![]() Users can change the theme, keyboard shortcuts, preferences, and install extensions that add additional functionality. Features include support for debugging, syntax highlighting, intelligent code completion, snippets, code refactoring, and embedded Git. I rather think any new agreement will limit demo launches to 1 (if the company chosen has a concept launched from an existing rocket such as Atlas).Visual Studio Code is a free source-code editor made by Microsoft for Windows, Linux and macOS. There is no way SpaceHab for instance could fly 3 demo missions on Atlas 5 to prove its concept - and actually I also think it is not necessary. In any event, a new COTS space act agreement for the 170 million cannot be in the same outline that SpaceX agreement is. I hope they will use a conservative choice, like SpaceHab - risk taking was fine back before one choice failed and the other made adjustments to their time schedule.Ĥ. NASA will not split the 170 million up, rather give it to one company. ![]() SpaceX is currently not in need for more cash (at least that is what they are saying).ģ. just a year ago they said one of their prime reasons for choosing at least 2 companies is to have a diversified portfolio and b. They will not give the remaining funds to SpaceX, because a. They do not want COTS to fail - reality is not conspiracy land.Ģ. They need a cargo solution for ISS, that is the reason behind COTS. I don't know much about any of the other contenders but I would love to hear what people think NASA is going to be looking for and who can best provide it.ġ. Do they really just want a cargo solution, do they simply want to foster commercial growth, or as some have cynically suggested do they want COTS to fail? Personally I doubt the latter, and I would like to think that they really do want to develop a possible cargo solution for the ISS. I guess in the end, I am curious to see what people think NASA really hopes to get out of this. I'm curious as to whether more money will speed the process, considering Elon Musk seems to have the funding, and it simply a matter of development and testing which money won't necessarily help speed. Some seem to think that NASA will send the remaining funds to them to speed along the process. ![]() The funding of 175 Million also seems to fit well with Spacehab, given that it would seem to be possible to complete ARCTUS (although no firm figures are available as to what it would cost) with the NASA funding alone.īut again SpaceX seems to be on the path to producing some fantastic results. With the time consideration it would seem that Spacehab's ARCTUS can be a contender given that there would be less time needed for development, although one cannot underestimate the difficulty of integrating all the existing space rated parts into one cohesive and functioning component. However, will NASA select a company that needs hundreds of millions of dollars in private funding again given what happened with RPK the first time around? Also, does the one year lost disadvantage Spacedev, given that they will need to produce results in just 3 years time? How will that play into NASA's decision? It seems to be logical to assume that given Spacedev's near-selection the first time around, that they must be a serious and leading contender. ![]() With the RPK contract terminated, anyone have any thoughts as to where the funds will end up? Since it seems the "COTS 1.5" thread was deemed not to be the proper term I hope this is the right thread for this.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |