commercial support of ISS and lunar base

The White House's "Renewed Spirit of Discovery" document [1] directs the
NASA Administrator to (among many other things):

"Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other
services supporting the International Space Station and exploration
missions beyond low Earth orbit." (Section D)

This bodes well for companies like SpaceX, SpaceDev, SeaLaunch, etc.,
don't you think?

[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/renewed_spirit.html

Cheers,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Joe Strout wrote:
The White House's "Renewed Spirit of Discovery" document [1] directs the
NASA Administrator to (among many other things):

"Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other
services supporting the International Space Station and exploration
missions beyond low Earth orbit." (Section D)

This bodes well for companies like SpaceX, SpaceDev, SeaLaunch, etc.,
don't you think?



Was there anything in there about "Small Business Set-Aside"?

OSP gave a good taste of their commercialization. They put out
an RFP and took the same commercial providers.

I will believe it will help other companies when NASA actually
starts buying from other companies.

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:
"Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other
services supporting the International Space Station and exploration
missions beyond low Earth orbit." (Section D)
This bodes well for companies like SpaceX, SpaceDev, SeaLaunch, etc.,
don't you think?

Such pronouncements have been heard before. They didn't mean anything in
the end. NASA found excuses not to do it.

If the directions had said "All US transportation services supporting ISS
after 1 Jan 2010 will be bought from commercial suppliers", now that would
be different.

(Also note that Sea Launch in particular, since it uses foreign-made
rockets, is not considered a US launch supplier and hence is ineligible
for government business.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Charles Buckley wrote in message ...
Joe Strout wrote:
The White House's "Renewed Spirit of Discovery" document [1] directs the
NASA Administrator to (among many other things):

"Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other
services supporting the International Space Station and exploration
missions beyond low Earth orbit." (Section D)

This bodes well for companies like SpaceX, SpaceDev, SeaLaunch, etc.,
don't you think?



Was there anything in there about "Small Business Set-Aside"?

OSP gave a good taste of their commercialization. They put out
an RFP and took the same commercial providers.

I will believe it will help other companies when NASA actually
starts buying from other companies.

Just the perception that NASA will be buying from a company in the
future will help that company raise money today. Likewise some
companies have been selling advanced bookings on space flights
for years although that speculation may turn out to be shall we
say less than financially sound depending on what the sellers
have been doing with the cash.

-McDaniel

(Henry Spencer) writes:

(Also note that Sea Launch in particular, since it uses foreign-made
rockets, is not considered a US launch supplier and hence is ineligible
for government business.)

But Atlas V sneaks in under the wire, somehow?

--
Phil Fraering
http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com

Hobbs aka McDaniel wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote in message ...

Joe Strout wrote:

The White House's "Renewed Spirit of Discovery" document [1] directs the
NASA Administrator to (among many other things):

"Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other
services supporting the International Space Station and exploration
missions beyond low Earth orbit." (Section D)

This bodes well for companies like SpaceX, SpaceDev, SeaLaunch, etc.,
don't you think?



Was there anything in there about "Small Business Set-Aside"?

OSP gave a good taste of their commercialization. They put out
an RFP and took the same commercial providers.

I will believe it will help other companies when NASA actually
starts buying from other companies.


Just the perception that NASA will be buying from a company in the
future will help that company raise money today. Likewise some
companies have been selling advanced bookings on space flights
for years although that speculation may turn out to be shall we
say less than financially sound depending on what the sellers
have been doing with the cash.



There isn't any such perception though. NASA buys from
Boeing, LockMart, and OSC. There isn't anything to really
indicate any change in that.

"Phil Fraering" pgf@AUTO wrote in message
...
(Henry Spencer) writes:

(Also note that Sea Launch in particular, since it uses foreign-made
rockets, is not considered a US launch supplier and hence is ineligible
for government business.)

But Atlas V sneaks in under the wire, somehow?

In the original agreement they promised to in the future build them in the
states.
If they had stuck to the original agreement that would already be doing that
but when the date approached they moved it further into the future.
When that date approached they moved it further into the future.
When that date approached they moved it further into the future.
When that date approached they moved it further into the future.
And on and on.

Who was it who said there is a sucker born ever minute?

In article ,
Phil Fraering pgf@AUTO wrote:
(Also note that Sea Launch in particular, since it uses foreign-made
rockets, is not considered a US launch supplier and hence is ineligible
for government business.)

But Atlas V sneaks in under the wire, somehow?

Atlas V's use of a foreign-made engine has long been a pet peeve of its
USAF sponsors. Use of *some* foreign components is okay, but getting
something as major as engines from abroad is frowned on. Originally,
LockMart & friends promised to set up a US production line for it, and
that officially got them off the hook.

Then setup work for that line was delayed badly by government export (!)
paperwork; LM must have been quietly delighted. Then it was announced
that commercial launches would use Russian-built engines because they
would be significantly cheaper. Then Boeing got 2/3 of the big initial
USAF EELV order, and the commercial market slumped badly. The operational
date of the US RD-180 production line kept moving into the future, and
last I heard it was "maybe someday".

The USAF et al are not really happy about all this, but they badly want to
keep both EELV suppliers in business. Given the current state of the
commercial launch market, they have no real options short of giving LM a
bunch of extra money to finance US engine production, which they don't
want to do.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:48:46 -0600, Phil Fraering pgf@AUTO wrote:

(Henry Spencer) writes:

(Also note that Sea Launch in particular, since it uses foreign-made
rockets, is not considered a US launch supplier and hence is ineligible
for government business.)

But Atlas V sneaks in under the wire, somehow?

Atlas V is built in the United States, using engines built in Russia.
That's significantly closer than SeaLaunch to what the government
wants, although the Air Force did end up bending its own rules to buy
Atlas V (they were supposed to buy only Atlas V's with US
license-built engines.)

Since Boeing ended up being a bunch of crooks who stole the EELV
competition from Lockheed, the Air Force bending the rules for Atlas V
can be overlooked.

Brian

Brian Thorn writes:

Since Boeing ended up being a bunch of crooks who stole the EELV
competition from Lockheed, the Air Force bending the rules for Atlas V
can be overlooked.

So in short, you believe Lockheed should be allowed to cheat, but
Boeing shouldn't.

--
Phil Fraering
http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com