NASA commercial crew and cargo manager Alan Lindemoyer wasn't kidding when he said at last week's 3rd space exploration conference that the space operations mission directorate's draft Request For Proposals for International Space Station resupply would be published soon
Bleary eyed and back in the UK yesterday morning after a Friday spent with Alliant Techsystems in Utah and a weekend travelling, I finally had a look today at the DRFP and was interested to spot the following that looked eerily like something that could be called COTS phase three
"In addition, NASA would like to clarify how ISS integration will be performed for offerors who are awarded an ISS [Commercial Resupply Services] contract. This procurement does not include or fund the integration activities. ISS integration will be administered separately through Space Act agreements that will be managed by the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office. NASA will enter into integration agreements when companies’ technology development achieves a specified level of maturity, either through independent industry development or through joint NASA-industry activities, including the COTS Phase 1 activities. More explanation of this relationship will be provided during the scheduled pre-proposal conference mentioned below."
So the questions are, are they funded ISS integration SAA (iSAA) and what is the "specified level of maturity"?
I guess more will be known come the 17 March pre-proposal conference but when did a matter of two weeks ever stop anyone from speculating wildly?
Under the NASA guidelines its commercially procured cargo "berth" at the ISS, not dock, which is what the Russians and ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle [will] do. Berth meanwhile means they fly within a few metres of the station and are grabbed by a robotic arm. You can see this reflected in all the published COTS bids
What you also see are lots of uses of the USAF's Experimental Small Satellite (XSS)-11 and NASA's DART missions' rendezvous and proximity operations technologies. That pretty much is the level of technological maturity the COTS competitors have at the moment
So having had COTS phase one with ESMD, SOMD's ISS resupply aka COTS phase two, we now appear to have COTS phase three
It is odd that NASA says that the iSAA process is to be conducted separately from SOMDs resupply procurement especially when you would think that you would need that "last mile" technology or some level of maturity to get the resupply contract. Unless a subcontractor supplying the berthing tech can be the iSAA partner and not the CRS prime selected by SOMD? And does the inclusion of COTS phase one as a part of this iSAA mean that ESMD will actually be the part of NASA overseeing this last mile development?
A few things to think about before the "anticipated release date" of the RFP around 14 April and the proposal due date of 15 June
You are reading too much into this. There is no COTS III. Basically, to qualify for this contract, the offer has to perform a demo mission on his own dime and NASA will monitor and advise via unfunded SAA's. The same office (C3) is running COTS, CSR and the current unfunded SAA's. I don't see the confusion
Sorry but you seem to have your basic facts wrong.
It clearly says that the integration SAA is separate to the ISS procurement contract.
COTS phase one is an ESMD funded SAA
ISS resupply, aka COTS phase two, is a contract with SOMD, so there has to be money in there somewhere; its a bit much to ask the likes of Orbital Sciences to build a launch complex etc with no, at least, matching funds
ISS integration activities is an SAA, but it is not clear if it is funded or not, and it does appear to be an ESMD function
Find links to more COTS fun here
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/01/talk-of-the-devil.html
I meant to say: " the offerER has to perform a demo mission on his own dime and NASA will monitor and advise via unfunded SAA's"
Other than OSC and Spacex, there is no funding for ISS integration.
Also where does is state that ISS integration is and ESMD function. The CCC office is now in the station program
How do you know there is no funding for integration activities?
I am speculating that integration is an ESMD function because when I contact NASA about COTS phase one, which is referred to in this DRFP as potentially involving ISS integration work, I have to speak to ESMD; while for ISS commercial resupply I have to speak to SOMD.
ESMD is only COTS I. SOMD is really doing the COTS ISS integration, since ISS is SOMD. ESMD was just paying for it. SOMD "owns" the ISS integration requirements documents. Everything with CRS is SOMD, with 2 potential offerers being "certified" via another funding method
Ummmm....why couldn't you have just asked somebody at NASA to clarify all this? The story is too speculative and confusing and seems to be based on a lot of suppositions and inferences.
NASA officials seem periodically open to actually explaining what they're doing. It's not like you have to file a FOIA request or submit written question on everything.
Its just a blog posting, sheesh
When the actual RFP comes out I will be talking to NASA about all the ins and outs
But obviously being a draft RFP the answer your likely to get to any question is, its not been decided, its a draft...
Ask GM what it all means, GM's posted comments that suggest he is in a good position to know although GM didn't answer my question of who he works for - the initial's don't reflect his email address name BTW
rob, your XCOR article is interesting as is their project.However, it is not "space tourism" but rather an adventure ride to the edge of space like a super version of the MIG experience. The customers do not reach anyones official designation of space(50 miles or the more accepted 100 kilometers)and they do not get a weightless experience with freedom to move in a cabin.
Will.
Whether you are referring to this blog entry (see url below) or my article in this week's edition of Flight International I do not refer to space tourism once - just in case people misinterpret your comment to mean I did.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/03/video-xcor-aerospaces-lynx-and.html
You will see from this blog entry (url above) the Mk 2 Lynx is designed to go to 110km. Xcor has some interesting technology in its free piston pump system and I think the real test is whether they can raise the $10 million needed to develop Lynx. The NASA suborbital services programme might be able to help with that.
Or other companies that may benefit from a change in propulsion system may want to help Xcor deliver a man-rated LOX, kerosene engine for their own needs.
Rob.