NASA chooses Progress flights over US launchers

While talking at SA'07 with someone from one of the companies that competed for the COTS contract, I found out that NASA has decided to use Russian services for its ISS cargo delivery needs through 2011. That goes far beyond the 2007-2008 period that the agency said previously would cover the time when it would need Progress vehicles.

While no US space transport company could likely provide ISS delivery by 2008, it sure seems feasible that at least one or two of the EELV companies, COTS or other US commercial launch providers could do so somewhere within the 2009-2011 time frame.

Dr. Griffin claims that the COTS guys couldn't possibly provide more flights than currently planned. That's arguable technically and for sure the policy will undercut their fund raising efforts. The fewer payloads available to deliver, the less money they can make to cover their development costs and to provide a return to their investors.

Furthermore, what about using EELVs? In the COTS competition, at least two companies proposed standard container systems for ISS cargo that could fly on EELVs and other vehicles.

NASA in fact is obligated under an agreement signed in 2005 with the White House and DoD to use EELVs and, if available, "new commercially-developed launch capabilities" for ISS "cargo re-supply missions in the 5-20 metric-ton-class to the maximum extent possible". Not even putting such missions out for bid for the 2009-2011 period doesn't strike me as fulfilling this agreement "to the maximum extent possible".

NASA did put out a request for information concerning cargo deliveries in 2009. Why not just put out a request for proposals? If no company responds with a suitable offer, then NASA could go on with its Progress plans. If 2009 is too early for US companies, how about 2010 or 2011?

The NASA decision violates the spirit if not the letter of other rules governing the agency such as the Commercial Space Act, which requires the agency to buy space transport services from US commercial companies when available. Similarly for the US National Space Transportation Policy.

It would be interesting to know if legislators with an interest in this area have agreed to support this extension of the Progress re-supply missions. If you are a voter in the state or district of Rep. Bud Cramer (AL), Rep. Mark Udall (CO), and Sen. Richard Shelby (AL), you might contact them to find out. Florida residents might want to know what Sen. Bill Nelson thinks.

Posted 04/05/07 | 10:20:08 by TopSpacer | Filed under: Commercial ISS Resupply

Comments

Did the COTS competitor indicate if this NASA decision will be officially announced? Or will we infer this from NASA’s continued purchases of Soyuz flights at the expense COTS options?

If the Russian Space Agency plays their cards right, maybe they can reinvest income from Soyuz flights in to the Kliper spacecraft and fly it before Orion.

Why does NASA continue to spend money in ways that makes government compete with the private spaceflight industry?

Posted by John Kavanagh at 04/05/07 11:30:38

This sucks. It's inexcusable.

Posted by bad_astra at 04/05/07 11:43:33

The Space News link -
http://tinyurl.com/2j35z5
- says "Griffin confirmed NASA is negotiating with Russia to buy the crew and supply transport services it anticipates needing through 2011".
- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 04/05/07 11:53:08

That blurb seems more encouraging to me than anything. Griffin is stating explicitly that he'll buy all the flights that COTS can offer. Not a small thing, considering that COTS may be able to offer a whole bunch of flights, and certainly more than he has said publicly in the past.

Besides, Part D should keep COTS busy in any event through '11.

Posted by Daniel Schmelzer at 04/05/07 12:54:54

Could there be some way to get the lawyers involved? Im just thinking..

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 04/05/07 13:53:47

Well well, we'll see with time where COTS is going, I don't think it's wise to start fussing at this point about some Progress buys.... 2009 and even 2011 are very soon.

I think there might be much more direct threats to COTS.

Posted by mz at 04/05/07 15:06:19

The position of not making the ISS supply line vulnerable to U.S. commercial vehicles not showing up might make sense if ISS were much more important to the U.S. taxpayers paying the bills than development of cheap, reliable U.S. commercial space vehicles. Actually almost any way you look at it (economic, military, services provided to public, science, environment monitoring, etc), development of those cheap, reliable vehicles is much more important than ISS (if not all of NASA). It is crucial. Thus it would make a lot of sense to take some measured risk or inconvenience to ISS to give serious incentives to help those commercial vehicles to come to be.

I would think a potential investor in SpaceX or RpK considering that not only would they have to go up against the NASA-funded and operated Ares I, but also vehicles funded by other governments as well as NASA, would have to largely discount the ISS market. Even if Dr. Griffin says he will buy all of the services available, who can guarantee that will happen? Will Dr. Griffin be in charge then, and if he is what is to prevent another "not one thin dime" policy change?

Also, let's assume the COTS vehicles won't be, or might not be, ready in the time mentioned. As discussed above, what about other, non-COTS vehicles that use existing launchers? What about commercial vehicles that mix mostly existing U.S. and foreign technologies (licensing and building foreign-designed vehicles in the U.S., mixing and matching U.S. and foreign launchers and container vehicles, etc)? I think CSI had such an approach. What if NASA required some percentage of U.S. input to the vehicles supplying the services it's buying (since NASA is, after all, funded by U.S. taxpayers)?

Posted by Ray at 04/05/07 18:26:14

I consider the COTS vehicles a better bet then ares I which I belive will likely end up getting axed once someone high enough up realizes how bad the stick is and they'll end up pursuing a system like directlauncher which can do both ares I and Vs job for less then the cost of just one of the ares vehicles or the 2x3 CLV which adds the safety feature of engine out capability which has saved missions on both apollo and the shuttle. Direct also adds ground start which allows the vehicle's two rs68 engines to be checked before committing to a launch.
Also Griffin should have also considered the competitors who were going to use EELVs as this could fly very soon and could even be said to be a sure thing as the EELVs have a nearly spotless track record even better then the soyuz booster while having payloads nearly equal to the shuttle in their heavy configurations.
Heck if nasa chose the EELVs for crew launch there would be no mission gap at all.
If you ask me the management at nasa seems disconnected with reality and they're making too many obliviously bad decisions.

Posted by Ruri at 04/08/07 01:20:15

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.