'Massive news' next week?

[radarredux]

>> <i>My first knee-jerk reaction to this was that it was NASAs way of killing the COTS program</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">But it's not NASA. It's Lockheed Martin. Atlas X is the alternative to Ares 1.</font>/i><br /><br />Correct. As far as I can tell (I haven't had a chance to read all the information yet), NASA is not a player in the discussed effort.</i>

 

[PistolPete]

This is what happens when I don't read the article first (I have a bad habit of doing this). It seems to me that LM is just trying to find a new market for its Atlas V, seeing as how the whole govornment contract thing isn't working out for them and all of the private sat launches are outsourceing to Russia et al. It also opens up the door for NASA as a way out of "The Stick". I think it would be ironic if LM got the Atlas V Heavy man-rated before NASA got "The Stick" operational. I wouldn't be supprised if this causes NASA to finally ditch the Ares-1. <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>

 

[PistolPete]

You know, this news coupled with the news of LM leaving ILS.... the pieces are starting to fall into place in this puzzle.... <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>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Lockheed is definitely on fire (in a good way) right now.</font>/i><br /><br />My initial excitement has been tempered a bit as I have read a little more (but not much). This appears to only be a study; no firm commitment by LM that they will build anything. Furthermore, the study seems focused on the launch vehicle and not the crew vehicle. Still waiting for more information...<br /><br />The Bigelow information is a little more complete and is interesting (until I hear more about LM). The critical factor is that they are accelerating their timeline to create a habital space station -- a smaller version before the BA-330. It should be flying before ISS is complete!<br /><br />The timeline goes something like this:<br /><br />2009/2010 Bigelow launches Sundancer module -- a small space station capable of supporting a crew of 3 people. The catch: no current way to get a crew there. Bigelow is hoping Sundance will stimulate demand to build launchers.<br /><br />2012 Bigelow launches BA-330 -- the originally planned spact station module, and it will dock with the first Sundance module. Together the combined Sundance + BA-330 will support a crew of about 8 people.<br /><br />Here are various links:<br />http://www.space.com/news/060921_bigelow_plans.html<br />http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/007777.html#007777<br />http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/</i>

 

[no_way]

<i>Current going price of the Atlas V is about 138 million USD according to the GAO. </i><br /><br />Yes, and this is mostly because of nonexistant flight rate. They have fixed costs, facilities and people to keep, and if they only launch once or twice a year those launches are going to be expensive.<br />However, launch ten times a year and the fixed costs will be spread much thinner and cost of a single launch comes way down.

 

[spacefire]

thought the Atlas V is way different than the original ICBM version, and please pardon my ignorance, I don't know mucha bout the series except that it no has Russian engines, the mere fact that it was 'originally' designed without much regard for cost won't pose a barrier for lowering the costs/seat to the same lavel as a launcher designed specifically for commercial services, and man-rated from the beginning? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

The last of the Atlas series that had ties to the original ICBM design launched a couple of years ago. I forget the specific model number. The Atlas V's have no commonality with the Atlas ICBM.<br /><br />It's actually not fair to say that the Atlas V wasn't designed for reduced cost. It was... but unfortunately the assumptions used for the 'reduced cost' scenario were flawed. The design was made to use common parts across all of the various 'flavors' of the Atlas family so that parts could be produced in bulk and shared across lines. So they built a production facility capable of turning out large numbers of launchers of the various classes. Unfortunately, this is 'economy of scale', and only works when the scale is high enough... which it never has been.<br /><br />SpaceX is working the economy angle from a different anlge. They use common parts as well, but they've also worked to severely reduce the manpower requirements. It's primarily this which provides the overhead that kills the Atlas (and Delta) EELV's ability to produce low cost/lb launches in the current launch market. It might *be* possible for the EELVs to severely curtail manpower requirements -- I don't know enough about them to make a guess on this. However, *unless* they can do so, they'll never be able to approach the cost/lb figure that SpaceX can meet. Always assuming of course that SpaceX *can* make the Falcon series work in the first place.

 

[alokmohan]

What is massvie news next week?Where we stand at present?

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

So can someone summerize? What was the "massive news"?<br />I was thinking along the lines, that the Chinese (or someone) were going to buy the STS hardware in 2010. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

Look back at this post, it tells it all. <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>

 

[j05h]

> So can someone summerize? What was the "massive news"? <br /><br />The Massive News is apparently that Bigelow and Lockheed are exploring issues of man-rating the Atlas V rockets using internal funds. The article on nasaspaceflight talks about 16 (!) flights per year to a Bigelow Hotel. Lockheed seems to finally Get It about spaceflight. Will there be follow-through?<br /><br />There is something I didn't see emphasized: This is a turn-around for Bigelow as well. Since inception, Bigelow has said they will build components and sell them to operators. Now it appears they are changing tack and building their own orbital complex. "Sundancer" sounds like the "American FGB" that I've been talking up for years. Lockheed-Martin getting back into human flight is big news and this would provide LM with a ground-up human flight solution. <br /><br />Things that aren't answered yet include which capsule they plan on putting on top of the Atlas V 401. Immediate assumption is of course the CEV, but this might not be the best choice. The SpaceX Dragon might be flight-ready way before CEV and LM would do well to make the Atlas able to handle several capsules. Dragon is already geared toward LEO ops, has the space for 8 seats (well, 7 for now) and will be ready a couple years sooner than CEV. Like Java and WWW programming, platform-neutrality is the new game.<br /><br />Space is da place.<br /><br /> /> I was thinking along the lines, that the Chinese (or someone) were going to buy the STS hardware in 2010.<br /><br />On selling STS to China: there is this teeny-tiny little law called ITAR that will get in the way. That and the whole issue of Loral guidance systems and neutron bomb designs... China is, IMHO, our most vital partner in continuing the world industrial economy, but must be held somewhat aloof technologically. I love Chinese culture (practice kung fu, run www.projectsanbao.com, etc) but they have absolutely screwed us <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacester]

LOL, 'new space' got slash dotted and I can't think of a finer guy than our very own Shuttle_RTF. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> His awesome site seems to have weathered the storm nicely.<br /><br />This is in fact massive news IMO and wow is there a lot to talk about. It was more than a little frustrating yesterday with effing charter cable internet going down for the entire state nearly all day!! I didn't hear the news until 8 hours later last night. So I'm still in catch-up mode, lol. A lot of great points have been made by others, so it's speculation time for me. A top-down approach before getting into specifics. (Oh BTW docm, changing the title of your opening post would be very cool at this point)<br />***<br />OK I think I can sum up in a nutshell my theory of what is going on: This is all about Robert Bigelow making things happen. He is no longer an upstart, he is now mainstream aerospace. He has gone mainstream in order to influence things to everyone's benefit, specifically to insure, as JO5H said, platform-neutrality.<br /><br />Here goes my thinking:<br /><br /><b><font color="black">He's going to make things happen</font></b><br />Mr. Bigelow has the determination to make this thing happen even if he has to do it all by himself. In his mind, 'this thing' means: "to bring the benefits of space development to fruition, not just for the privileged few, but for all of humanity". That's not marketing fluff IMO, that's the way the guy thinks.<br /><br />From the NSF story: 'We need to encourage creativity, imagination, and innovation, in order to bring the benefits of space development to fruition, not just for the privileged few, but for all of humanity,' said company founder and president Robert T. Bigelow, in relation to this agreement.<br /><br />I note that he uses one of my favorite terms: 'space development'. Not 'exploration', not 'exploitation', not 'tourism'. More on that later: this is ab <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

LockMart launchers + Bigelow habs & hubs + private ships (Dragon/CXV/Dream Chaser....whatever) = a working LEO/ISS system before NASA can get on its shorts with Orioin/Ares. <br /><br />For that matter is there anything stopping LockMart from running a two-tier capsule dev (Orion/Orion Lite), one for each track? <br /><br />Bigelow does indeed seem to have the sheer force of will to pull it off. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Bigelow is big news then.

 

[barrykirk]

This is just too exciting!!! <br /><br />I went on the lockheed martin site and started researching their propaganda about the Atlas V...<br />and I'm ashamed to admit that I had some very bad and wrong preconceptions about it.<br /><br />I had been under the impression that the common booster cores were LOX/LH2.... I was very happily surprised that it's based on LOX/RP-1....<br /><br />As for where Lockheed is planning on taking it....<br /><br />http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17607&rsbci=14917&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400<br /><br />They are showing a series of planned or possible improvements to the Atlas V family that goes all the way up to 140 MTons!!!<br /><br />Given this massive news with Bigelow and the stuff coming out of SpaceX.... <br /><br />It might be possible that Aries I and Aries V might both be obsolete and unnecessary before they are finished being developed.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">So can someone summerize?</font>/i><br /><br />(1) Bigelow Aerospace will have a habitable 3-person space station (Sundancer) in orbit around 2009-2010 (although, no means to get human to it). By 2012 Bigelow will connect a larger module (BA-330) to Sundance to create a space station supporting 8-9 crew members (note: that is larger than ISS).<br /><br />(2) Lockheed Martin is investigating the technical and economic issues of man-rating an Atlas V with an eye towards providing launches to Bigelow's space station (up to 16 launches per year). Right now they have only committed to a <i>study</i>.</i>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Thanks for that men! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>(2) Lockheed Martin is investigating the technical and economic issues of man-rating an Atlas V with an eye towards providing launches to Bigelow's space station (up to 16 launches per year). Right now they have only committed to a <i>study</i>.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />My take is that they'd be stupid not to get on board with Bigelow & (most likely) SpaceX. The reason is business 101: use particapation in a very public commercial manned program as advertising for the satellite launch operations. <br /><br />I can see the ads now....<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

You seriosly believe all these,?strange.Any way it is news.

 

[trailrider]

DC-3/C-47; C-54/DC-4; KC-135/B-707; DC-9/C-9; etc. But you get the point...<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">You seriosly believe all these,?strange.</font>/i><br /><br />Well, I do believe (A) Lockheed-Martin will conduct the <i>study</i> and (B) Bigelow will put <i>something</i> into orbit in the 2000-2010 time frame. The rest... well we will just have to wait and see.<br /><br />Bigelow has already successfully placed a prototype in orbit, which puts him ahead of others in the "New Space" arena. However, there is still much to do beyond providing for habitable space. Life support systems, propulsion (for at least station keeping), communication, docking capability, suitable energy generation to support all this, etc. still need to be demonstrated.<br /><br />Regarding Lockheed Martin, I have bigger question marks. I am not so much concerned about their technical capability but their commitment to pursue the private market. I looked at their United States customer list on their web site, and they only listed government agencies. I don't know if it is in their DNA to risk their own capital to go after unproven markets (e.g., tourists in space to a yet to be proven space station). But we will see...</i>