NASA competing with commercial providers?

[radarredux]

In the April 16 issue of AW&ST there is a short article titled "Ride Sharing" that discusses some plans that, while interesting, could put NASA into competition with commercial providers for launch vehicles (Atlas, Delta, Falcon) and crew transportation (Dragon, Dream Chaser, ...):<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Scott Horowitz...starts very preliminary talks with potential commercial and military users of the Ares launch vehicles ... Michael Griffin says the more users that can be found for the new vehicles, once they start flying in the coming decade, the better. ... The same goes for the Orion crew exploration vehicle also being developed under Constellation. Says Griffin: "If somebody thinks they can build a business by licensing copies of Orion from Lockheed Martin and flying it commercially, my attitude would be to go for it."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Sounds interesting and ominous. Words like these could make it very difficult for groups like SpaceX to attract outside funding for their vehicles.

 

[trailrider]

"In the April 16 issue of AW&ST there is a short article titled "Ride Sharing" that discusses some plans that, while interesting, could put NASA into competition with commercial providers for launch vehicles (Atlas, Delta, Falcon) and crew transportation (Dragon, Dream Chaser, ...):<br /><br />In reply to:<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Scott Horowitz...starts very preliminary talks with potential commercial and military users of the Ares launch vehicles ... Michael Griffin says the more users that can be found for the new vehicles, once they start flying in the coming decade, the better. ... The same goes for the Orion crew exploration vehicle also being developed under Constellation. Says Griffin: "If somebody thinks they can build a business by licensing copies of Orion from Lockheed Martin and flying it commercially, my attitude would be to go for it."<br /><br /><br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br />Sounds interesting and ominous. Words like these could make it very difficult for groups like SpaceX to attract outside funding for their vehicles."<br /><br />I don't see how this is a problem. In the first place, the Constellation series (Orion, Ares, etc.) are way behind in development compared with SpaceX, etc., dispite the problems they've had in their first flights. Besides which, the Constellation series will have capabilities and PRICES that may EXCEED those of the private companies and what their customers may want. Bigalow himself is talking with LockMart, et al, about the use of some of their products. I think what Griffin is saying is that if private industry wants to buy launch vehicles and services provided by the PRIVATE contractors who are building the Constellation hardware, it may cut the overall costs of development of that hardware, which would be a great thing for NASA's strapped budget. In addition, there may be a

 

[holmec]

That's a good point trailrider. The 707 proved to be the model for the rest of the commercial planes after it including the 747. BTW the 747 was made to compete on a military contract which it lost the the C-5. Then it found a niche in the overseas flight for passengers and revolutionized that market. Not to mention that the 747 became the ideal airframe for Air Force One.<br /><br />Conclusion: There's a lot of give and take between government and commercial sector. And they kind of complement each other. <br /><br />So there is a potential for lockmart to make a lunar/mars rated capsule for the commercial sector. There will probably be the same potential for the new soyuz that Russia and Europe are putting together. But I bet a big winner for this commercial space race will be Biglow since he can provide the modules for space stations thus destinations.<br /><br />Incidentally it would be neat to see Biglow make modules for a interplanetary space ship that could make runs from earth to moon to mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

I think a better term than space stations would be "extra terrestial habitats" What he is developing is really more than just space stations.

 

[holmec]

Well I would think that "extraterrestrial habitats" would be more of a generic term. A space station implies a function. As opposed to a space hub or a space ship.<br /><br />Because a habitat can be anything from a tent to a city or even a transatlantic ship. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

I prefer "module", because Bigelow's technology applies to all the above functions. Ship, station, hub, Habitat, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[trailrider]

An update:<br /><br />NASA has announced cancellation of the Orion pressurized CARGO MODULE version, as well as a 2-year stretch-out of testing and hardware delivery! Apparently, DUE TO THE EXISTANCE OF THE COTS CONTRACTS, NASA is ceeding cargo handling to the COTS companies. That sure does NOT sound like NASA is competing with commercial space companies, except possibly on exploration equipment, which is what they are best equipped to develop. <br /><br />Now the problem is that there is going to be an additional 2-year gap between shuttle retirement and IOC (Initial Operational Capability) of Orion/Ares I! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> This does NOT, BTW, come as a surprise to this devout cynic! But it is still disappointing. I'm also not sure what effect this will have on the NASA/contractor workforce manning levels. That can mean loss of technical personnel, perhaps even into non-AD industries.<br /><br />Just heard a retired NASA engineer, Don Nelson, being interviewed on Fox News, who doubts Orion will ever fly! Hope he's wrong! He also is of the opinion that the private outfits don't have the money to build viable spacecraft, and this is resulting in concern by NASA personnel about jobs, etc.<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra! (Those interested in going into space may want to learn Russian, Chinese, or even Hindi!)

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"An update:"</font><br /><br />Here's one article from SpaceRef.com on this announcement:<br /><br /><br />NASA Announces Orion <br />Contract Modification - Delivery Delayed, Tests Added, Cargo Vehicle Dropped <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>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"NASA has announced cancellation of the Orion pressurized CARGO MODULE version,..."<br /><br />Woah! That's interesting news!

 

[josh_simonson]

Not really, they've been talking about axing that version for some time.<br /><br />Formal cancellation does though make it abundantly clear to the COTS II compeditors that there will be opportunities for them in the indefinite future because NASA will have zero capability to resupply any type of outpost except with the Orion capsule.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Formal cancellation does though make it abundantly clear to the COTS II compeditors that there will be opportunities for them in the indefinite future</font>/i><br /><br />I agree. I see this as a net plus. The COTS II players won't have to worry about competing with NASA to supply ISS, and NASA, which already has too much on its plate, can focus its limited resources on the manned version of Orion.</i>

 

[holmec]

Here is the NASA article on the cancellation of that pressurized cargo module and other modifications to the CEV contract:<br />http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/apr/HQ_C0721_Orion_Contract_Mod.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Actually, only production of the unmanned version was eliminated.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Actually, only production of the unmanned version was eliminated.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Right. But it wouldn't be manned cargo because that would be the Orion capsule.....LOL!<br /><br />Before Lockeed Martin was chosen, NASA put out a document describing the VSE and in it there were three concepts for payload: Manned and cargo (Orion, its always manned and cargo btw. Can't send up naked astronauts, can we? Luggage is cargo.), pressurized unmanned cargo module and unpressurized unmanned cargo module.<br /><br />I think the unpressurized unmanned cargo idea was scraped right away. And now with COTS (and I dare say Space-X demo flight) they scrapped the unmanned pressurized cargo module. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Can't send up naked astronauts, can we? Luggage is cargo."<br /><br />By definitionit is not. The few things that go with a crew member is not cargo.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>By definitionit is not. The few things that go with a crew member is not cargo.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />By your standards not NASA's. Not even by USAF (from experience). Not even from airlines which put passenger's luggage in the CARGO hold! Luggage is most definitely cargo.<br /><br />But I failed to mention that NASA was talking about cargo other than luggage that will fly with the Orion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Nope, my standard is NASA's from experience. (I have packed station and astronaut hardware). USAF is not NASA , therefore your experience does not matter

 

[barf9]

My God, you people are actually arguing about the definition of "Cargo". No wonder NASA can't get a project in on time and on budget.