Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) was aNASA program to spur the development ofprivate spacecraft and launch vehicles for deliveries to theInternational Space Station (ISS). Launched in 2006, COTS successfully concluded in 2013 after completing all demonstration flights.
NASA's final report on the program considered it a success and a model for future public-private collaboration. Compared to traditionalcost-plus contracts employed by NASA, such as the $12 billion contract for theOrion spacecraft, the $800 million COTS investment resulted in "two new U.S.medium-class launch vehicles and two automated cargo spacecraft".[1] After the conclusion of the COTS program, NASA shifted towardsfixed-price contracts for crew and cargo services. While the approach has significantly lowered costs for NASA, companies other than SpaceX have struggled under the fixed-price system, with some refusing to bid and others experiencing large losses on contracts.[2]
COTS contracts were awarded toSpaceX andRocketplane Kistler, but the latter's agreement was terminated due to insufficient progress.Orbital Sciences Corporation replaced Rocketplane Kistler in the program in 2008.
COTS differs from theCommercial Resupply Services (CRS) program, which procured cargo delivery services using the COTS developed vehicles. COTS employedSpace Act Agreements with milestone-based payments, while CRS utilizes binding contracts with strict performance obligations. TheCommercial Crew Development (CCDev) program, focusing on crew transportation, is similar to COTS and, along with CRS, falls under NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office (C3PO).
Unlike any previous NASA project, the proposed spacecraft were intended to be owned and financed primarily by the companies themselves and were designed to serve both U.S. government agencies and commercial customers. NASA will contract for missions as its needs become clear.
This was more challenging than existent commercial space transportation because it required precisionorbit insertion,rendezvous and possibly docking with another spacecraft. Theprivate spaceflight vendors[3] were competing for four specific service areas:
NASA explored a program for ISS services in the mid 1990s entitled "Alt Access" for Alternate Access. While NASA funded Alt Access no further than preliminary studies, this program convinced numerous entrepreneurs that ISS could emerge as a significant market opportunity.
After years of keeping orbital transport forhuman spaceflight in-house, NASA concluded that firms in afree market could develop and operate such a system more efficiently and affordably than a governmentbureaucracy.[4] The then NASA AdministratorMichael D. Griffin stated that without affordable Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS), the agency will not have enough funds remaining to achieve the objectives of theVision for Space Exploration.[4] In November 2005, Dr. Griffin articulated that:
Furthermore, if such services were unavailable by the end of 2010, NASA would have been forced to purchase orbital transportation services on foreign spacecraft such as theRussian Federal Space Agency'sSoyuz andProgress spacecraft, theEuropean Space Agency'sAutomated Transfer Vehicle, or theJapan Aerospace Exploration Agency'sH-II Transfer Vehicle since NASA's ownCrew Exploration Vehicle, since refocused, would not have been ready until 2014.
In 2007 NASA asserted that once COTS was operational, it would no longer procure Russian cargo delivery services.[6]NASA anticipates that COTS services to ISS will be necessary through at least 2015. NASA projects at most a half-dozen COTS flights a year that would transport 10 tonnes annually.[6] The NASA Administrator has suggested that space transportation services procurement may be expanded to orbitalfuel depots andlunar surface deliveries should the first phase of COTS prove successful.[7]
On 22 May 2012,Bill Gerstenmaier confirmed that NASA was no longer purchasing any cargo resupply services from Russia and would rely solely on the American CRS vehicles, theSpaceX Dragon and Orbital Sciences'Cygnus; with the exception of a few vehicle-specific payloads delivered on the EuropeanATV and the JapaneseHTV.[8]
In February 2004, NASA awarded a contract toKistler Aerospace (which later became Rocketplane Kistler) for $227 million, despite the fact that Kistler had already filed for bankruptcy a year before. Some observers saw this as a gift for the head of Kistler, NASA legendGeorge Mueller.[9] This upsetElon Musk, as there had not been a competition and Musk could have used the funding atSpaceX. Musk protested, and NASA withdrew the contract to Kistler after hearing that theGovernment Accountability Office planned to issue a ruling in support of Musk. NASA returned to the planning phase, and this eventually resulted in the COTS competition.[9]
Boeing may have submitted a proposal in conjunction with Arianespace to launch the ESA ATV module on a Delta IV rocket.[10] Whereas the ESA launches the ATV on an Ariane 5, the two companies worked together to make this proposal.[10] The ATV can carry up to 7.6 metric tons with a suitable launcher.[10]
In May 2006, NASA selected six semifinalist proposals for further evaluation:SpaceX,Andrews Space,Transformational Space Corp.,Rocketplane Kistler ("RpK"),Spacehab, andSpaceDev.[11][12]
On 18 August 2006, NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) announced that SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler won Phase I of the COTS program.[13] NASA planned to engage winners in funded Space Act agreements through 2010.[14]
On 8 November 2006 RpK and ATK announced that ATK would become the lead contractor for the K-1.[15]
NASA terminated the COTS agreement with RpK in September 2007 after NASA warned RpK that it had failed to raise sufficient private funding by 31 July 2007 deadline,[16][17] freeing up $175 million from the COTS budget to be awarded to another company or companies.
By 18 June 2007, NASA had signed separate non-reimbursable Space Act Agreements with three additional firms, Constellation Services International (CSI), SpaceDev and Spacehab.[18][19] These agreements included no financial support, however NASA agreed to share information to help the companies to develop their proposed vehicles.
On 22 October 2007, NASA solicited proposals for the $175 million in unawarded first round funds.[20] Some of the new contenders who entered before the deadline in November 2007 for the funding wereSpacehab,t/Space,Andrews Space,PlanetSpace andSpaceDev.[21]
In January 2008 industry sources claimed that the field had been downselected to four; Spacehab, Andrews Space, PlanetSpace and Orbital Sciences, with the announcement date set to 7 February.[22] Several sources later suggested that Boeing and not Andrews was a final contestant.[23]
On 19 February 2008, the second round selection was made toOrbital Sciences Corporation, for theCygnus spacecraft.[24] NASA's selection statement showed that Orbital beat Boeing on expected lower costs and the added benefit of a new medium lift launcher Taurus II with Andrews, PlanetSpace and Spacehab being eliminated on funding concerns.[25]
Following the original $500M Space Act Agreement, an additional $288M in "augmentation" funding was awarded to the two contractors before the demonstration flights.[26]
The COTS program was successfully concluded in November 2013 after two companies, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, designed, built and launched "a pair of new spacecraft on rockets that also were newly designed".[27] NASA has published its own history of the COTS program including the controlling of the development program using Space Act Agreements (SAA), with lessons for future programs.[28]
More than twenty organizations had submitted COTS proposals by March 2006.[32] NASA received new COTS proposals from at least seven firms by 21 November 2007.[33]
| Flight | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Falcon 9 Flight 1 | 4 June 2010 | Launch ofboilerplate Dragon spacecraft to test Falcon 9 rocket |
| SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1 | 8 December 2010 | Launch of Dragon spacecraft to test its orbital maneuvering and reentry |
| SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2 | 22 May 2012 | CRS mission simulation including docking with ISS |
| Antares A-ONE | 21 April 2013 | Launch of boilerplate Cygnus spacecraft to test Antares rocket |
| Orbital COTS Demo Flight 1 | 18 September 2013 | CRS mission simulation including docking with ISS |
On 22 December 2008, NASA stated they would discuss the contract selection to provide commercial cargo resupply services for the International Space Station.[51] NASA announced the awarding of contracts to bothSpaceX andOrbital Sciences Corporation in a press conference on 23 December 2008.[52] The contracts include a minimum of 20 missions, 12 missions for SpaceX ($1.6 Billion) and 8 missions for Orbital Sciences ($1.9 Billion).[53][54] PlanetSpace submitted a protest to theGovernment Accountability Office after receiving a NASA debriefing on the outcome of the award.[55] On 22 April 2009 GAO publicly released its decision to deny the protest.[56]
Components of theInternational Space Station | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orbiting |
|  | ||||||||
| Former |
| |||||||||
| Future |
| |||||||||
| Spare hardware | ||||||||||
| Cancelled | ||||||||||
| Related | ||||||||||
| Launch vehicles |
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spacecraft |
| ||||||||
| Test vehicles |
| ||||||||
| Rocket engines | |||||||||
| Lists of missions | |||||||||
| Launch facilities | |||||||||
| Landing sites |
| ||||||||
| Other facilities | |||||||||
| Support |
| ||||||||
| Contracts | |||||||||
| R&D programs | |||||||||
| Key people |
| ||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
* denotes unflown vehicles or engines, and future missions or sites. † denotes failed missions, destroyed vehicles, and abandoned sites. | |||||||||
| Spacecraft |   | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hardware | |||||||
| Missions |
| ||||||
| |||||||
| Launch vehicles |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Operators | ||
| Past missions |
| |
| Current missions |
| |
| Future missions | ||
| ||
