'Massive news' next week?

[spacefire]

the Atlas V will never be as cheap as a new launcher designed from scratch for lower cost/mass production.<br /><br />LM should be banned from even engaging in space tourism. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[crispyness]

And the server slows to a craaaaaaaawl <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />Exciting news indeed!

 

[spacefire]

I don't know if NASA has anything to do with this.<br />the news is posted on nasaspaceflight.com website. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">wow...back off here a bit...isn't that a bit of a blow to SpaceX?</font>/i><br /><br />I agree. SpaceX and Kistler will have a more difficult time raising external capital (which they probably need to do) now that one of the big players has officially announced plans to enter the same market space (tourism, ISS crew & cargo).<br /><br />The worst possible situation would be to have this effort effectively kill off SpaceX and Kistler by denying them seed money and then for this effort to die as well.<br /><br />However, I am still very excited!!!</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Bigelow and Lockmart exploring Atlas for private spaceflight!! Ok, that IS massive news!</font>/i><br /><br />Lockheed is definitely on fire (in a good way) right now. The Orion contract gives them credibility in manned flight, and I can imagine that the skills (people), tools, software, systems, and other elements for Orion could be used in this new effort.<br /><br />If Lockheed can get the Atlas V with this new vehicle flying before ATK is ready with the Ares I, there are going to be a lot of people asking a lot of questions. (Yes, the Ares I has a much larger mass requirement, but still the questions will be asked.)</i>

 

[mrmorris]

Very Very interesting. I see synergies for both companies working in this.<br /><br />Bigelow -- wants to have a choice of multiple contractors in launching both his modules *and* in taxi/resupply services. Getting Lockheed into the mix brings in the possibility of using an existing launcher. Even though SpaceX is *planning* on having a booster that is much lower cost than Atlas -- right now they have only plans for one. Bigelow won't have signed an agreement in blood with LM no matter what -- so if LM man-rates the Atlas -- it simply adds to Bigelow's options. Worst case, if the Falcon 9 and Dragon never become a reality -- it gives Bigelow *an* option.<br /><br />LockMart -- is already designing the CEV capsule, so could use ninety-five percent of the CEV design to make one optimized for space-station operations. Also -- problems with the 'Stick' concept are becoming more apparent over time. Having Atlas man-rated at about the time NASA needs a man-rated launcher for the CEV could be a godsend to LM (and NASA) if the Stick falls flat.<br /><br />I agree that it has the <b>potential</b> to suck for SpaceX, but quite frankly I can only see that being the case if SpaceX fails miserably in their goals. If the Falcon 9 comes anywhere close to flying at the price they're targeting -- they'll eat LM's lunch on launch costs. Likewise the Dragon will (should) be designed from the outset as a platform that gets people to and from space stations with the minimum mass. No matter how much LM modifies it, a CEV-derived design is unlikely to match the level of economy possible for Dragon. If SpaceX succeeds in their stated goals, they'll have a much lower cost/lb launcher, with a much lower lb/person capsule. The market choice will be obvious.

 

[rfoshaug]

It seems to be complete wheelstop over at the forums at Nasaspaceflight. Obviously a lot of users trying to access it a the same time. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />If Lockheed can man-rate the Atlas V (including the RD-180 engine), it should be possible to man-rate the Atlas V Heavy with 3 such common core boosters (costly - yes; time-consuming - probably, but possible). And that would be able to launch an Orion.<br /><br />So if Ares I gets seriously delayed or over budget, LM might step forward as the knight in shining armour to offer launch services for the Orion. And even if Ares I is on time and on budget, LM might still be able to offer cheaper launches for Orion.<br /><br />Especially since both Orion and the man-rated Atlas are made by LM, so they know every technical detail of both.<br /><br />I think LM has more to this plan than just launching Bigelow stuff. This move could put them in a very favorable position for both private and NASA manned spaceflight.<br /><br /><br />But does anyone know: will it be LM or Bigelow that will construct the passenger-carrying capsule?<br /><br /><br />Forget about Rutan. THIS might just be the way to commercial spaceflight. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

At least this space program is not dependent on the mercy of the next US President. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Wouldn't such grand asperations for the Atlas make ULA an unattractive situation for Lockheed? Why share your profits if you're bird is doing 90% of the flying?<br /><br />I agree that this is good though. This is bolder than I expected of them, spending their own money on a venture without a cost+ contract.

 

[geminivi]

I think Congress and DOD will be thrilled to see that LM can find private uses for its EELV and release the USG from its gigantic subsidy to LM.<br /><br />If this is true, can Boeing be far behind its own deal with Bigelow or someone else?<br /><br />So if this thing goes through, then LM+Bigelow become the BigDog in space transportation. Bigger than USG+Russia+China in manned launches? Awesome.

 

[edkyle98]

"seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that the military-industrial complex that is LM is doing everything in their power to stiffle Elon! "<br /><br />To the contrary, the Pentagon funded the first, failed SpaceX launch - and is now bankrolling a second attempt. Much of the SpaceX backlog is for military missions.<br /><br />Lockheed hasn't slowed down Elon. Only SpaceX, with its poor results to date, has stood in the way of SpaceX.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[edkyle98]

Keep in mind that this report only describes a possible (yet to be announced) study contract. There is no committment to the big expenditures needed to actually develop such a system here.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[no_way]

>>LM should be banned from even engaging in space tourism. <br /><br />HUH ?? What do you care who provides the cheaper launch option ? Cutthroat competition is good for the buyer, so let them bring it on, if they can.<br />The more the merrier.<br /><br />I'd fly on a Microsoft Rocket XP if it was cheap enough, even though all their employees are evil and have frikken laser beams attached to their heads ...

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I'd fly on a Microsoft Rocket XP."</font><br /><br />Brave man. It's only with the MSR-XP that 'The Blue Screen of Death" truly comes into its own.<br /><br /><br />@T+40 secs: Uh -- Flight XP-12, this is Mission Control. We have a bit of a situation here... looks like it's gonna require a reboot, possibly an OS reinstall. You guys just hang in there for a while.

 

[radarredux]

> >>LM should be banned from even engaging in space tourism.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">HUH ?? What do you care who provides the cheaper launch option ?</font>/i><br /><br />One argument goes as follows: In a private sector business, the cost of the product has to include the cost to <font color="yellow">build</font>the product PLUS some amortized cost to <font color="yellow">develop</font>the product. For something with low production rates, the amortized costs can be quite high. So for a SpaceX launch, SpaceX costs will have to factor in their development costs.<br /><br />In many cases, the government has borne the development costs, so the company does not need to include those costs when pricing their product (e.g., a launch). Thus, since the government provided lots of funding to LM to develop the EELV, LM could theoretically undercut the price of a privately funded effort.<br /><br />Unfortunately, life is always more complex than this. For example, SpaceX has $100 million from the DOD for buying launches. Now this is for buying product (a launch) and not a development effort, but it does help SpaceX spread their development costs over more launches. Furthermore, SpaceX is receiving nearly $300 million from NASA in <i>development</i> funding as part of COTS. Finally, although the government has ponied up money to help develop the EELV, LM has invested and will continue to invest their own money to develop the Atlas V.<br /><br /><br />The same argument for launch vehicles could be made for the spacecraft element too. NASA will fund LM to (1) hire and develop expertise in manned vehicles, (2) develop tools, (3) develop software, etc. Should LM then be allowed to use those same experts, tools, software on a second system and sell it in the private market?<br /><br />Any ways, its a complex situation.</i>

 

[crix]

Lol, agreed! I'd fly a Microsoft rocket too, for cheap, even if I had to wear a temporary "Vista" tattoo on my frickin' forehead. Besides, I've never had a BSOD on XP SP2... I quite like Microsoft actually.

 

[vt_hokie]

I wonder what Mr. Bigelow thinks about the existence of Blackstar. Unfortunately, I have to think that the willingness to spend big bucks on expendable launchers indicates that any operational TSTO space plane is likely just a dream.

 

[skyone]

Mr Bigelow I think, is better positioned than anyone else to be a real life James Bond Villan.

 

[trailrider]

I have often said that the KEY to continued SPACE EXPLORATION is rapid development of COMMERCIAL space enterprise right behind it (or as soon as practicable)! I HOPE this agreement leads to actual advances in the development of MANNED commercial space enterprise.<br /><br />My CONCERNS, however, are that:<br /><br />1) This is only an agreement to STUDY the POTENTIAL for use of Atlas V and a new manned spacecraft.<br /><br />2) Lockheed-Martin (and their previous incarnations, Lockheed and Martin Marietta, have NOT, in recent history ever had to compete in the commercial world! I cite the Commercial Titan Launch Vehicle program, as an example of a "great" idea for a commercial LV that had virtually NO chance at being PROFITABLE from the very beginning! When proposed, Martin-Marietta was going to offer launch services (UNmanned) for US$125M each (for the launch of two satellites on the same vehicle, the cost could be split between two customers). The only problem with this was that, dispite using major components from the Titan 34D/Titan IV programs, they were competing with the French-subsidized Ariane IV at $85M per launch! Needless-to-say, the program didn't go very far before being cancelled. They sold three CTLV's to private customers, and then the 4th one to NASA to launch a Mars probe (which whet ca-flooey when they fired up the pyrovalves on the payload out to Mars)! <br /><br />(This was a great disappointment to me personally, as I did a lot of the design work on the Stage 2 structure, and was not long afterward "doorknobbed" with 3499 others in the 1989 "massacre"! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> As such, this was the last active participation in which I took part in the industry!)<br /><br />So, you will pardon me if I remain hopeful, but skeptical...at least until I see some chips hitting the factory floor!<br /><br />HOPE it comes true! Then maybe there could be some spin-off that NASA can use (in the same manner that the USAF has made use of the basi

 

[shoogerbrugge]

two concerns come to mind. One pointed out by Edkylle on the NSF forum is extremly valid. Current going price of the Atlas V is about 138 million USD according to the GAO. An 8 people capsule with 7 paying customers would make that 19.7m USD a seat. Not much less then Soyuz. (This is without development cost of the capsule and man-rating of the Launch Vehicle)<br /><br />As said, credit to Edkylle for pointing this out.<br /><br />My second point is this<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>the Atlas V will never be as cheap as a new launcher designed from scratch for lower cost/mass production. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not neccesarly true, its about economics of scale and mass production. If the Atlas V start flying 12 missions a year or more then production and launch cost might be lowered considerably. A clean sheet of paper design is no garantue for a cheaper and more reliable design.<br /><br />

 

[mrmorris]

Hmm -- the SDC version of the article specifically notes that the deal is *just* to man-rate the Atlas. No crew vessel is involved at the present time.<br /><br /><i>Bigelow said his third module, dubbed Sundancer, would have a mass of 8,618.4 kilograms and be equipped with life support systems, attitude control, three windows, on-orbit maneuverability, reboost and de-orbit capability.</i><br /><br />That's a heckuva lot of capability in a single BA module. I like the fact that it won't exist until 2009, but they can already state the mass down to fractions of a kilogram. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />From the capabilities described, plus the fact that they plan to add two more modules by 2012 indicate that Sundancer isn't so much a sub-scale habitat prototype as it is a Command & Control module that also happens to have some living space included.

 

[flynn]

If they mean 19 000.319 604 141 Lbs why don't they just say so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

My first knee-jerk reaction to this was that it was NASAs way of killing the COTS program (I have been and still am suspicious that they might do this), but I am beginning to think that this is just NASAs way of looking for an alternative to the Ares-1. If the whole Project Constellation thing folds, then at least a baseline Atlas V could lift an Orion CM with a stripped down SM to allow for ISS serviceing missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[jamie_young]

<font color="yellow">My first knee-jerk reaction to this was that it was NASAs way of killing the COTS program (I have been and still am suspicious that they might do this), but I am beginning to think that this is just NASAs way of looking for an alternative to the Ares-1. If the whole Project Constellation thing folds, then at least a baseline Atlas V could lift an Orion CM with a stripped down SM to allow for ISS serviceing missions.</font><br /><br />But it's not NASA. It's Lockheed Martin. Atlas X is the alternative to Ares 1.

 

[subzero788]

"Current going price of the Atlas V is about 138 million USD according to the GAO. An 8 people capsule with 7 paying customers would make that 19.7m USD a seat. Not much less then Soyuz. (This is without development cost of the capsule and man-rating of the Launch Vehicle)"<br /><br />Good point, the cost will probably be high. However, there are a few factors which could make the Bigelow orbital trip better value than the Soyuz. <br /><br />1) Paying passengers would not be restricted to the 8-10 day flight normally provided by the Soyuz/ISS; passengers could conceivably spend months in space at a time. <br /><br />2)Launching on an American rocket would not require relocation and months of training in Russia, including ISS-specific systems--persumably the standards for Atlas V/Bigelow module training would be lower than that for a Soyuz/ISS stay.<br /><br />3) The larger avaliabilty of seats (the article suggests upwards of 100 a year, at 6-7 per launch) compared to that of the Soyuz (2 a year at the moment) would make the Atlas more attractive to potential customers. Already there is a queue forming for Soyuz seats, as a result of demand from both "tourists" and countries like Mayalasia and South Korea. If more seats were avaliable I'm certain that other potential customers such as private companies and corporations, other countries ect would fill them.