COTS
I got out of work early tonight, and wanted to take a second or two to try and put together and share some of my thoughts about NASA's COTS announcement today. I think the first thing I ought to do is congratulate the two teams. This is really good news for SpaceX and Rockeplane/Kistler, and I wish them both luck. One of my first thoughts when Michael pinged me around lunch time with the news that RpK and SpaceX had been picked was that we may very well see a reusable vehicle flying to and from orbit on a regular basis within the next few years. I've got a few different opinions from the guys at SpaceX and RpK about the best way to do a low-cost, safe, and fast-turnaround orbital transportaton system, but even if their vehicles don't land the way God and Robert Heinlein intended, it'll still be a really awesome acheivement if they can pull this off, and should be a huge boost to the industry as a whole.
So, here's a few random thoughts in no particular order:
I like the economic incentives that NASA is using for COTS. Paying fixed, prenegotiated amounts upon achievement of milestones is a really, really good idea. One that NASA should use a whole lot more often. How many of the NASA funded debacles of the past decade or two could've been avoided if the teams knew they'd only get paid upon comletion of solid technical milestones? I'm really glad that NASA picked this route.
The other thing I like about how COTS is structured is that it is setup to require the companies involved to get substantial amounts of private investment "skin" in the game. I think this is also a good idea that NASA should apply more commonly. I still don't get why when the DoD felt that they could fund only part of the EELV development, and require Boeing and Lockheed to raise the rest themselves, and yet NASA feels they have to fund the Albatross I and V completely. I mean seriously, gaps in NASA manned spaceflight capabilities are nowhere near as serious of a problem as the DoD not being able to launch satellites--yet they were more than willing to require their contractors to put some skin in the game in exchange for the profits they were going to make. What's good for the goose in this case is definitely good for the gander.
While on the whole I think this is a very, very good piece of news for the industry, it doesn't come without a couple of risks and drawbacks. One obvious problem is that by picking two "winners", NASA has made it a lot more difficult for other companies to compete. It won't be impossible, but most potential investors are going to want to know how you think you can compete with two companies that have both been given over $200M from the government. On the plus side, investors do like getting into industries that appear to be going somewhere useful, and that have some good solid teams attacking the problem--competition in this case means that there are other smart people and smart investors who think this is going to be the next big thing.
Another big risk is that if for some reason one of the two teams they picked have a major setback or failure, it could by association put the rest of the industry in a bad light. As someone recently on usenet put it (I think it was Henry Spencer), people in rocketry tend to love drawing sweeping generalizations off of really small data sets. If SpaceX and RpK stumble for some reason, either due to their particular technical approach, due to NASA falling through on the funding or changing the requirements, or just plain bad luck, it also make things a lot harder. After the Falcon I failure, one investor told our Bus Dev VP, that "I know Elon, he's sunk over $100M of his own money into this and he still failed the first time--what makes you think you're smarter than him?"
But I am glad that NASA is keeping the Phase 2 operational contracts open to anyone who can deliver. Even if SpaceX and RpK have a leg up, it's good to know that if you have a good enough idea, you aren't out of the running yet. It also is a good backup plan in case one of the two has a setback.
So, overall I think the COTS program is looking to be a very good one, in spite of a few risks. I just wish that NASA would take some of the good ideas from COTS and apply them to the CLV/CEV side of the world. I also still think that with the fact that COTS is something that pretty much has to succeed in order for NASA to be able to afford it's return to the moon plans, that it should be given far more resources than it has been. Whatever people may say, COTS really is the critical path for implementing VSE. Without it, NASA won't have enough money to finish developing and fielding Ares I and V and the CEV, let alone do any sort of robust lunar development. The guy in the Right Stuff had it right--"No Bucks, No Buck Rogers." I just hope Griffin and the others in NASA management will see that and make sure that COTS gets the support and resources it needs to succeed.
[Update: Dan Schmelzer has a fairly interesting take on COTS over on Carried Away. He does an interesting job of contrasting RpK's approach to SpaceX's in this project. I tend to agree that not having LockMart and Orbital on their team tends to make me think SpaceX is more likely to succeed, even if they badly need someone to trick out their Falcon IX and Dragon with a Real Man's Landing System (TM)]
So, here's a few random thoughts in no particular order:
I like the economic incentives that NASA is using for COTS. Paying fixed, prenegotiated amounts upon achievement of milestones is a really, really good idea. One that NASA should use a whole lot more often. How many of the NASA funded debacles of the past decade or two could've been avoided if the teams knew they'd only get paid upon comletion of solid technical milestones? I'm really glad that NASA picked this route.
The other thing I like about how COTS is structured is that it is setup to require the companies involved to get substantial amounts of private investment "skin" in the game. I think this is also a good idea that NASA should apply more commonly. I still don't get why when the DoD felt that they could fund only part of the EELV development, and require Boeing and Lockheed to raise the rest themselves, and yet NASA feels they have to fund the Albatross I and V completely. I mean seriously, gaps in NASA manned spaceflight capabilities are nowhere near as serious of a problem as the DoD not being able to launch satellites--yet they were more than willing to require their contractors to put some skin in the game in exchange for the profits they were going to make. What's good for the goose in this case is definitely good for the gander.
While on the whole I think this is a very, very good piece of news for the industry, it doesn't come without a couple of risks and drawbacks. One obvious problem is that by picking two "winners", NASA has made it a lot more difficult for other companies to compete. It won't be impossible, but most potential investors are going to want to know how you think you can compete with two companies that have both been given over $200M from the government. On the plus side, investors do like getting into industries that appear to be going somewhere useful, and that have some good solid teams attacking the problem--competition in this case means that there are other smart people and smart investors who think this is going to be the next big thing.
Another big risk is that if for some reason one of the two teams they picked have a major setback or failure, it could by association put the rest of the industry in a bad light. As someone recently on usenet put it (I think it was Henry Spencer), people in rocketry tend to love drawing sweeping generalizations off of really small data sets. If SpaceX and RpK stumble for some reason, either due to their particular technical approach, due to NASA falling through on the funding or changing the requirements, or just plain bad luck, it also make things a lot harder. After the Falcon I failure, one investor told our Bus Dev VP, that "I know Elon, he's sunk over $100M of his own money into this and he still failed the first time--what makes you think you're smarter than him?"
But I am glad that NASA is keeping the Phase 2 operational contracts open to anyone who can deliver. Even if SpaceX and RpK have a leg up, it's good to know that if you have a good enough idea, you aren't out of the running yet. It also is a good backup plan in case one of the two has a setback.
So, overall I think the COTS program is looking to be a very good one, in spite of a few risks. I just wish that NASA would take some of the good ideas from COTS and apply them to the CLV/CEV side of the world. I also still think that with the fact that COTS is something that pretty much has to succeed in order for NASA to be able to afford it's return to the moon plans, that it should be given far more resources than it has been. Whatever people may say, COTS really is the critical path for implementing VSE. Without it, NASA won't have enough money to finish developing and fielding Ares I and V and the CEV, let alone do any sort of robust lunar development. The guy in the Right Stuff had it right--"No Bucks, No Buck Rogers." I just hope Griffin and the others in NASA management will see that and make sure that COTS gets the support and resources it needs to succeed.
[Update: Dan Schmelzer has a fairly interesting take on COTS over on Carried Away. He does an interesting job of contrasting RpK's approach to SpaceX's in this project. I tend to agree that not having LockMart and Orbital on their team tends to make me think SpaceX is more likely to succeed, even if they badly need someone to trick out their Falcon IX and Dragon with a Real Man's Landing System (TM)]
posted by Jon Goff at 10:33 PM
1 Comments:
I would challenge the argument that COTS is not getting enough money, (in the absolute not relative sense). That NASA seems to actively have to stipulate larger vehicles tells me that smaller vehicles would be cheaper, but for some reason NASA will not allow the market such freedom of choice.
For example, SpaceX could probably develop a capsule capable of carrying 1-2 people on the Falcon one. Sure it would require three times the flight rate to deliver the same number of people per year, but development wise this would be much cheaper – a hundred million would have gone a long way. Eliminating this arbitrary size constraint could have allowed the picking of maybe five instead of two COTS winners, greatly increasing competition and the likelihood of overall success. This seems sufficient and so to fund to a higher level than this would seem a waste – there are many other projects that could better use the extra funding, like propellant depots, orbital tugs, etcetera.
Post a Comment
<< Home