2006/08/18 Space.com and this article at Spaceflight Now.<br /><br /><b>NASA is making an unprecedented investment in commercial space transportation services with the hope of creating a competitive market for supply flights to the International Space Station (ISS).<br /><br />Two industry partners will receive a combined total of approximately $500 million to help fund the development of reliable, cost-effective access to low-Earth orbit. The agency is using its Space Act authority to facilitate the demonstration of these new capabilities. NASA signed Space Agreements Aug. 18 with Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of El Segundo, Calif., and Rocketplane-Kistler (RpK) of Oklahoma City to develop and demonstrate the vehicles, systems, and operations needed to support a human facility such as ISS. Once the space shuttle is retired, NASA hopes to become just one of many customers for a new, out-of-this-world parcel service.<br /><br />The venture marks a break with tradition for the 48-year-old space agency. "This is the first opportunity NASA has taken to engage entrepreneurs in a way that allows us to satisfy our needs and lets commercial industry gain a foothold. It could, and should, have profound impacts on the way NASA does business," said Marc Timm, acting Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program executive in NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.<br /><br />Alan Lindenmoyer, manager of the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office at NASA's Johnson Space Center, said NASA's offer of seed money fulfills President Bush's Jan. 14, 2004 directive to promote commercial participation in space exploration. The 2005 NASA Authorization Act also calls on the agency to advance space commerce. "We are directly tied to the Vision for Space Exploration and the law of the land," Lindenmoyer said. "COT</b>
- Status
This was fabulous news....<br /><br />This should really help out space-x<br /><br />And I hate to admit that I had not heard of Kistler-aerospace up until this time.<br /><br />I checked their website and they are claiming 2 stage to<br />orbit LOX/RP-1 with both stages fully re-usable.<br /><br />Sounds good to me!!!!<br /><br />$250 Mil to them is a goodly amount. Does anyone know how far along in design are they?
I am very disappointed that Space Dev got nothing, but happy beyond words for SpaceX & Kistler / Rocketplane. I am sure that the DreamChaser has a long & productive future ahead of it.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>
Looks like after 10 years, the Kistler K-1 may finally fly. <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>
This money will ONLY go for the capsule, the government is VERY solid on NOT spending money designated for one program on another!<br /><br />Spacex's Falcon 1, 5, and 9 are designated for the job of pure private industry satellite insertion into orbit. The Dragon capsule and what ever Kistler wants to call their effort are what the NASA money is to go for!<br /><br />Right now I would seriously expect the spacex is only concentrating on the next (hopefully successful) launch of the Falson 1! They MUST first establish a good solid reliability record with that rocket! Then and ONLY then will they be able to get the kind of financing it will take to go on to larger launch systems! This industry is TOUGH!
Yesssssssss!!!!!!!<br /><br />IMO they chose the correct two companies. The recent merger of Kistler and Rocketplane - both of which have been ridiculed or ignored here many times - created a powerhouse.<br /><br />SpaceDev will be fine. I'm sure they're disappointed but they are a terrific company as well and they will be fine.<br /><br />I had forgotten that Orbital Sciences will be taking over as the prime contractor on the K-1. Good reporting there.<br /><br />So are Andrews, SpaceHab and t/space going to be crying in their beer tonight or is this just another minor bump in the road? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Although it would have been nice to see the HL-20 fly. But when NASA went kapsule krazy SpaceDev was doomed. <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>
Thinking it through, SpaceX and Rocketplane/Kistler were the obvious choices since both companies had so much in actual hardware compared to the other competitors.<br /><br />I'm happy to see SpaceX win since they seem such a solid and conservative operation. I'm a little disappointed though that NASA didn't choose a higher risk company, with a potential higher payoff, for the second company. I was hoping t/Space would get a chance with their innovative airlaunched design.
"Their split [SpaceX] is only $250 million, that isn't much when it comes to man-rating a never-flown system. "<br /><br />Actually the split is better than that, SpaceX can recieve closer to $300 million than $250 million. And when that money is added in to the other monies SpaceX is playing with it begins to get quite impressive.<br /><br />Elon Musk has invested over $100 million of his own money into SpaceX. SpaceX also has a $100 million contract with DARPA. When the NASA money is added in we're talking about half a billion dollars even without including the fees already charged for the various private launch contracts SpaceX has signed up!
"$250 Mil to them is a goodly amount. Does anyone know how far along in design are they [SpaceX]?"<br /><br />http://www.spacex.com
$500 million is half of what it was supposed to have cost to build the Venture Star. Falcon V and Dragon are not nearly as complex as the high risk Venture Star. Looks like Elon has the best shot. <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>
Kudos to SpaceX and Kistler!<br /><br />fly high and prosper <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
>This money will ONLY go for the capsule, the government is VERY solid on NOT spending money designated for one program on another! <<br /><br />Its not about one piece, its about doing the job!<br /><br />From SpaceX website about the COTS victory, (http://www.spacex.com)<br />"El Segundo CA – August 18, 2006 – SpaceX announced that it was selected by NASA to demonstrate delivery and return of cargo to the International Space Station. At the option of NASA, the Agreement can be extended to include demonstrating transport of crew to and from the International Space Station (ISS). If successful, NASA will have the ability to use the demonstrated capability to resupply the ISS after the 2010 retirement of the Space Shuttle. The SpaceX team mates for COTS include ARES Corporation, MDA Federal Inc., Odyssey Space Research L.L.C., Paragon Space Development Corporation, and SPACEHAB, Inc."<br /><br />You can't say the money goes to develope a capsule...Not just a capsule, but a Launch with capsule to orbit, to dock with ISS. Now your talking about knowhow and procedures you get with a operational mission control personell. I imagine either SpaceX personnel would be in mission control with NASA personnel, or SpaceX would have its own mission control, or SpaceX would provide training to NASA mission control. Whatever, my point is its not about the capsule its about the job and the people behind it.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
>Falcon V and Dragon< ??<br />Psst...its Falcon 9 and Dragon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
>I checked their website and they are claiming 2 stage to<br />orbit LOX/RP-1 with both stages fully re-usable. <<br /><br />Yeah, quite extrodinary. 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>frodo. I luv ya man, but you really ought to learn to do some research before posting about SpaceX. This is at least the third time you've posted about them and been just dead wrong on the FACTS. No MATTER how many ALL CAPS words you use. J/K <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I could've pointed this out earlier tonight but I wanted someone else to say it first. It's not like anyone here doesn't already know your opinion that SPACEflight IS hard. BUT you should value your own credibility MORE. hehehehe sorry but I can't resist, SpaceX is the answer and you still don't realize it. If it was anybody but them I'd let it go.<br />***<br />Anyway, what I'm seeing on their press release indicates - reading between the lines just a little - that if the schedule holds (I know, I know) NASA will have crew and cargo capability BEFORE Shuttle retires.<br /><br />Will the COTS "ace in the hole" of 2006 end up becoming the winning hand in Dr. Griffin's poker game of access to LEO? Does this take the pressure off CLV/CEV somewhat? <br /><br />COTS doesn't get us to the moon (yet) but has our pal Mike secretly decided in his own mind that he's going to make sure COTS works so that he can stay on schedule with VSE by skipping the need to go to ISS with Ares?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
"Thinking it through, SpaceX and Rocketplane/Kistler were the obvious choices since both companies had so much in actual hardware compared to the other competitors. "<br /><br />What hardware? What they both have are rocket engines that are tested. SpaceX also has a failed launch of a 1:20 modelrocket of their Falcon 9. <br /><br />As far as I see it not going for at least one proposal that has a realistically good chance to fly in the 2010-2012 (SpaceHab on an Atlas V for instance) is only good news for the Russians (Energia), as that means NASA will have to pay for Progress and Soyuz flights in 2010+.<br /><br />I would have thought NASA would be thinking a little more like people who know what can be done and what not. It is highly unlikely that either SpaceX or KRP can build a new rockets that only exist on paper right now (Falcon 9 and K-1) plus creating a cargo or crew delivery system to the ISS within 4 years. They don't have the resources for doing that in parallel and they don't have any experience in either of those tasks either. <br /><br />What NASA did is double the risk with going for companies that don't have a viable launch option and don't have experience with spacecraft design.<br /><br />And just on a sidenote, ATV development started in 1997 and the ATV will hopefully fly in 2007 + the contractor for the ATV, EADS Space, does have great experience with spacecrafts and also got help from the Russian side on docking etc. and they still run into lots of troubles.<br /><br />The HTV is taking equally long to get it to its first flight and Mitsubishi isn't unexperienced either. The HTV has the absolutely same mission profil than a COTS vehicle would have and it does not matter that it will weigh 50% more than a COTS vehicle, what matters is that it has to perform the same task.
>What hardware? What they both have are rocket engines that are tested. SpaceX also has a failed launch of a 1:20 modelrocket of their Falcon 9.<br /><br />As far as I see it not going for at least one proposal that has a realistically good chance to fly in the 2010-2012 (SpaceHab on an Atlas V for instance) is only good news for the Russians (Energia), as that means NASA will have to pay for Progress and Soyuz flights in 2010+.<br /><<br /><br />Your concerns are quite valid. Yes this is risky business. But that is the whole point. To take steps to make it not so risky. Griffin explained at the small sat conference thing that aviation grew rapidly but space travel has not, and that insentives like COTS will help. SpaceX and Kistler might fail misserably, but its a risk worth taking.<br /><br />By the way Kistler says that the K-1 is about 75% complete. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
"By the way Kistler says that the K-1 is about 75% complete"<br /><br />http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/kistler_slammed_001127.html Here is an article from 2000 (6 years ago!!!) - the K-1 was 75% complete back then...<br /><br />Another point on KRP: they are proposing an entirely reuseable structure, however what if - what is very likely - they will have a failure during their first 2-3 test flights? They are only concentrating on a single rocket, a failure would push them back to the beginning (=12 years back, which is the year they started construction of the K-1...)
>Here is an article from 2000 (6 years ago!!!) - the K-1 was 75% complete back then... <<br /><br />OK, maybe they've been needing some cash....lol. In the COTS article it did mention part of the money to Kistler (by the way you may want to call it RK as in Rocketplane Kistler, KRP gives me memories on Cincinatti and Loni Anderson).<br /><br />I looked at their website and looked over how the K-1 is supposed to operate. It seems elegant, fairly simple. A real nice solution to space flight. And because NASA chose them, I tend to think that they have a real engineering solution. Its actually based on many proven concepts , some learned by NASA/CIA unmanned capsule flights and some by the Russians, as well as using today's materials in composites and the use of air bags for landing.<br /><br />I was curious about the reentry and it seems to be a combination of tiles and blankets as well as an all important nose cap. Its so flat it reminds me of a bottle cap rather than a cone. And that may be the aceles heal as far as reentry is concerned, that is making sure the cap is on right. Because you have to take it off to access a dockng port. <br /><br />About your other point, yes I guess they are going for broke. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
Well, I wish both of them Space X and Kistler Aerospace the best of luck.<br /><br />As for Kistler, I read something where they had filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this year.
So you're going off 6-year old information to draw your conclusions? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />I'll let someone else clarify it for you - several of you folks here are working with obsolete information, but I'm betting that several others know more about it than me.<br /><br />Or you could try google . . . these folks have been in the news. The news from 2006 even <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
"So you're going off 6-year old information to draw your conclusions? "<br /><br />Not at all. I was just responding to a claim that Rocketplane Kistler has experience in building rockets because their K-1 is 75 % built - they claimed the same thing 6 years ago which begs the question why they did not get it flight ready since then as there was only 25 % left to do on that rocket.<br /><br />My initial assertion still stands: NASA should not have chosen two companies that want to both use rockets that still are in an early development stage and have no experience whatsoever in actually building a spacecraft.<br /><br />I would have been happy if they made one conservative choice (=SpaceHab) and one risky choice (=SpaceX, tspace etc.). In that case they would have had a 80 % certainty that they would actually get a functioning spacecraft proposal for Phase 2. With the current choice I say there is about a 50 % chance we will see one of the two Phase 1 corporations actually delivering cargo to the ISS.
Well I still think your assertion is based on obsolete facts but I'm not going to be the one to argue with you, unless no one else steps up to the plate. "No experience whatsoever"? Hardly.<br /><br />I see your point on making one conservative choice and one risky choice, which is wise. But I don't think your evaluation as to which companies represent which alternatives is accurate. I'm a big SpaceX fan, but at least they are on everybody's radar screens here. But Kistler is getting a bum rap. They just needed money, and now they've got it, and their perseverance is an asset, not a liability. IMO.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram