NASA selects crew, cargo launch partners

[mrcolumbus]

Ok, it is too harsh to say that they have "no experience whatsoever". But you must conceed that they have (a) not had a successful launch until today of any orbital rocket and (b) not built an orbital spacecraft. Please correct me if I am wrong, but at least as far as I know these are facts.

 

[spacester]

Fair enough. BTW, Google is still up and running, I just checked. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Just had a chance to examine the SpaceX Dragon design. Dragon can carry 7 on 2 decks; CEV just 3-4. Even the Mars block only carries 6 <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />My first impression was 'if this thing flies <b><i>WHY</i> build the CEV at all??</b><br /><br />Dragons crew complement is the closest to the shuttles and with smaller crew configurations, say just 3 0n the upper deck, cargo transport should be possible on the lower deck. Try that with CEV.<br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Well of course the standard answer to that is the US Government needs to have assured access to space for its personnel, using government equipment, and they cannot be sure of having that by depending on private companies. <br /><br />It is not too difficult to find counter-arguments for that answer, but there it is. As much a fan of SpaceX and Bigelow and others that I am, I can see Mike Griffin's position. Thus, my speculation earlier on this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

So if it's spaceworthy just license the thing for 5% of what CEV would cost. With SpaceX's corporate relationships with NASA's 'normal' contractors it would be a distinction without a difference. Just have one of them build it...which they likely will already be doing, at least partially if not completely. <br /><br />Sorry, but I'm from Michigan where common sense is still considered a virtue <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

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 />It seems you did not read my whole sentence. Note the very important part which said 'compared to the other competitors'<br /><br />The fact is the winners of Phase 1 COTS have hardware in hand for the proposed job, as compared to the competitors which have, oh what is it now? Oh, that's right, ZERO hardware (except for t/Space)! The fact is almost all of the other companies only possess nice designs of the actual mission hardware, they haven't built anything yet for the job.<br /><br />In comparison SpaceX is already fabricating the engines and the body of the Falcon IX rocket, and Kistlers vehicle is supposedly 75% complete. Picking SpaceX and Rocketplane/Kistler is the safest and most conservative choice to achieve the COTS objectives.

 

[spacester]

I have to admit that I couldn't be totally sure before that the "75% complete K-1" claim was accurate, but now I am. I'm pretty darn sure that Griffin's people have checked it out. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrcolumbus]

SpaceHab would use a Atlas V 401 - a rocket that actually exists and has flown. <br /><br />In terms of building the actual cargo spacecraft Spacehab, SpaceX and K-1 have all nothing more than mock-ups.<br /><br />Therefore SpaceHab would have been a more conservative choice.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Just had a chance to examine the SpaceX Dragon design. Dragon can carry 7 on 2 decks; CEV just 3-4. Even the Mars block only carries 6" <br /><br />"My first impression was 'if this thing flies WHY build the CEV at all??"<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I have always been a critic of the NASA CEV design choices, but fair is fair, and you're not being fair to NASA.<br /><br />First off the Dragon carries those 7 people sardined into the Dragon, Gemini capsule style. The CEV is designed to carry up to 6 people and with Apollo style accomodations. Secondly the CEV is designed for reentry from a high velocity lunar return flight.<br /><br />Comparing the Dragon to the CEV is as comparing apples to oranges. The Dragon is designed for short duration, low Earth orbit missions only. The CEV is desiged for deep space long duration missions. <br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"In terms of building the actual cargo spacecraft Spacehab, SpaceX and K-1 have all nothing more than mock-ups."<br /><br />Even if you are refering to just an orbital vehicle, as opposed to a launch booster, you are wrong. First off does SpaceHab even have a mockup? Secondly, the second stage of the Kistler launch vehicle IS the orbital vehicle, and the Kistler launch vehicle is 75% complete and not a mockup.<br /><br />"SpaceHab would use a Atlas V 401 - a rocket that actually exists and has flown."<br /><br />Only flown for cargo missions. The Falcon IX and Kistler are being built from the ground up as manned mission vehicles.<br /><br />Plus the larger point still remains...SpaceX and Kistler have actual hardware for the COTS mission in hand. SpaceX has even built the hardware itself. SpaceHab has built nothing for the mission and has nothing in hand for the mission.<br /><br />So putting all of NASA's eggs into SpaceHab's basket hardly seems the safest and most conservative choice to me. <br /><br />

 

[mrcolumbus]

"Plus the larger point still remains...SpaceX and Kistler have actual hardware for the COTS mission in hand. SpaceX has even built the hardware itself. SpaceHab has built nothing for the mission and has nothing in hand for the mission. "<br /><br />You are implying that it makes a difference if SpaceHab owns the Atlas V or does not own it. Why should NASA care if SpaceHab owns the launcher or does not own the launcher? The point is that the launcher exists and is a reliable vehicle for cargo launches, whereas for SpaceX and for RPK it is not a safe bet that their vehicles will actually fly - not even mentioning that thez will be reliable enough for a crewed launch. The K-1 is in development since 1994 and has not had a single test flight yet and looking at how SpaceX is pushing back launch dates for the Falcon 1 (for the first launch from summer of 2005 until the actual launch attempt in March 2006 and for the second launch from August to September then November and now probably to December 2006 or January 2007) it is not clear to me how they will actually manage to launch a rocket with 20 times the mass.<br /><br />When we come to the actual spacecraft (that is the orbital vehicle that will dock to the spacestation - while the K-1 upper stage will go entirely into orbit, only the cargo module will dock to the ISS), to build a mock-up only is for PR only, a company only has more hardware built if they have a prototyp built or something that you can test. None of the COTS finalists had that. Kistler does not have that either, what they have is the rocket engines assembled with the first stage of the K-1 and a partly finished second stage, but they don't have the second stage capsule as of now, nor do they have an actual docking mechanism, the required software, attitude control systems etc. - none of the 6 finalists have developed any subsystem that they will need as of now - they just have proposals.<br /><br />That said SpaceX and KistlerRP do not have more hardware read

 

[gunsandrockets]

"That said SpaceX and KistlerRP do not have more hardware ready than the other competitors."<br /><br />Wrong, but why repeat myself?<br /><br />"Rather because SpaceHab could have launched on an existing rocket, SpaceHab's proposal would have been quicker to develop and would have been a conservative choice that gives NASA a good chance to actually get a spacecraft that will be delivering cargo to the ISS at some point between 2010-2014 on a reliable rocket." <br /><br /><br /><br />Since the SpaceHab proposal was tied to the Atlas V, it's hard to see how SpaceHab could have succeeded under the budget limits of the COTS program. The Atlas V is too expensive, just the cost of a single Atlas V would swallow up more than 25% of the entire Phase 1 COTS budget.

 

[holmec]

>I have to admit that I couldn't be totally sure before that the "75% complete K-1" claim was accurate, but now I am. I'm pretty darn sure that Griffin's people have checked it out. <<br /><br />Wow, I feel like Superman just rescued me.<br /><br />Spacester to the rescue! Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>gunsandrockts said;<br /><br />First off the Dragon carries those 7 people sardined into the Dragon, Gemini capsule style. The CEV is designed to carry up to 6 people and with Apollo style accomodations. Secondly the CEV is designed for reentry from a high velocity lunar return flight. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />For LEO the accomodations are hardly and issue: it's supposed to be a taxi, not a limosine.<br /><br />As for the second point; my main comparison was between Dragon and CEV block 1 (3-4 passenger), which essentially have the same mission: LEO and ISS. IF you have Dragon already flying those why bother with a CEV b1 <b>for the same mission?</b><br /><br />A Mars ship is another issue, and one I believe needs re-thinking. IMO a Mars mission doesn't need a CEV module at all, and eliminating it would free up a lot of weight better used for other things like redundent stores and a decent habitat. Virtually every space artist alive has come up with better ideas for a Mars ship than the CEV scheme, and a lot of them work at NASA.<br /><br />An Earth return vehicle (might as well be a Dragon) could just as well be waiting for them in LEO or at the ISS, or can't NASA handle an orbital insertion on Mars return? This has the added advantage of no 25,000+ mph re-entry. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

"Well of course the standard answer to that is the US Government needs to have assured access to space for its personnel, using government equipment, and they cannot be sure of having that by depending on private companies."<br /><br />Yet they're having Boeing build the CEV. Curious.<br /><br />"First off the Dragon carries those 7 people sardined into the Dragon, Gemini capsule style. The CEV is designed to carry up to 6 people and with Apollo style accomodations. Secondly the CEV is designed for reentry from a high velocity lunar return flight. "<br /><br />What's the L/D on the Dragon capsule? Gemini was 0.19, which is sufficient (albeit uncomfortable) for a lunar return.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"An Earth return vehicle (might as well be a Dragon) could just as well be waiting for them in LEO or at the ISS, or can't NASA handle an orbital insertion on Mars return? This has the added advantage of no 25,000+ mph re-entry."<br /><br />Lunar return and Mars return plans use aerodynamic braking for the same reason LEO missions use aerodynamic rather than powered braking, because powered braking is absurdly difficult. It's almost axiomatic that wherever a space mission can exploit aerodynamic braking it will do so.<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

" IF you have Dragon already flying those why bother with a CEV b1 for the same mission?"<br /><br />That makes more sense than what you orginally said.<br /><br />From NASA's point of view the Dragon is a low-cost but high-risk backup to the CEV. There isn't much practical difference between the block 1 CEV for ISS missions and the block 2 CEV for lunar missions and since it's a given that the block 2 CEV will get developed regardless of the COTS program outcome, it doesn't take much extra effort to deveop the block 1 CEV as well.

 

[frodo1008]

I think that the thinking at NASA is if this COTS effort does not work out as planned, then NASA is going to need a CEV with just the capability to get to the ISS with people and cargo.<br /><br />They will also need (regardless of how the COTS project turns out) a capsule that is capable of going to the moon and back just as the Apollo command module did!<br /><br />Then when it comes to going further out to such places as Mars, they might need still another craft!<br /><br />The CEV1 is sort of like a backup for the COTS project for the ISS! Neither of these two companies has built anything that has gone into orbit as of yet, so while they have good people and designs, they are somewhat lacking in the experience area.

 

[j05h]

> In terms of building the actual cargo spacecraft Spacehab, SpaceX and K-1 have all nothing more than mock-ups.<br /> /> Therefore SpaceHab would have been a more conservative choice.<br /><br />I agree that SpaceHab would have been a good choice, but the two chosen companies are also good choices. SpaceX is (IMHO) a mandatory choice for this - a small company that is already playing with the Big Boys. RpK (their official TLA) is not as strong a candidate, IMHO, due to the bankruptcy and merger. Their hardware has been warehoused for years, the management of the old Kistler was a clearinghouse of Apollo-era heavy hitters, but they insisted on doing business the old way and drove Kistler into bankruptcy. They initially claimed to be able to build the K1 for $500M, but burned through a reported $650M before bankruptcy, while claiming to need about double the original figure to get to first flight. <br /><br />When RpK and Kistler claim the K1 is "75% complete", you need to ask "what 75%?". They have structures, tankage, purchased engines, airbags, 'chutes and TPS. Unless something has changed since they went silent in 2000, they still have avionics, RCS and other systems to work out. Also, once built, do they have the tooling to build another? We know that SpaceX can build more rockets on demand.<br /><br />For SpaceX, they are in the process of fabricating the first Falcon 9 and should be doing engine tests. The avionics are the same as F1, so once they achieve a successful first flight they'll have many of those issues worked out. I think that is the harder part, compared to the K1, and they are much further along. <br /><br />As far as building capsules, there are a lot of options of what you put on top of the rocket. One of SpaceX's partners is SpaceHab, so the "APEX" capsule technology they have been marketting will fly somehow. Also, Phase 2 of COTS is going to be open to all applicants, so SpaceHab, OSC, t/space, etc will be able to play ball then.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I have been watching some television from Australia's Channel 9 this morning, and they are spinning this story to the max.<br /><br />They are suggesting it's a fait accompli that Rocketplane Kistler will be launching the first Astronauts from Australia's Woomera to ISS. Seems they might be more than slightly jumping the gun unless Rocketplane Kistler have some hitherto unannounced plans to launch human guinea pigs as part of the development program! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

ROCKETS will be launched from Woomera in South Australia to the International Space Station within two years, in a major deal announced yesterday by NASA in the United States.<br /><br />In a boost to South Australia's credentials as Australia's defence state, US-based Rocketplane Kistler secured a $272 million NASA contract to launch rockets from Woomera, carrying cargo to the station.<br /><br />As well as providing hundred of jobs, the decision also could pave the way for Woomera to become the launch site for the first astronauts to lift-off from Australia. <br /><br />More here <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>

 

[holmec]

>For LEO the accomodations are hardly and issue: it's supposed to be a taxi, not a limosine.<br /><br />As for the second point; my main comparison was between Dragon and CEV block 1 (3-4 passenger), which essentially have the same mission: LEO and ISS. IF you have Dragon already flying those why bother with a CEV b1 for the same mission?<br /><br />A Mars ship is another issue, and one I believe needs re-thinking. IMO a Mars mission doesn't need a CEV module at all, and eliminating it would free up a lot of weight better used for other things like redundent stores and a decent habitat. Virtually every space artist alive has come up with better ideas for a Mars ship than the CEV scheme, and a lot of them work at NASA. <<br /><br />Accomodations on the Dragon. I hope they are inovative with the space, perhaps they have seats that stow away to give more room.<br /><br />As far as a Mars mission, yes its true you really don't need a CEV to Mars and back. The only reason would be to reenter earth's atmosphere without orbiting. But if you do not take it with you, you could end the mission by orbiting earth and rendevous with the CEV. Of course NASA is probably thinking that the thing that bring home the astronauts is nothing more than the CEV and not another module. Of course that would get old real fast for the astronauts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Well, at least that article has added the operative "could" to their report. Tell me e_b_m, what's the travelling time from suburban Canberra to the launch pad? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

American taxpayer dollars will be spent in the US. I can't imagine Congress tolerating anything else.<br /><br />(It's not the same thing as purchasing Russian equipment when you have no choice, or of bartering services.)

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

According to this site (distance calulator).....<br /><br />http://www.auinfo.com/distancecalc_process.asp<br /><br />It's 1400km or 20 hrs to Adelaide so add a couple of hours and a couple of hundred kms and that would be close.<br />Jon Clarke might know exactly. <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>