters
In the recent Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contest, for example, Motley Fool Rule Breakers recommendation Orbital (25 years old, and so hardly a start-up) received $171 million worth of funding. Meanwhile, SpaceX got off to a running start with a $278 million contract of its own. (Not bad for a start-up, eh?)

however I'm was informed:
The contract is IDIQ. NASA hasn't "ordered" the flights yet.

"The real story here is that Orbital gets more money than SpaceX for less launches. Gee, who was the business fool on those bids."

The payloads are not the same. They're not comparable launches.

Yes, Orbital is a smaller payload on a smaller launcher. Go figure.

As said on the other thread, Orbital can carry all unpressurized cargo.

SpaceX gets all the attention since it can return cargo and in the near future, people. But we _need_ to be able to ship unpressurized cargo if we're going to continue building things in space post-Shuttle.

This also answers the question, how is NASA going to put that VASIMR thing on the station?

They recently sealed the deal to install VASIMR on the station but there's no room on the Shuttle unless they extend it.

No problem; they'll be able to ship it on an Orbital Sciences capsule.

Hardly a "sea change" since Space-X and Orbital were the winners of the first phase; this is more like NASA made a mid-course navigation check, and decided to keep going the direction it had originally picked for COTS.

It will be really cool if it works as planned, though-- could be a real game changer down the road.

Another important point about Cygnus, the service module can fly independntly, as a space tug. Dragon and Cygnus are going to be perfect complements, over time. I'll be happier when and if Aerojet begins domestic production of those Russian engines, though.

"Yes, Orbital is a smaller payload on a smaller launcher. Go figure."

You are not figuring right. Cygnus can carry more cargo as it doesn't need to be a human re-entry capsule too like Dragon. Orbital and SpaceX are both getting paid to deliver 20mT of cargo, the fact that it will take SpaceX 50% more flights is not Orbital's problem. The fact that Orbital also charge 19% more for that 20mT is also not important in the grand scheme of things because having two suppliers ensures redundancy in case one slips and falls. If they are both successful they will also compete against each other with their new rockets for third party business lowering prices for everyone. Personally I think they should have also thrown PlanetSpace a bone too to ensure full industry competition as ATK/LM/BA have greater combined experience and it would provide better redundancy but the dice has been cast another way.

Personally I think they should have also thrown PlanetSpace a bone too to ensure full industry competition as ATK/LM/BA have greater combined experience and it would provide better redundancy but the dice has been cast another way.

So you think Constellation contracts aren't good enough for them? Be truthful, yes, this is a quiz.

Of course they are good enough for them but what harm would it have done to have them in the mix too in a lessor role, say a 16-16-8 mT mix. They were the only other entity willing to make the investment. It's extra insurance in case both SpaceX and Orbital fail.

Agreeing with EL.

As far as redundancy is concerned, Orion means three options even if there's only two companies selling it as a service.

If they split too few flights among too many companies it won't really be enough to sustain them. I know SpaceX aspires to have other customers, but I think Orbital is just working for ISS.

Also, I'm not totally sure how this works but while Orion is being made with public money, Boeing could privately develop a downscaled, LEO-only capsule for the private market if all this takes off and if there's enough demand.

Northrop tried this with the F-20 Tigershark. Starting with the F-5 Freedom Fighter as base, developed a new light-fighter with private money.

...It didn't sell, but I'm just saying, it's not unheard of.

Similarly, there are rumors that Energia are continuing Kliper development privately even though the Russian government passed on it.

One of the things the Taurus II does (independent of ISS and Cygnus) is fill the gap in the US launch vehicle stable left by the demise of Delta II. That would be their hoped-for market besides ISS, just as SpaceX hopes Falcon 9 can compete against Atlas V and Delta IV for other business. I guess time will tell, in both cases. That only applies to US govt. launches. For commercial launches they'd be competing against all sorts of LVs (ESA, Russian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, maybe one day Brazil, Korea, Iran...).

It's extra insurance in case both SpaceX and Orbital fail.

So you think the chances of SpaceX and Orbital failing, both private companies which have already flown launchers to orbit, is greater than the chances of the Constellation architecture failing, an architecture that has alrady spent $10 billion dollars of public money, is still fraught with very severe technical and financial problems, and has not yet flown any hardware to orbit, and isn't scheduled to fly until 2015 at the earliest? And you want to spend another $10 billion on this so called launch vehicle architecture, and then use those vehicles to support $200 billion dollar lunar base missions?

And you support more public money for three large aerospace corporations, all of which already have launch vehicles in operation?

When do I get my bail out money? Three hundred bucks just didn't do it for me. I blew that on OilCo the first month.

These are severe and nearly intractible problems we face, but that is what makes America great, solving problems that at first look nearly impossible, like going to the moon, for instance. But when you find yourself solving the very same problems over and over, you should consider that a problem as well. America isn't going to fail unless you let it fail.

I think that NASA did it right. They picked 2 winners, so this created redundency. But one of the ideas of COTS, is to create competition. If everyone wins, then there is no competition and no reason to put in competitive bids.

SpaceX have just produced a simple two stage launcher which they took 4 attempts to get right. They also now have to do a far more complicated 9 rocket core stage and demonstrate a vacuum air-start version of Merlin. They also have no experience doing a Soyuz clone like Dragon.

Orbital have no liquid rocket experience and the NK-33 has no production experience. Finally they failed doing the Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology (DART) spacecraft.

Now it maybe they both deliver to specification and as expected but it not guaranteed and CRS does deserve something that does not rely on so many unknowns. The old space alliance under PlanetSpace would have been that conservative backup. Competition could have been served by awarding them less but these activities are so difficult that a third supplier of this combined pedigree should not have been overlooked IMO.

There is nothing to stop Boeing, LM, or anyone else from spending their own money to develop a spacecraft and launching it by 2010, then putting up an offer to fly cargo for anyone to anywhere, inclduing ISS. Bigelow even has a standing prize for it (so long as you don't use government money). ULA sells launch vehicles big enough for the job, as I recall.

All that matters is the money to pay for the service to bring cargo and astronauts to the ISS will most likely stay home; hence, helping enhance and consolidate the US indigenous space engineering capabilities.

Space X will NOT fail nor will Orbital in the discharge of the exercise. The rest is pure academic and/or unnecessary rhetoric.

in Space we trust.

All that matters is the money to pay for the service to bring cargo and astronauts to the ISS will most likely stay home; hence, helping enhance and consolidate the US indigenous space engineering capabilities.

Now the next activity will be making use of such indigenous space engineering capabilities for some purpose that is unknown at the moment.

Mean while the XPrize activity will land on the moon and send pictures back to families that have an internet connection so they can play with the robot.

CRS does deserve something that does not rely on so many unknowns.

How about coaching this problem in 'knowns'.

1) 'Orbital' solid rocket vehicles are among the most expensive launch vehicles per kilogram to orbit on the market.

2) Ares 1 - a solid fuel rocket, is vastly over budget and behind schedule, and is already looking to be one of the most expensive per kilogram to orbit rocket ever developed.

3) Athena III doesn't exist, and uses solid rockets that are already used in the most expensive rockets ever flown.

4) Boeing and Lockheed have two very fine liquid rockets which they for some reason declined to offer for service.

Has it occured to you yet, that given NASA's experience with the Ares I, that this may just be a simple solid verses liquid and a simple existing verses non-existent decision?

Occasionally, NASA does make some good decisions, whatever the cost of those decisions may end up to ultimately be.

4) Boeing and Lockheed have two very fine liquid rockets which they for some reason declined to offer for service.

This is easy to figure out. Every single COTS contender that has proposed using either of those two very fine liquid rockets have been turned down in previous efforts. He who shall not be named did not want an EELV anywhere near ISS to preclude anyone in congress from getting any ideas about "other" uses of those vehicles.

It was far better for he who shall not be named to pick the vendor who completely and absolutely (in cooperation with equally incompetent ones at MSFC) fubared the DART mission. Anyone who has read the failure report for DART would not let the same team from OSC anywhere near ISS and yet in the telecon for the COTS development contract headquarters specifically used the DART experience as one of the reasons for giving OSC the nod over contractors that were offering one of those fine liquid fueled rockets.

After retching on the keyboard at hearing this, one felt the cold invisible hand of fate descending on COTS.

One of the things the Taurus II does (independent of ISS and Cygnus) is fill the gap in the US launch vehicle stable left by the demise of Delta II

Yes built by the same company that promised that their Pegasus would fill the need for light payloads lofted by the Scout vehicle at a much cheaper price. Eighteen years later, the Pegasus might fly once a year these days and is almost twice as expensive as the Scout. In bulk the Delta II (GPS II Launch on Demand contract) is already cheaper than what OSC is selling its vehicle to NASA for the COTS mission. Plus NASA is paying for its development? This does not compute.

This is the same company that promised that the TOS would be 10% less expensive than the IUS that it was going to replace for Shuttle based upper stages. After the first one almost destroyed an Orbiter in orbit due to improper wiring that was never detected, and after NASA figured out that it was actually 10% more expensive than IUS it was retired with little fanfare.

With such a sterling record of accomplishment this observer just prays for SpaceX.

concerned Citizen,

Nice way to twist the facts to prove wrong points.

"eighteen years later, the Pegasus might fly once a year these days and is almost twice as expensive as the Scout."

The current flight rate of Pegasus is related to demand (and market economics are not applicable to prices). Also the Scout price "these days" would be twice too

In bulk the Delta II (GPS II Launch on Demand contract) is already cheaper than what OSC is selling its vehicle to NASA for the COTS mission.

The GPS II Launch on Demand contract no longer exists for future launches and therefore not applicable. Current DII prices are more than an Atlas V 401