Bigelow/Rocketplane agreement 03.23.07

[Boris_Badenov]

Bigelow/Rocketplane agreement 03.23.07 <br /><br /><font color="yellow">At the Space Access ‘07 conference this morning, George French III of Rocketplane Inc. announced that the company has signed a letter of intent with Bigelow Aerospace regarding transportation to Bigelow’s orbital habitats. French provided only a few details about the agreement, which basically states that once Rocketplane’s K-1 is ready to carry passengers, and once Bigelow’s modules are in orbit, they’ll do business to ferry passengers to and from the facilities. Rocketplane officials didn’t want to disclose too many additional details since this announcement since this announcement is really a prelude to Robert Bigelow’s planned big announcement next month at the National Space Symposium about his overall business plan, but Rocketplane wanted to get a bit of the news out for the Space Access audience.<br /><br />There was not much else new about the company in its conference presentation. One minor change is that they now refer to the former Rocketplane Ltd. part of the company, the one developing the XP spaceplane, as “Rocketplane Global”, while the K-1 development is the responsibility of Rocketplane Kistler (the former Kistler Aerospace); the overall company is simply Rocketplane Inc. The “Global” part in the name is designed to reflect the company’s long-term plans to set up XP operations outside the US, such as Japan, and eventually move into the point-to-point transportation market</font><br /><br /> Hmmmmm, sounds interesting indeed.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"... sounds interesting indeed."</font><br /><br />Yes, very interesting.<br /><br />I just wonder why Bigelow Aerospace has decided to go with Rocketplane rather than one of the other companies that has shown more progress to date. I wish all these upstart companies success, but Rocketplane needs to build some hardware and show more progress. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I suspect RPK does have hardware, but they don't show it off to just anyone, (like, you, me or the press). It does bother me that they have had no visible progress though. They just signed this agreement with Bigelow & they did win $250 million from NASA, so the people that are in the know think they must have some capability. I would just like to see a mock up at least. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

Yeah, I know about the hardware they have (IIRC it was something like 70% complete), but as you and I both seem to agree, they could stand to show some progress on getting that hardware completed.<br /><br />I also agree with you that, considering the contracts, somebody knows something we don't know.<br /><br />Maybe they're going to follow the Blue Origin approach and keep a low profile until they actually have something to fly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[owenander]

Does RPK even have the juice to make it to orbit?

 

[MeteorWayne]

So far it's NASA, "The Russians" and China in the manned business. ESA has launched a lot of unmanned and even interplanetary missions.<br /><br />Anybody have a count of who has actually launched something into LEO or beyond?<br /> <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>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Anybody have a count of who has actually launched something into LEO or beyond?"</font><br /><br />According to one source, there are nine nations that have placed a satellite in LEO. I'm not sure how you'd count the EU. I'm thinking US, Russia, China, India, Japan, Israel, France, UK and Ukraine.<br /><br />Anybody else with some better info? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> "Anybody have a count of who has actually launched something into LEO or beyond?" <br /> </font><br /><br /> How about private companies or corporations? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"How about private companies or corporations?"</font><br /><br />With or without government funding?<br /><br />I'd have to say that no private company has done it solely on their own funds. Even SpaceX, IIRC, has received help from the government. Of course, they wouldn't count anyway at this point since they didn't quite make it to orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

"I just wonder why Bigelow Aerospace has decided to go with Rocketplane rather than one of the other companies that has shown more progress to date."<br /><br />This is not a choice of one company over another. No money has changed hands. They did not order any actual launches. Bigalow also made agreements in the past with SpaceX. I haven't heard anything saying this was exclusive.<br /><br />I suspect this agreement is more important to Rocketplane than it is to Bigelow. He's just keeping all of his launch options open. Rocketplane's business plan, on the other hand, is all about establishing strategic partnerships. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Bigalow also made agreements in the past with SpaceX. I haven't heard anything saying this was exclusive."</font><br /><br />Ah, thanks for that. Must've missed that announcement...or my ancient brain forgot, which is more likely <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[docm]

Let's also not forget the ongoing work Bigelow has been doing with Lockheed. IMO they're mainly covering their bases. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

Sweet......

 

[docm]

A new thread at NASASpaceflight.com puts a new light on this LOI. A guy named Hunt101 claims to be at ULA and had this to say;<br /><br />http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7237&posts=7&start=1<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Hunt101;<br /><br />Been forced to comment on this.<br /><br />An RpK letter of intent is aimed at its investors.<br /><br /><b>ULA are the primary option and advanced.</b><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />also;<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Hunt101:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>ianmga - 25/3/2007 6:31 PM<br /><br />ULA is [...] and advanced.<br /><br />So is RpK, I believe. They're in COTS for the ISS.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, they are in COTS, <b>for now</b>. Their commercial plans with Bigelow are at the very very begining. I could set up a letter of intent with you within a week. LOIs are aimed at investor markets.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />Hmm.....<br /><br />That ULA is the "primary and advanced" is no surprise, but I found the comment that RPK is in COTS "for now" and interesting choice of words. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I'm so excited!<br /><br /><br />I need to make a lof of money off the Internet and then start-up a space startup! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> That ULA is the "primary and advanced" is no surprise, but I found the comment that RPK is in COTS "for now" and interesting choice of words.</i><br /><br />It's easy to see where Hunt01 is coming from. RpK is trying to rebuild a 15 year old vehicle. The K1 is getting OLD, there is a chance (a good one) that it will never fly. The engines are even older than the forever-75% complete airframe, though the NKs are supposedly in great shape. Kistler already "struck out" a long time ago, IMHO. Rocketplane has an interesting and long lineage as well, but still hasn't flown anything significant. They've been in business for what, 10 or 12 years? And they still haven't done tests of a rocket engine on any jet? Am I missing something? At the XPrize they had a jet mockup with no engines. I wish them luck but am not optimistic. Black Colt was a great concept, I wish they'd followed through.<br /><br />That kind of letter-of-intent is definitely aimed at investors. For now it looks like Lockmart will provide Bigelow's initial l<br />lift needs, with SpaceX on the roster when they fly Falcon. It looks like Atlas is going to step up to the commercial humans-to-LEO market, too. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

Right. I've thought for a long time that SpaceX should decouple Falcon and Dragon, freeing the latter for use on ULA & other launchers regardless of Falcon's fate. A bird in the hand....<br /><br />ULA stands to win from all directions; building Orion for NASA while being in position to provide manned missions for the NewSpace folks too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>