Insight Into SpaceX and COTS

It's true that Dragon can do more combined (3.1 mT, 1.4mT pressurised and 1.7mT unpressurised) but how likely is it that pressurised and unpressurised cargo will go every flight ? Not very. Cygnus can do either 2.3 mT pressurised or 2mT unpressurised every flight but not both. Seems to me the deal was done on pressurised capability which is what say Progress and ATV do exclusively so it's not an unusual metric.

I'm not an engineer, or an insider. But, If i interpret marsavian's comment correctly, then the Orbital Sciences launch system is the more prolific of the two and, therefore, more expensive by its nature. Is that a correct statement?

Please remember that SpaceX won $238 million for COTS to develop this vehicle back in (August?) 2006, for a launch date in 2009, while Orbital received $171 million for COTS in Feb 2008, for a first launch in 2010. Similar launch time frames, but SpaceX had more money, earlier.

Mr. Musk, be very careful on how you compare spacecraft and awards. The differences will come out sooner or later, then we can discuss how it makes you feel.

Congratulations to both teams. Hopefully NASA will appreciate your contributions as much as you appreciate their money.

Thank you, Elpie. As a taxpayer, I want to know these things are being done fairly and equitably. And it's no surprise that Mr. Musk, as a businessman, wants to obtain every possible advantage for his company.

Both contracts are for a minimum of 20mT and are fixed price. NASA obviously expects Orbital to deliver more cargo per flight on average. What I suspect will happen is that if SpaceX deliver more, by consistently hauling up unpressurised as well as pressurised, they won't have to do the 12 flights to get their 20mT and therefore their $1.6bn and vice versa if Orbital haven't delivered the 20mT in 8 flights they will have to throw in extra flights to get their $1.9bn. We won't know for sure until/if the contracts go up as pdfs on NASA's site.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_C08-069_ISS_Resupply.html

The contract says MINIMUM of 20mT and 12 flights for Spacex. That could also mean that Spacex might end up transporting much more than the 20mT minimum and possibly much more than Orbital. If that is the case, then Spacex's compensation should be on a par with what Orbital is receiving. That would only be fair.

As mentioned above, Spacex recieved about $70 million more than Orbital on the COTS contract. Orbital is going to recieve over a hundred million more than Spacex per cargo flight. A one flight differential would more than make up the difference in COTS money recieved.

I have another way of looking at the contract. As I said above, Spacex is getting about $70 million more than Orbital on the COTS contract, but Orbital is getting $300 million more than Spacex on the CRS contract. On top of that, Spacex has to do 50% more flights.

As mentioned, Orbital can carry more unpressurized cargo in a single flight.

That's more important than it sounds; if they have a 2 ton piece of equipment, it's not like they can just send it in two Dragon flights. That Cygnus flight becomes invaluable.

And unless Orbital has other customers for this, they need to get enough flights to sustain a business.

So grabbing those 8 could be a very smart move if they ever need something larger than can fit on a Dragon.

I would be curious to know the numbers on Orbital's unpressurized cargo capacity compared to the numbers on Spacex's unpressurized cargo capacity, (not counting Spacex's pressurized cargo capacity). The numbers might not be that different. In this mentioned article, Elon says, "Our Dragon spacecraft has 50 percent more payload cabability than Orbital."

Will there really be that many items that would fit in Orbital's cargo bay and not Spacex's? Once you pass that narrow range, then the item launched would have to go on a vehicle like ATV.

The idea of COTS, is to generate competition. If the low bidder gets the SHORT END OF THE STICK, for making the low bid. Things like:

1. Getting the lower dollar amt. of the contract award.

2. Having to perform more flights for that lower price.

3. Possibly transporting more cargo for a lower price.

If these things happen, then there is no insentive to make your bid as competitive as possible. Hopefully, when we get to see the full contract, we will see that everything is fair and equitable. America wants and needs competition in our American space industry, for us to be competitive in the world space market.

The results of this competition are unfortunate. The experienced aerospace contractors teamed in a way that would allow the benefits of both their experience and an entrepreneurial business model. This approach also would have also softened the blow of the shuttle retirement by creating jobs in Florida.

However, some unknown bias (anti-establishment?) seems to outweigh the benefits of this approach, given that the SSA awarded one of the contracts to the lowest scoring, highest priced bidder. The other contract was of course to a company who is 1 for 4 in launches, and has NO spacecraft experience.

Instead, NASA will depend on the man who brought us an impractical car from Silicon valley at double the advertised price, and a company made dependent on the former east block by their outsourcing American jobs to the Ukraine.

I understand the frustration that many non-hardware people have with the cost of spaceflight. And of course, all efforts should be made to make things efficient. But reinventing the wheel, on the basis of ego-driven promises and bad national policy, is not the answer.