NASA's first foray into private spaceflight, the commercial orbital transportation services programme, also known as COTS, has seen a 60% hike in the agency's investment with the fiscal year 2011 budget
Originally planned to cost $500 million which the agency would match against private finance to help develop new transportation systems, the real cost now looks to be at least $800 million
In today's exploration FY2011 budget teleconference NASA exploration systems mission directorate head Doug Cooke admitted that the $312 million for "commercial cargo" was $300 million of additional monies - over the $12 million originally planned for FY2011 under the FY2010 budget
While the FY2011 budget document refers to "additional incentives" under commercial cargo on page 10 Cooke said in the telecon that the $312 million was "insurance" so they, the COTS companies Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences could succeed; and that the money would help accelerate the programme with "more flights" and enhancements such as "downmass," which could be a reference to Orbital's Cygnus spacecraft that unlike SpaceX's Dragon was not originally conceived as being able to bring back cargo
The hike could be an embarressment for president Barack Obama's new spaceflight vision and his NASA administrator Charles Bolden because the agency and administration has, in the past 48 hours, invested so much confidence in what is effectively the privatisation of low Earth orbit transport of crew and cargo - with the announcement of the Commercial Crew Development initiative funded space act agreement winners
Originally planned to cost $500 million which the agency would match against private finance to help develop new transportation systems, the real cost now looks to be at least $800 million
In today's exploration FY2011 budget teleconference NASA exploration systems mission directorate head Doug Cooke admitted that the $312 million for "commercial cargo" was $300 million of additional monies - over the $12 million originally planned for FY2011 under the FY2010 budget
While the FY2011 budget document refers to "additional incentives" under commercial cargo on page 10 Cooke said in the telecon that the $312 million was "insurance" so they, the COTS companies Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences could succeed; and that the money would help accelerate the programme with "more flights" and enhancements such as "downmass," which could be a reference to Orbital's Cygnus spacecraft that unlike SpaceX's Dragon was not originally conceived as being able to bring back cargo
The hike could be an embarressment for president Barack Obama's new spaceflight vision and his NASA administrator Charles Bolden because the agency and administration has, in the past 48 hours, invested so much confidence in what is effectively the privatisation of low Earth orbit transport of crew and cargo - with the announcement of the Commercial Crew Development initiative funded space act agreement winners
Started in 2006 to enable cargo delivery to the ISS by 2011, the development phase, COTS, originally had the entrepreneurial participants SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler that was later replaced by Orbital
The second phase, the $3.5 billion commercial resupply contract (CRS) for ISS cargo, was awarded in 2008 to SpaceX and Orbital
The extra funds in FY2011 could have been explained by initial delivery payments under the CRS but neither of these two companies or NASA were available for further comment on the dramatic budget change
The total cost for COTS will be above $800 million because both companies have already benefitted from $24 million in extra funds under Obama's 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment act. These funds covered technology development, human rating requirements research and spaceport improvements
With Bolden investing confident rhetoric in the privatisation of space transport the 60% hike for COTS demonstrates that it is not a path without difficulty
The second phase, the $3.5 billion commercial resupply contract (CRS) for ISS cargo, was awarded in 2008 to SpaceX and Orbital
The extra funds in FY2011 could have been explained by initial delivery payments under the CRS but neither of these two companies or NASA were available for further comment on the dramatic budget change
The total cost for COTS will be above $800 million because both companies have already benefitted from $24 million in extra funds under Obama's 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment act. These funds covered technology development, human rating requirements research and spaceport improvements
With Bolden investing confident rhetoric in the privatisation of space transport the 60% hike for COTS demonstrates that it is not a path without difficulty
on February 3, 2010 12:15 AM | Reply
They talk about this as a 'sustainable path'.
Maybe it is. But the COTS people and their rabid supporters should see things in perspective.
$5.9 Billion over 6 years: first to keep the Space Station functioning, including paying paying for 8 Soyuz seats per year.
Only what is left over will go to the privateers.
Furthermore, the plan is to provide only 'stimulous funding'. At the very most this becomes matching funds for development and then a guaranteed purchase of seats thereafter,
How many seats?
This stuff will not be operational (if ever) till 2015. That means 2 flights per year for 5 years.
The total 'market' is ten flights.
The privateers will never be able to fund even 50% of development with that business prospect.
QED
on February 3, 2010 11:57 AM | Reply
The numbers feel like they fit into the needed Launch Abort System to transition from Cargo to Crew capabilities.
The $500 Million price tag for COTS was for the development of two, independent, pathways to get US based cargo flights to the ISS (and by extension, any LEO destination) once the STS has been retired.
But there was that very interesting section "D" of the COTS contract. COTS-D is Manned Option part of the contract to, at a future date, start work on adapting these new pathways to LEO for crew launches.
SpaceX, of the two COTS contractors, is the only one that could take advantage of this since the Orbital design is a variation on the pressurized soup can with a docking lock on one side and a service module on the other. For Orbital to take advantage of it, they'd have to do a complete redesign or buy a few of Boeing/Bigelow's Orion-Lite (LEO only) capsules (if NASA sells/licences the rights since Orion's on the chopping block with the rest of Constellation).
on February 3, 2010 12:16 PM | Reply
Exactly, Orbital would have to do a redesign so can it really be for the option D, which Orbital never signed up for anyway and if it is COTS-D, which SpaceX wanted to sign up for, why didn't SpaceX and NASA just announce they were opting for that? Cooke's remarks in the exploration budget telecon indicated that it was cargo transport development and not some COTS-D move.
on February 3, 2010 5:59 PM | Reply
On that basis, Boeing and Bigelow it is then: privately funded! Or perhaps COTS-D is no longer seperate: after all, Dragon was a Cargo only Spacecraft until recently. Soyuz/Progress has always retained duality of function, so why not. Strange, the Russians had it right all along!
on February 4, 2010 4:37 AM | Reply
There has been some talk about 'down-mass', maybe that's it.
ISS operations on the US side require sending up more standard racks even after F/Y 2010 is over.
HTV can do that but of course ATV and Progress cannot.
Dragon and Cygnus are contracted to do it. But the ISS operational requirements include bringing racks (and other experiments) back. This element is not yet contracted for.
Nor is it easy. Furthermore it is just one inch away from crews (the launch escape system) plus life-support and communications and and and..
on February 4, 2010 12:05 PM | Reply
It is a bit unclear to me but in case this money is for NASA going ahead with COTS option D it is important to point out that no company has been asked by NASA to do any paid work under COTS D previously, in other words this would be new money offered by NASA for new capabilities that NASA has not awarded a single dime for so far.
Likewise if it is new capabilities or otherwise additional requests from NASA that are not already covered by the existing contracts NASA offered to the COTS (A, B, and C) and CRS winners (Orbital and SpaceX in both cases).
Otherwise people could easily assume without giving it a second thought that this would be some kind of overrun or additional funds for something that has already been paid for and as things are there are already far too many people reacting, writing, and talking without anything close to a firm grasp on the realities of recent US space history nor this (still smoking hot & fresh) new approach and budget. I'm not talking about simple one-off mistakes (or at least only three or four ^_^) that anyone can make or fair differences of opinion based on the same facts but really off the wall kind of stuff without any real connection to any facts whatsoever: there's already far too much of that out there without adding fuel to it.
on February 5, 2010 7:18 AM | Reply
Hi Rob,
If the extra money is to "accelerate the programme with 'more flights' and enhancements such as 'downmass,', I don't see how that leads to any "embarrassment" or to your conclusion that "60% hike for COTS demonstrates that it is not a path without difficulty".
Your are saying that the extra money is to cover an overrun but it is not an overrun if it is to cover expanded capabilities like downmass for the Cygnus. If anything, this should be hailed as a clear sign of just how low cost these projects are if a capsule can be converted from one way to two-way for as little as two or three hundred million dollars.
I'll also note that there's a very weird asymmetry in many of these implicit comparisons between commercial and Constellation. Ares I/Orion are multi-ten billion dollar projects. NASA spent $500M just for a hacked version of a SRB that flew suborbitally. Yet you talk about even $24M as though it was a dramatic and hidden increase in the COTS program, which is creating two medium lift orbital rockets that send pressurized capsules to dock with a space station. Some perspective should be kept in mind.
BTW: You say in your Flight Global/Spaceflight article, "...Congress must approve all funding and Constellation was fatally wounded by year-after-year cuts from Republican-dominated legislative chambers despite the programme being the creation of their party’s president George W. Bush."
Actually for 2007-2008, both chambers of Congress were controlled by Democrats. Constellation was approved in 2005, so Republicans passed its first and second budgets while subsequent budgets have been determined by Democrats.
on February 5, 2010 3:54 PM | Reply
Clark, the original plan for COTS was $500 million from NASA with private finance matching funds from the participating companies. SpaceX is already behind schedule and Orbital has been managing expectations with lots of comments about a tough schedule. So I think that the issue at hand is one of, can New Space do it on time and to budget and COTS so far is not justifying that claim. Magnitude of spend is not the issue, its whether they can walk the walk after talking the talk. Additional monies could indicate the final price for COTS/CRS is a lot more than originally expected.
on February 5, 2010 4:22 PM | Reply
Clark, according to this New York Times article - http://tinyurl.com/yal5wco - the Democrats took control at the beginning of 2007. The work on the CEV began with FY2005 and so the Democrats were not in a position to stop NASA's plans until FY2008. As you'll see from this article of mine - http://tinyurl.com/yasvpfr - NASA was still on a previous year's budget through a continuing resolution well into FY2007. So I think the statement that it suffered cuts and during a Republican Congress is right. Rob.
on February 5, 2010 4:54 PM | Reply
There is a big difference between "could indicate" and does indicate. You wrote the Flight Global article as if the extra money definitely does show that COTS/CRS requires "a lot more". If $500M has been expanded to $800M to pay for additional capabilities then that is not correct.
The magnitude of the spending is certainly an issue with taxpayers. The whole debate is over whether commercial firms can provide equivalent access to ISS as Ares I/Orion. Most will see a considerable difference between delays on the order of several months and overruns (which I don't believe this additional funding represents) of three hundred million dollars on a $500M program versus multi-year delays and multi-billion dollar overruns on a $40B program.
I'll note also that a delay on a fixed-price, milestone payment contract is a whole different animal than a delay on a standard aerospace cost-plus contract. They don't get paid until they deliver.
This also brings up the point that it is important to emphasize that the commercial crew program is not just for the entrepreneurial guys but will also include ULA et al. What makes it different from a traditional program is not the type of firm involved but that there will be multiple competing providers of a service and that the contracting will be of this fixed-price, milestone, payment-for-performance type.
on February 5, 2010 6:26 PM | Reply
Well, the fact that FY2007 budget was still on a continuing resolution after the Democrats took control means that they could in fact have increased NASA funding for FY2007 when the budget was finally enacted. (As I recall, the Democrats in fact made sure that the FY2007 budget was not settled until after they took over.) Furthermore, since Democrats could have boosted the Constellation budget in 2008 but chose not to do so means they participated in the purported crime that "fatally wounded" Constellation.
Not a big deal but I think to imply that Constellation's failings are due to underfunding by a Republican Congress is a huge exaggeration.
Griffin had a choice of designing a program that implemented the VSE with a conventional high cost Apollo approach that risked insufficient funding during its long development period or an innovative approach that pursued low costs but had higher technical risks. He selected the former route and NASA is now paying the price for that choice.
on February 5, 2010 6:49 PM | Reply
The great thing about the COTS program is that NASA only pays for milestones that have been met. According to the NASA COTS website, SpaceX has completed the first 14 of 22 milestones (plus two others). Are they behind? Yes, so it would be legitimate to be disappointed, but considering that no other launch platform has ever been on on schedule, I think acting surprised is a bit melodramatic.
I have worked on COTS programs for the DOD, and when companies have simple and specific requirements, then they are a great value. While SpaceX may be behind the desired timetable, US taxpayers don't foot the bill - we only pay for performance. Is there risk that the Falcon 9 may turn out to be a dud? Stranger things have happened, but so could have Ares I & V if they were built. The lesson to be learned from all of this is that there should be multiple paths to space, with more than one launching system, and more than one spacecraft - no more all-our-eggs-in-one-basket situations like what happened with the Shuttle.
on February 8, 2010 3:22 PM | Reply
The real point is, we don't know what the $300 million is for and we don't know because NASA, SpaceX and Orbital would not talk to me at the time of writing the article. What we do know is that NASA has added $300 million making it a more expensive project. I remember what Doug Cooke said and when he uses words like "insurance," which he did, so the "COTS companies succeed" you begin to wonder what this money is needed for. What does acceleration mean, what does more flights mean for the timetable? This COTS cost hike is not going to make it any easier to argue for such a programme in Congress and that is where the battle will take place.