Tuesday 9 September
1630h
Valin Thorn
deputy manager NASA CCC
Setting out background to COTS. FedEx for space vision
Crew services could start from 2012. Crew development to start in 2009, but now not a funded option
Space Act Agreements use US Federal Aviation Administraton licensing approaches and cross-waiver liability provisons to try to make a more
SpaceX got $278 million and Rocketplane-Kistler got $207 million
Requested NASA funding for COTS is up to $278 million and a further $300-600 million from industry
Blamed the credit crunch for RpK's failure to meet its miletsones although they had recieved over $30 million
Orbital's Cygnus will follow HTV approach to ISS. Orbital's vehicles do not return cargo. Orbtial has completed three milestones so far and another at the end of the year. There are plans for cargo return
SpaceX second mission will see ISS approach with LIDAR tracking used
Orbital one demo flight, will berth with ISS in late 2010
Unfunded SAA companies
PlanetSpace - Athena III rocket
SpaceDev - HL-20 vehicle
T/Space - programme is on hold
CSI is no longer involved in a SAA
COTS crew demonstration effort will be open to competition
Antonio Elias
Orbital Sciences
COTS is exactly what Orbital was created for 26 years ago
Additional benefit is creation of new launch vehicle, Taurus II
Orbtial has a common service module for pressurised and unpressurised vehicles
Hopefully Delta II will be replaced by Taurus II
Has plans for growth in Cygnus capability
We did think of a ISS supply system with our Pegasus system but it didn't work
Calculated 4,000kg-7,000kg is "sweet spot" for cargo delivery service for vehicle development and realistic market expectations
Plans for a "stretched Cygnus" that would have a cargo increase of about 50%
Raised questions over cargo densities and effective cargo capacity, concluded HTV and ATV are not very good and that it is not advisable that pressurised and unpressurised cargo should be in same vehicle especially with a re-entering vehicle
We started Taurus II developed 18-months before COTS when it became clear that Delta II did not have much of a future
Max Vozoff
SpaceX
Senior mission manager, Dragon spacecraft programme manager
SpaceX story
Only significant development for Dragon for it to be used for people is the launch abort system and we have concepts for that and could do that in 18-months if given authority to proceed. COTS-D was part of original proposal
Describing SpaceX COTS demo missions
Completed 12 of 22 milestones
10 left are:
Design review's for C2/C3
Financing round three
CUCU ISS flight unit delivery
Demo readiness reviews (x3)
Demo missons (x3)
Payload demonstration
SLC-40 launch pad development going well. Taking LOX tank from SLC-37 for SLC-40. The tank was used for Saturn I-B and will provide all the LOX required by Falcon 9 for a four-days of launch attempts
Showed pictures of qualification hardware for Dragon
We are usingf a PICA-like material, experimenting with carbon foam and some alternate sources of that
Showed video of Draco thruster for Dragon RCS being hot fired tested and scale-model water landing testing
Airborne and NASA Glenn did water landing analysis for Dragon
Showed engine test programme videos
Chuck Larsen
FAA AST COTS demonstration licensing activities
We have authority for launch and re-entry but not on-orbit activities
Describing what FAA AST does under CSLAA and related regulations and commercial launch services procedures
Have been involved in all COTS space act agreement milestones
SpaceX now in licensing phase for Falcon 9
For COTS re-entering licesning for uppewr stage and Dragon spacecraft
Expecting Orbital Taurus II pre-application consultation to start soon
1735h
Q&A session
Thorn answered: SpaceX demo mission three, can't deliver cargo because that has legal imlications of delivering a service. It does not preclude SpaceX from looking for cargo customers for their demo mission. Also looking to see if that demonstrating organisation is a Commercial Resupply Service (CRS) winner
If we had done it again we would have placed acquisition for services much more in parallel with development, it could have helped RpK. USAF did that with EELV
Q. Do you wish you had done more first-stage test launches with dummy upper stages?
Vozoff - our first three launches were test launches with low value cargo
Elias - Minotaur IV flying next year and in our experience it has been possible to carry an important payload on a first flight
Q. why not more flights to ISS for more frequent
Thorn: We have limits of 12 flights per year to US portion of ISS because of needs of ISS as a laboratory
Elias: ISS not being complete and no space agency experience of running ISS is a element of uncertainty for future cargo needs
Elias: We dont have long term plans for human transportation as we dont believe that there is a market for orbital human transportation for tourism etc
SESSION ENDED
RE: Credit Crunch reason for RpK' failure to meet milestones....
Too quote Col. Potter, "Horsehocky!!"
Two things. First, the 'Credit Crunch' hit well after RpK was downchecked from COTS. Otherwise SpaceX wouldn't have hit it's investment milestone so fast and easily.
Second, simple Due Diligence would have had any investors running screaming ... or their bean counters would have been handing in their resignations so *they* couldn't be sued for such a bad desision. Just ask Aerojet, Oceanenginering, and etc. what they've gotten out of contracting/investing/partnering/working with (take your pick) Kisler.
One thing to check (as a starting point) is the FAA 1999 Reusable Launch Vehicle Programs and Concepts Sourebook (dated January 1999) for the Kisler enteries:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/commercial_space/dev_concepts/media/99rlv.pdf
Now work your way forward in it's business history to where it couldn't meet the COTS mandated investment milestone....
Just a quick update for anyone reading this.
I was back checking the Credit Crunch dates vs RpK COTS Finacial Milestones and found something interesting. RpK missed the first investment milestone back in Feb. of 2007. As it was looming they asked for and got an extension. No problem there, for something this pushing the envelope, no one had a problem with it. Heck, looking back it was hardly a blip on the news radar for anyone.
Then the second milestone (end of 2007Feb) loomed.
RpK renegotiated for an extention to the end of 2007May and as a carrot offered up that they would commite to getting the whole $500 Million the contract required and not just the $120 Million they needed before May 1st. NASA agreed.
By that July NASA was doing the paperwork to end the RpK COTS contract.
The Credit Crunch is looked on as starting in the timeframe of late July, early August (otherwise the Dow Jones would not have closed above 14,000 on 2007Jul17). So to say that the Credit Crunch was the cause of RpK not meeting it's funding milestone is ... not supportable.