There are some problems with this article. One is that it is based upon the a priori assumption that COTS will be successful. The problem is that COTS is both a government procurement model and a business model that has not been previously tested. Both government and business are in uncharted territory. That is the reason why there is not more money behind the program, and the reason why it was not tried earlier (no precedent).

Oh, I agree there are many reasons why something like COTS wasn’t tried earlier. My point was that the reason it wasn’t tried earlier had nothing to do with it not being useful earlier. If something like COTS had been tried earlier and been successful, it would’ve been very useful.

Also, I actually think that the way COTS was implemented does leave a little to be desired. I agree it’s risky, and that if SpaceX or Orbital doesn’t deliver that it will give such programs a black eye. Unfortunately, it worries me that the way COTS was implemented may have increased the odds of a negative result. Setting up the program in a way that biased it strongly towards people trying to develop both a launcher and a spacecraft, allowing most of the milestones to be non-hardware milestones (ie design reviews and fundraising), etc.

A second problem is that you have not really defined what you mean by COTS. Right now the program excludes traditional launch providers. EELV (Atlas, Delta) is not participating. Presumably you think that is as it should be. But if, as you assert, this should have been done a decade ago, who else would have done it other than EELV or another legacy provider?

Actually, you’re misreading me here. I think that the fact that all three of the COTS winners to-date have been groups trying to do both a new spacecraft and a new launch vehicle is a worrying sign. I would’ve been fine if at least one of the companies selected was just trying to do a capsule on an EELV (or even if one of the companies had been a Boeing or a Lockheed trying to do a capsule on their own vehicle). With that in mind, yeah if COTS had been done in the early 90s (to have the capability online for when the first ISS construction resupply needs were coming online), it would’ve most likely been one of the big aerospace companies. Back then you had Atlas II, Delta II and Titan II all flying (as well as Titan IV), and the EELV development just about to start. It’s true that there’s no guarantee that it would’ve succeeded, but there’s also a real chance that by helping build up and provide a market for more commercial spaceflight capability earlier that things would’ve turned out a lot better than they did.

This is relevant when advocating a Lunar COTS approach. You have to ask if it is reasonable/realistic/wise to ask or expect the government to rely upon an unproven approach to obtaining what it needs.

I’m not suggesting doing only Lunar COTS, just making sure that commercial capabilities are being built up as you go, instead of putting off doing anything commercially relevant except as an afterthought. The fact is that if the government actually wants to achieve its space exploration goals (not just the narrow milestones, but it’s actual purposes), it needs the commercial sector to be able to gain those capabilities (cislunar transportation, etc). Do you have a better suggestion for how it can help grow that commercial capability?

And you have to ask just what it is that you’re trying to achieve by doing so. Are you trying to lower costs? Or trying to promote new actors to enter the field? COTS advocates tend to assume that the companies involved can provide the services that are being sought, can do so at significantly lower cost, and can be profitable doing so. But none of that has been proven.

I know a lot of commercial space advocates tend to think that private enterprise is tons smarter than NASA, and that NASA is a bunch of incompetent screwups who should just get out of the way. I’m not one of those. I think that NASA has an important role to play, and that private sector actors have some real challenges and limitations (the single biggest one being the challenge of raising funding).

That said, in answering your question, I think a big part of what I think COTS is trying to achieve is “encouraging commercial use and development of space to the greatest extent practicable”. Right now, the main commercial uses of space are communications and earth observation, and that’s about it. By helping private industry develop the ability to launch crew and cargo, that now can help open up new markets. There are no guarantees in life, but if those commercial entities can get and keep a toehold in the crew/cargo launch markets, then even if their price isn’t hugely cheaper than flying the shuttle at first, it’s still opening up new markets, and new capabilities. The more capable commercial space transportation becomes, the more commercial space markets can develop. The more those develop, the less NASA has to provide everything themselves. NASA would be much better off being a medium-sized fish in a big ocean than being a big fish in a cup of water.

Is any of that guaranteed to work? No more than Ares-I, or OSP, or SLI, or X-33, X-34, X-37, X-38, etc. The difference is that if they do work, the upside is a lot higher. And if they don’t work, the public is out a whole lot less money.

~Jon

A second problem is that you have not really defined what you mean by COTS. Right now the program excludes traditional launch providers. EELV (Atlas, Delta) is not participating. Presumably you think that is as it should be. But if, as you assert, this should have been done a decade ago, who else would have done it other than EELV or another legacy provider? Would using Titan IV have saved money compared to shuttle? Would it have broken the mold of having the government provide the launch services? Or would it have simply been old soup in a new bowl?

This is relevant when advocating a Lunar COTS approach. You have to ask if it is reasonable/realistic/wise to ask or expect the government to rely upon an unproven approach to obtaining what it needs. And you have to ask just what it is that you’re trying to achieve by doing so. Are you trying to lower costs? Or trying to promote new actors to enter the field?

COTS advocates tend to assume that the companies involved can provide the services that are being sought, can do so at significantly lower cost, and can be profitable doing so. But none of that has been proven. Understanding this is helpful to understand why the government views this approach so warily and is as yet unwilling to go further, for instance, with a Lunar COTS approach. COTS has to prove itself.

Google Moon-Prize, Space-X for one has already ‘addressed’ the market by releasing Lunar delivery capabilities of the Falcon-1 vehicle. There are people looking for rides, willing to pay, doesn’t that in and of itself constitute a “market”?

As for ISS-COTS itself, if no one else has mentioned it the Russians are planning on taking ‘thier’ modules and making thier own space station around 2020:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8064060.stm

Sooner if the United States drops support earlier…
And it’s pretty definate that THEY (and the EAS) won’t need the services of COTS since they have thier own launch vehicle and capsule design(s) to justify.

What then is the “market” or justification for COTS-”D” let alone any other COTS services?

Randy

I was completely wrong. All my friends were wrong. My brother was wrong (he hates this). It was stupid. A lunar base would have been a bigger boondoggle, would still not be built, and would have perpetuated the defense contractor community (which Eisenhower called the military industrial complex) indefinitely. It was a very bad idea. I’m glad we failed to “get” our Moon base.

As it turns out, we also failed to get our space station. The space station is a boondoggle, costs hundreds of billions to build and operate, isn’t done yet, does none of the things we wanted, isn’t commercial, is run by evil thugs at NASA who hate tourists and fight over who gets to use the toilet (!), isn’t a transportation node, isn’t a low gravity research factory, and generally sucks. Can you imagine how many trillions of dollars NASA would have wasted by now if they had followed the National Commission on Space’s recommendations?

Jonathan, you are exactly correct. Your logic is impeccable.

“Whatever you heard, I want to make sure you understand I wasn’t specifically pushing COTS D. What I was pushing was launch complex 36 [at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station]. … COTS D first off is a human-rated program and that has not been sanctioned by NASA yet.”

So what should NASA do instead?

~Jon

Not that I’m against a little government pump priming. But I’m more in favor of making space an enterprise zone, in the way of zero g zero taxes, than with loan guaruntees.