COTS - 2 paid partners, 5 unpaid partners

[holmec]

<p>NASA article:</p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_08058_COTS_Selection.html NASA Partners With Orbital Sciences for Space Transport Services</p><p>Orbital Sciences got the $170 million.</p><p>Apparently they plan on making a cargo non reusable craft.&nbsp;</p><p>Orbital Sciences Article&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Q. What's with the 5 unpaid partners?&nbsp; Can anyone explain to me what benefit to NASA they are?&nbsp; Or is it a bow to these companies in new space?&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>{SpaceX, Orbital Sciences = paid; t-Space, SpaceDev,spacehab, andrews, planetspace= unpaid}[Thanks Cygnus_X_1 for the rest of the names]&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NASA article: NASA Partners With Orbital Sciences for Space Transport ServicesOrbital Sciences got the $170 million.Apparently they plan on making a cargo non reusable craft.&nbsp;Orbital Sciences Article&nbsp;&nbsp;Q. What's with the 5 unpaid partners?&nbsp; Can anyone explain to me what benefit to NASA they are?&nbsp; Or is it a bow to these companies in new space?&nbsp;&nbsp;{SpaceX, Orbital Sciences = paid; t-Space, SpaceDev,?,?,? = unpaid}[Anyone know the other 3 upaid companies?]&nbsp; <br /> Posted by holmec</DIV></p><p>spacehab, andrews, planetspace, </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>the benefit is to the companies.&nbsp; They can be in position to compete for ISS CRS&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>spacehab, andrews, planetspace, &nbsp;the benefit is to the companies.&nbsp; They can be in position to compete for ISS CRS&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It seems that NASA went with Orbital Sciences where OS is using a more traditional system design (rocket & Service Module and cargo container) rather than a risky and newer design such as t-space.</p><p>Does this mean that New Space companies are taking too great of risks? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[windnwar]

<font size="2">Taking a breif look at the specs for the Taurus II launcher I see it's to use the NK-33 engines and basically be similar payload class to a Delta-II. <br /><br />I'm curious if Aerojet has already converted and tested enough of those engines to support the program, as well as how rapidly that can build them. Of course cost is going to be the other issue as well. Most of Orbitals launchers haven't exactly been cheap. <br /><br />All in all though it seems like a well laid out plan and much more likely to fly then anything RPK had in the works. </font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Taking a breif look at the specs for the Taurus II launcher I see it's to use the NK-33 engines and basically be similar payload class to a Delta-II. I'm curious if Aerojet has already converted and tested enough of those engines to support the program, as well as how rapidly that can build them. Of course cost is going to be the other issue as well. Most of Orbitals launchers haven't exactly been cheap. All in all though it seems like a well laid out plan and much more likely to fly then anything RPK had in the works. <br /> Posted by windnwar</DIV></p><p>There are more than 50 engines available according to&nbsp; Dr. Antonio Elias, the COTS bid manager.&nbsp; Aeroject has modified many of them already </p><p>http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11604&start=46&highlight=taurus&highlightmode=1</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>