4.5 meter Orion?

[jimfromnsf]

factual<br />I know who Elon would have to talk to<br /><br />F9 for Bigelow is not for a Dragon<br /><br /><br />

 

[thereiwas]

Bigelow has two interests that F9 might handle: launching his modules, and taking people to those modules. The latter could be handled by Dragon if the destination orbit is in reach.

 

[j05h]

<i>> factual<br />I know who Elon would have to talk to </i><br /><br />If I understand, you are saying you personally know ULA's main procurement officer or similar? Have you asked that person, and are you sure they would answer correctly? Would you say that Dragon-Atlas does not make economic sense? Atlas (if available) would be around $130-150M as single units, plus the cost of Dragon and integration. I haven't found reliable numbers for Dragon costs. Following 2x of launchers rule of thumb a Dragon could be in the $70M range (2x$35M of F9 to LEO). Perhaps Atlas-Dragon could fly for $200M? Reusable F9s and Dragons are definitely the way forward for SpaceX, but you have to admit having multi-launcher access makes reliability sense. Can it work for a business? Bigelow has been pretty forward about being a Builder not an Operator, will SpaceX use Space Adventures for handling passenger flights? Lockheed has seen this opportunity and taken a few steps towards it. Is ULA positioning itself to be America's Spaceline? <br /><br /><i>> F9 for Bigelow is not for a Dragon</i> <br /><br />The current F9 Bigelow flight is for a Nautilus or the first SunDancer. They are obviously working together. With SpaceX working both cargo and crew transport angles, it is only natural that Bigelow and SpaceX have discussed transport to Bigelow-based facilities. From Bigelow's perspective, building a Nautilus-SunDancer facility uses most of a year's ELV-class launches world-wide. They are flying on everything available. They have every interest in getting new and cheaper launch available. They are aiming at being First Out , building facilities where others need them. They need SpaceX or another provider to make routine access possible - and eventually hit the "sweet spot" in launch costs. The good news in this scenario is this broadens the amount of new space hardware being built both here and worldwide. <br /><br />So what is COTS for? You said it had nothing to do with ISS supply.<br /><</safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

I know people in business development<br /><br />Dragon-Atlas doesn't make sense because it is not Elon's MO (all inhouse products). If spacex was just a spacecraft supplier it would make sense. But compatiblility with other LV's should be designed in at the beginning.<br /><br />As for bigelow, dragon might not meet his requirements.<br /><br /><br />"So what is COTS for? You said it had nothing to do with ISS supply. "<br /><br />Officially:<br />"NASA is making an unprecedented investment in commercial space transportation services with the hope of creating a competitive market for supply flights to the International Space Station (ISS)."<br /><br />It is more like a prayer vs hope. but not of the "competitive market" but whether a COTS entrant will be successful <br /><br />If NASA wanted COTS to guarantee that there will be will be capable contractor, then neither RPK or Spacex would have been selected.<br />It looks like this decision is going to bite NASA in the ass. Exploration Directorate (COTS manager) didn't really consider the ISS needs. Just their needs to exclude Ares I competitors.<br />Who runs COTS II is up for contention

 

[jimfromnsf]

bump

 

[j05h]

<i> > I know people in business development </i><br /><br />Excellent. Is there any talk at all of Dragon or Orion flying on Atlas? I agree that SpaceX seems to be building almost everything in-house, but am pointing out a serious potential revenue stream. What about Dragon doesn't meet Bigelow's requirements? <br /><br /><i>> It is more like a prayer vs hope. but not of the "competitive market" but whether a COTS entrant will be successful </i><br /><br />OK. That puts your phrase in context. What odds do you give SpaceX or RpK of succeeding? Besides COTS, do think SpaceX will fly people on Dragon, ever? You see COTS phase I as a smokescreen of some kind for Ares? Could COTS II be open to other competitors like Boeing or SpaceHab? <br /><br />Can you explain the logic behind putting ESMD in charge of COTS? That seems like something JSC/ISS should be handling. <br /><br />Here is something no one has discussed. Where does RpK's part of the COTS money go if they fail sooner than later? SpaceX will be actively part of COTS until contract termination (yes, Elon has that much money), but has no guarantee of meeting goals. Does that money stay with ESMD or return to the General Fund or NASA HQ? Is there room for another COTS participant if RpK exits?<br /><br />Is there a chance that COTS II can be started early?<br /><br />Josh<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Is there any talk at all of Dragon or Orion flying on Atlas?"<br />None as far as Dragon<br />Don't know about the Bigelow specifics<br /><br />Real contentors for COTS were excluded to prevent any competition with Ares. If ISS runs COTS II (which it should) they don't have an LV to protect.<br /><br />Spacex may have trouble meeting milestone dates<br /><br />COTS II will be open to anyone who has demonstrated the capabilities<br /><br />Don't know about the $

 

[comga]

Haven't we strayed from the original topic?

 

[j05h]

No, we're pretty much on-topic for SDC. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Heck, I didn't even know Orion made a 4.5 meter telescope <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I know people in business development</font>/i><br /><br />OK. Here is my question: Lockheed clearly has expertise in space and will be putting together a team, tools, and contacts with suppliers to build Orion. It seems to me that if anyone would be prepared to build a commercial capsule, it would be Lockheed. They have everything already in place. <i><font color="yellow">So why aren't they doing it?</font>/i></i></i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Because there is no money to be made

 

[j05h]

<i>>None as far as Dragon<br /> />Don't know about the Bigelow specifics </i><br /><br />OK. The thing I don't understand at this point is why Bigelow and SpaceX wouldn't coordinate station/capsule needs - the two companies practically need each other to succeed.<br /><br /><i>> Real contentors for COTS were excluded to prevent any competition with Ares. If ISS runs COTS II (which it should) they don't have an LV to protect. </i><br /><br />There were rumors at the time of in-fighting and protection. <br /><br /><i>> Spacex may have trouble meeting milestone dates</i><br /><br />Absolutely. They have had two partial successes, but have no guarantee to achieve orbit or make Dragon work. Elon has buckets of cash and sees this as the next big industry, which gives SpaceX padding for several more flights. He may or may not need capital investment to grow SpaceX to full-scale production. <br /><br /><i>> COTS II will be open to anyone who has demonstrated the capabilities </i><br /><br />Will this include established aerospace firms, specifically Lockheed, ULA, N-G or Boeing? Any idea on whether Arianespace or Soyuz could paricipate? <br /><br />Here is a shorter pdf (2pg) that details phase I and II Atlas growth, especially Centaur changes and move to 5.4m core, then 8m core.<br /><br />http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/12461.pdf<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

The requirements for COTS II will probably be similar to COTS I. The LV needs to be more than 50% US.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Because there is no money to be made<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Translation: They don't have a business plan for it.<br /><br />If there is no money to be made, how come Musk is doing it?<br /><br />And how come ULA is looking for one? <br /><br />I bet someone in Lockheed does have something up their sleeve but are being quiet about it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If NASA wanted COTS to guarantee that there will be will be capable contractor, then neither RPK or Spacex would have been selected.<br />It looks like this decision is going to bite NASA in the ass. Exploration Directorate (COTS manager) didn't really consider the ISS needs. Just their needs to exclude Ares I competitors.<br />Who runs COTS II is up for contention<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That sounds so scuttlebutt! <br /><br />I mean I agree with most what you said except the competitors for ARES I. That seems out of place. I'm wondering if that was part of preliminary talks when COTS was being conceived. But in such talks I'm sure a lot of ideas were proposed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"If there is no money to be made, how come Musk is doing it?" <br />Where does it say he IS going to make money<br />

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Where does it say he IS going to make money <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So your saying that Lockheed doesn't want to take the risk while SpaceX is willing.<br /><br />Well that is Lockheed's prerogative.<br /><br />But I think its more likely that Orion is Lockheed's first capsule and they are learning 'how to' in many aspects. <br /><br />So if Lockheed won't take that kind of risk then it excluded itself automatically from COTS because its not in that business at all.<br /><br />So thus the creation of ULA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"So if Lockheed won't take that kind of risk then it excluded itself automatically from COTS because its not in that business at all. "<br /><br />Not so. There are many teaming arrangements possible <br /><br />Lockheed has make more capsules than any contractor.<br /><br />Also they have made more spacecraft.<br /><br />It would be the 'first" for any contractor since there has been a manned capsule made since the early 70's. Boeing/Rockwell/McDonnell were just as much novices for OSP

 

[docm]

And while Dream Chaser is not lunar capable both ULA and SpaceDev have discussed their MOU of last April, so it sounds like ULA is open to the possibility of working with NewSpace. Along those lines Musk stated in the last few weeks that while Dragon is primarily for F9 it is not exclusively so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Lockheed has make more capsules than any contractor. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />But all unmanned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070820005067&newsLang=en<br /><br />Here is your CEV computer-based modeling & design

 

[docm]

I would have thought they'd be using Parametric <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>