Ares I flight rate -- a clue

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Crew transport is not a given with COTS, So there is a scenario with COTS doing cargo and CEV doing crew</font>/i><br /><br />NASA, Kistler, and SpaceX all have their eyes on delivering crew to ISS. From the NASA press release, "Once a capability is demonstrated, NASA plans to purchase crew and cargo delivery services competitively in Phase 2." But I agree with your position, NASA may fund (in part because of political pressure in addition to safety concerns) cargo-only services to ISS.<br /><br />If COTS is successful (see side bar below), there is going to be some interesting political issues raised about flying Orion instead of buying commerical services. On one hand, NASA just spent 8 years developing Ares I and Orion, and now they just sit there waiting until 2020? On the other hand, would NASA uses internally developed Ares I and Orion at the expense of viable commercial alternatives? Either way, it could be politically difficult.<br /><br />SIDE BAR:<br /><br />Unfortunately there is acronym overload here, since COTS refers to the specific contract program funded by NASA and the more general term "commercial off the shelf". While SpaceX and Kistler won the development contracts from NASA, I expect there to be at least three COTS players (add Lockheed Martin) and maybe more (Virgin Galactic, Armadillo, t/Space, Boeing) to emerge with orbital services over the next 10 years-12 years.</i>

 

[MeteorWayne]

COTS- excellant clarification. <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>

 

[jimfromnsf]

COTS II will be open to any contractor with a demonstrated capability. This will limit the numbers to:<br />1. Spacex and RPK if they are successful under COTS<br />2. ULA with an HTV or ATV<br />3. Anybody who will fly a demonstration mission with their own money

 

[MeteorWayne]

That makes sense to me. COTS II is about delivery, not promises. <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>

 

[josh_simonson]

Why would ULA fly an ATV or HTV? Lockheed Martin is developing the CEV SM, which could be modified into the propulsion system for a 'X'TV. Buying offshore hardware/services is only cost effective to the government if it costs much less than domestic alternatives, which excludes both ATV and HTV. This is because half of the money spent in the USA for such things comes right back to the government in the form of taxes that same year.

 

[astronaut23]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>My prediction: <br /><br />*Costs will be perceived as going totally out of control soon <br /><br />*The program will be put on hold for 2 years for a total redesign, to save money <br /><br />*The new design will be smaller and less capable <br /><br />*The new design will cost more <br /><br />*The launch rate will be slashed to save money <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Damn, I hope not. But unfortunately if the Space Station program redesign and back to the drawing boards are any indications. It took forever for this current Space Station to get off the ground if you go way back to its roots in the 80's with Reagan and its nothing like the original vision.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Why would ULA fly an ATV or HTV? Lockheed Martin is developing the CEV SM, which could be modified into the propulsion system for a 'X'TV."<br /><br />1. The CEV is NASA's, not LM's<br />2. CEV isn't going to be ready in time<br />3. The "front' end is the hard part (docking and rendexvous) not propulsion.<br />4. They exist and will have been demonstrated.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">1. The CEV is NASA's, not LM's</font>/i><br /><br />What barriers (contractual, legal, man power limits, etc.) exist that would prevent LM from building additional CEVs that NASA did not ask for?<br /><br />Or, to extend it a little more, supposed LM wanted to build an Orion-Lite vehicle, one that is less capable than Orion (perhaps a crew of 3 instead of 6) but uses most of the same technologies, suppliers, software, and parts.<br /><br />Is there anything preventing LM from doing this for commercial efforts (Bigelow, ISS crew/cargo supply)?</i>

 

[docm]

They don't have to build CEV's. They published a pdf last year about capsule that's based on the re-entry tech of their planetary probes. Their pdf says it's for the Atlas V using an adapter ring. IIRC 8 passengers. <br /><br />Funny thing; they started hinting about it again shortly after the Bigelow talks started. Hmmmm....<br /><br />Image previously posted.... <br /><br />PDF.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"What barriers (contractual, legal, man power limits, etc.) exist that would prevent LM from building additional CEVs that NASA did not ask for?<br /><br />Or, to extend it a little more, supposed LM wanted to build an Orion-Lite vehicle, one that is less capable than Orion (perhaps a crew of 3 instead of 6) but uses most of the same technologies, suppliers, software, and parts. "<br /><br />It is not wholely built by LM. NASA supplies the docking interface, air bags, LAS, parachutes, etc. Also NASA provides the facility that it is processed in (note I omitted assembled). JSC provides the MCC and personnel for mission support. <br /><br />Also NASA supplies the Ares I. <br /><br />Orion-lite may not use it but I don't think LM could be competitive with a whole new design

 

[josh_simonson]

Half of the COTS objectives do not require return to earth, let alone crew, so a ULA/LMT COTS bid need not involve a CEV-lite. A modest disposable spacecraft with the capability to dock with the ISS is sufficient. This is a subset of the CEV's capability, so either CEV development would aid COTS development, or vise versa. Either way LMT has an advantage over other companies because they're also doing the CEV.

 

[j05h]

<i>> Orion-lite may not use it but I don't think LM could be competitive with a whole new design</i><br /><br />Are there any barriers to them using their knowledge of CEV to build another capsule? Or better, build CEV-lites on the same lines as the CEV? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

They might need to liscense the knowledge as Orion is a NASA design, but using the same assembly line shouldn't be a problem because as far as I understand NASA is basically contracting out "outsourcing" the construction of Orion and Aries. Production rates might be a problem.

 

[jimfromnsf]

no, but anything using a different structure (i.e. smaller for a "CEV lite") means all the contents (systems) would have to be analyzed to see if they meet the new environments and possibly requaled.

 

[vulture2]

NASA already has CEV and COTS; it's difficult to see NASA supporting yet another similar program. Conversely, it's hard to see why companies that are serious about commercial space operations would find Ares attractive because of its relatively high operational cost and infrastructure requirements. A simplified CEV with a different booster is possible, but would have to compete with Soyuz, etc.