MAIN ARTICLE: NASA awards $3.5 billion for COTS - ISS resupply.
NASA has long held they want a more active commercial sector servicing the International Space Station. Today they finally have signaled that the change is here.
Poll Results: Yesterday's poll, "Take another look at the Vision for Space Exploration & Constellation." Was a "hands down" win for a change. Scroll down to get the latest poll results, click subscribe to keep informed of space issues.
Star Trek: In the News. Who was talking on their facebook? Scroll down to see what is happening in the Star Trek Universe.
Yesterday's Comments: "That guy needed to take a chill pill." - Sagebrush Bob.
Today's Poll: Should America create Commercial Astronaut Launch Services for NASA and fund COTS-D.
Is this the answer for how NASA can save money in human space flight allowing them to spend those dollars for more science? Scroll down to take the newest poll.
Today NASA's associate Administrator for Space Operations, Bill Gerstenmaier, was on NASA News announcing new contract awards to COTS finalists; SpaceX and Orbital Sciences.
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, or COTS, is a 500 million dollar program NASA created to start commercial cargo delivery to the International Space Station (ISS).
NASA awards $3.5 billion for ISS resupply.
"CONTRACT RELEASE : C08-069
NASA Awards Space Station Commercial Resupply Services Contracts
WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded two contracts -- one to Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., and one to Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif. -- for commercial cargo resupply services to the International Space Station. At the time of award, NASA has ordered eight flights valued at about $1.9 billion from Orbital and 12 flights valued at about $1.6 billion from SpaceX.
These fixed-price indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts will begin Jan. 1, 2009, and are effective through Dec. 31, 2016. The contracts each call for the delivery of a minimum of 20 metric tons of upmass cargo to the space station. The contracts also call for delivery of non-standard services in support of the cargo resupply, including analysis and special tasks as the government determines are necessary.
NASA has set production milestones and reviews on the contracts to monitor progress toward providing services. The maximum potential value of each contract is about $3.1 billion. Based on known requirements, the value of both contracts combined is projected at $3.5 billion.
These agreements will fulfill NASA's need to procure cargo delivery services to the space station using a U.S. commercial carrier after the retirement of the space shuttle."
THE MATCHUP:
Orbital Sciences - Taurus II - Cygnus - 237.5 million per flight.
"Taurus II rocket will be capable of delivering up to 2,300 kg of cargo to the ISS and will be able to return 1,200 kg of cargo from the ISS to Earth."
SpaceX - Falcon 9 - Dragon - 133.3 million per flight.
"The Dragon spacecraft is made up of a pressurized capsule and unpressurized trunk used for Earth to LEO transport of pressurized cargo, unpressurized cargo, and/or crew members. Initiated internally by SpaceX in 2005, Dragon will be utilized to fulfill our NASA COTS contract for demonstration of cargo re-supply of the ISS." ( 2500 Kg cargo )
POLL RESULTS:
Yesterday's poll was about the Vison for Space Exploration, President Bush's NASA agenda for the 21st century.
"Take another look at the Vision for Space Exploration & Constellation."
57% responded with "Yes, better to know now before we really start spending." In light of the recent reports about the Ares I this is not a surprise. Only seven percent thought we should stick with the Constellation program being pushed by NASA Chief Mike Griffin. 34% didn't have an opinion of this issue with the pro spending (20%) leading the spending cut voterers (14%).
As with many of the polls conducted, no one wanted the space budget to stay where it is, they either want it increased or cut, rarely to members want to see it stay where it is.
STAR TREK: In the News.
JJ talks on facebook:
"We're just making final tweaks to the movie -- we should be totally locked next week. Then we're going to flash-freeze it so it's totally fresh for you in May. I can't wait for you to see the movie. The cast is awesome. The action and effects pushed the stunt team and ILM beyond their limits. I'm so grateful to this cast and crew -- and to all of you for your interest and patience. We'll continue to update this page with new info and exclusives, so check back when you think of it. In the meantime, have a happy, healthy, fun holiday!"
YESTERDAY'S COMMENTS:
"I can only hope Bush's "vision" is re-examined if only for the fact that I have always felt that this was Bush's way of trying to signal that he wasn't against "science" without really being for science. After all, space exploration doesn't really involve those pesky issues of climate change or stem cell...it's a lot of physics and engineering, and although space exploration explicitly contradicts the 6000 year old universe idea, its kinda hard to really soundbite that to the Creationists." - CeeusBeeus
---------
"The problem with VSE vs Constellation Is one of policy vs implementation. I actually think that VSE is good policy, because the underlying point is to move us towards a spacefaring society, and incorporating human spaceflight into the larger sphere of human existence, but also into the larger sphere of economic influence.
The problem is, Constellation, as is, doesn't actually put us on that path. Much like Iraq, bin Laden, and 9/11, Bush had a good theoretical policy, but couldn't find a decent implementation of it if it were handed to him (in fact, I think there were a few that were)." - Ferris Valyn
That was an excellent point I didn't mention. The VSE is the policy that would allow NASA to once again leave Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and return to the moon. I was a supporter of that mandate for NASA. Constellation is the launch architecture that would take America to the moon. I was in favor of the heavy lift part ( Ares V ) but not for the crew launch system ( Ares I ).
----------
"Profitable exploitation - Asteroids contain quite a few metals, many of them precious. Iridium is really out of this world, for example. (Sorry, couldn't resist.*) Granted, it's not profitable to extract these resources today, but maybe in the near future it might be.
* If you don't get the joke: the earth's crust is deficient in Iridium. Practically all our supply come from meteorites." -
quotemstr
----------
A great idea by Bill White:
"Here is one idea I proposed a few years ago -
Sell coins minted from lunar materials at prices far above the bullion price of the metals themselves:
It might also be possible to substantially increase the short-term price for lunar platinum by adding an intangible value to the initial shipments of PGMs sent from the lunar surface. In the long term, the global commodity price of platinum will invariably fall once humanity locates an abundant lunar supply of PGM (perhaps offset by rising demand from innovative new uses), however, it may be possible to enhance temporarily the market value of initial shipments of lunar metals by fusing intangible value to an otherwise tangible asset.
Many small diners or retail shops across America have a 20 dollar bill taped to the wall behind the cash register. Why? The first dollar earned has emotional significance far beyond the actual value of the currency. Wouldn’t the first kilogram of lunar platinum ever mined by our species belong in the Smithsonian? Collectors and speculators will surely wish to share in the history and cachet associated with the first lunar materials returned to Earth for commercial purposes.
One mechanism to transform these intangibles into a commodity would be to create numismatic value. For example even a relatively common 1799 Silver Dollar is worth more than 100 times the bullion value of 27 grams (slightly less than one ounce) of silver. The 1964 JFK half dollar is another example. Close to four million proof coins were minted and current prices for these coins fall between two and two and a half times the current bullion price for silver. The very first coins minted from lunar metals should be worth far, far more that the raw commodity price for platinum. Today, China mints panda platinum coins that are worth between 150% and 200% of bullion value.
Note what is really being sold is the value of an artifact from extending the cis-lunar economy to include the Moon. Coins - being money - well symbolize the extension of the human economy to the Moon.
Selling raw platinum? Eh, it would be very much more difficult making a profit selling PGM at bulk commodity price levels.
Sell platinum coins at 10x or 20X or 50x the intrinsic value of the metal."
TODAY'S POLL:
Now that NASA has created the start of commercial space resupply for the ISS should they also add COTS-D? This an extention to the the cargo supply program and calls for NASA to use Commercial Astronaut Launch Services. Astronauts will just buy a ticket to space rather then NASA handeling the launches. 'Americans in Space' ran a similiar poll last week but this poll is more of a straight up or down vote.
A) Yes - Nasa should rely on commercial astronaut launch services, fund COTS-D ( The Federal Government funds NASA to start COTS-D)
B) Yes - Nasa should rely commercial astronaut launch services, Private Funding. ( Private investors provide the start up funding and Nasa has to use the service once it is up and running.)
C) No - Nasa should launch astronauts with the new Ares I. ( We forget about commercial astronaut launch services and use the new rocket Nasa is currently building.)
Read more NASA Diaries on DKOS