NASA Taps SpaceX, Orbital Sciences to Haul Cargo to Space Station

dragon04 · Dec 24, 2008

<a name="beginstory" title="beginstory"></a> <div class="Section1"> <div> NASA has awarded a pair of contracts worth $3.5 billion through 2016 to two private aerospace firms seeking to haul vital supplies to and from the International Space Station, the space agency announced late Tuesday. The Hawthorne, Calif.-based firm Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corp., of Dulles, Va., beat a third competitor for NASA's Commercial Resupply Services contracts with their proposals to privately develop and launch spacecraft capable to delivering cargo to the space station and returning supplies back to Earth. "This is a contract that we really need to keep space station flying, and to service space station," NASA's space operations chief Bill Gerstenmaier told reporters in a teleconference. "I think it's exciting we're doing this from a commercial side." NASA's Commercial Resupply Services plan calls for SpaceX and Orbital Sciences to haul 20 tons of cargo to the space station through 2016. NASA has agreed to pay $1.6 billion for 12 flights of SpaceX's planned Dragon spacecraft and their Falcon 9 boosters. The agency has also doled out $1.9 billion to Orbital for eight flights of its Cygnus spacecraft. </div><div>http://www.space.com/news/081223-nasa-spacestation-cargo-contract.html</div><div> </div></div><div>And so the privatization of space begins.. Or so one hopes. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

job1207 · Dec 24, 2008

This is a great day for private space flight. However, the cost per lauch is $133 million. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php The published price is one fourth this price. Boooooooooo!!!  Bottom line, this is more expensive than Progress, but less expensive than any other US carrier. Bye Bye LMT and BA. At 2500 kg this is $24,000 per pound of cargo to the ISS.  It is interesting that seven folks can be transported in the Dragon capsule. That will be a pretty wild ride.

windnwar · Dec 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is a great day for private space flight. However, the cost per lauch is $133 million. http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.phpThe published price is one fourth this price. Boooooooooo!!!  Bottom line, this is more expensive than Progress, but less expensive than any other US carrier. Bye Bye LMT and BA. At 2500 kg this is $24,000 per pound of cargo to the ISS.  It is interesting that seven folks can be transported in the Dragon capsule. That will be a pretty wild ride.  Posted by job1207</DIV> I'd imagine going forward the price per launch will come down, one thing i'm not certain about is the cost of the dragon capsule. Combine that with whatever NASA's payload requirements are and while it doesn't end up at $133 million I'd bet that it'll fall somewhere in between. On top of that the pricing is probably based on conservative estimates of launch costs as its not a flying rocket yet. He could end up with alot of profit in his pocket depending on actual costs. If that were the case I'd bet future contracts end up less per launch. I'm rather surprised though at the cost per flight for Orbital. Orbitals contract works out to $237.5 million per launch. That ends up at just about $47k per pound. I'd be curious what a standard Atlas V or Delta IV launch costs. I'm going to assume they weren't proposed though do to NASA not wanting to make the EELV's look like an option versus Ares-1. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein" </div>

docm · Dec 25, 2008

LA Times take...and is anyone familiar with Bob Russo and Launchspace?Link....Quote:The start-up beats out Lockheed Martin and Boeing for a $3.1-billion deal to resupply the International Space Station.By Peter PaeIn a major boost to Southern California's aerospace industry, a Hawthorne start-up founded by an Internet entrepreneur has been awarded a NASA contract potentially worth $3.1 billion to lift supplies to the International Space Station.Space Exploration Technologies, also known as SpaceX, beat out aerospace behemoths Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing Co. for the contract to build rockets that would replace the space shuttle when it is slated for retirement in 2010.The commercial contract, the first of its kind for the space agency, marks a huge milestone for the small company, which was founded by Internet entrepreneur Elon Musk and only recently successfully launched a rocket after three attempts.Musk made a fortune from the sale of Internet payment company PayPal Inc., which he co-founded, and has spent about $100 million of his own money to develop rockets that cost a fraction of the going rate for spacecraft launchers.The contract also returns a significant space program to Southern California, the birthplace of the Apollo spacecraft and the space shuttle."Couldn't ask for a better Christmas present, for sure," said Musk, who was vacationing in Boulder, Colo., on Wednesday. "It certainly is good news in these tough economic times."Musk said the contract would entail hundreds of new jobs in Hawthorne where the company builds rockets and has about 400 employees. Founded in 2002, the company has been adding about 20 employees a month this year. The hiring pace is now likely to pick up.The initial contract is valued at $1.6 billion for 12 flights to resupply the space station, with the total potential worth rising to $3.1 billion with follow-up missions, the company said. The first resupply mission is slated for late 2010.The SpaceX contract was one of two awarded by NASA and marks the first time that the agency will rely on private firms to assume almost all the responsibilities and costs of not only developing and building the rockets but also shipping cargo to the space station. A second contract for eight flights was awarded to rocket maker Orbital Sciences Corp. in Dulles, Va.Under the new "commercial resupply services" program, NASA pays the companies for each mission. It will pay SpaceX, for instance, about $133 million for each flight, rather than spending about $400 million to $500 million to launch the space shuttle on its own.In addition to the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, SpaceX is developing a cargo capsule that could eventually carry seven astronauts.NASA is retiring the space shuttle and has been looking for replacements in the aftermath of two shuttle disasters, most recently in 2003 when Columbia broke up during reentry, killing all seven astronauts on board.The contract "represents a new way of doing business for NASA," said Bob Russo, vice president of Launchspace Inc., a rocket industry research and consulting firm. "If successful, it is almost a certainty that NASA will expand its support for using such services in space station activities."But it is also a major risk for the space agency, said John Pike, a space policy analyst for GlobalSecurity.org.NASA is not only relying on two small rocket companies to keep supplies flowing to the space station; it's also hoping the companies can develop the rocket and the cargo vehicle in months -- not the years it has typically taken for other NASA programs."The task is significantly bigger than anything either company has ever done," Pike said."All of these things strike me as significant challenges for even the biggest aerospace companies."If SpaceX can't launch the rockets in time, the space station could be in jeopardy, Russo said. NASA doesn't plan to have a permanent replacement for the space shuttle until the next decade. And if SpaceX or Orbital is late, the U.S. will have to rely on Russian space vehicles."This is undoubtedly a major boost to SpaceX's credibility and bottom line," Russo said. He added that relations with the Russians were strained, which could lead to discontinued supply missions to the space station. "SpaceX's role could be crucial to the station's survival." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nec208 · Dec 25, 2008

Smaller Companies Win NASA's Space Race NASA yesterday gave two companies the job of resupplying the International Space Station after the space shuttle retires, picking Orbital Sciences of Dulles and SpaceX of Hawthorne, Calif., for a $3.5 billion contract.NASA says the deal is a milestone for the agency as part of its effort to encourage companies to get more involved in space transport and it was seen as a major win for two relatively small firms that beat out the giants of the space industry: Lockheed Martin of Bethesda and Boeing of Chicago.After the shuttle fleet retires in 2010, NASA will depend on Russian rockets to get astronauts to and from the orbiting station until a new American spacecraft can be built. Orbital and SpaceX will split unmanned cargo duties during that time.Companies, including Lockheed Martin and Boeing, have long built spacecraft for NASA, but that has been under contract and the space agency owned the hardware. In the past year, Orbital and SpaceX were part of a roughly $500 million development program designed to encourage companies to perform the costly and risky work of building rockets to carry cargo to and from the space station, freeing NASA to focus on space exploration.The new contract "will serve as a showcase for the types of commercial services U.S. space companies can offer NASA," David W. Thompson, Orbital's chairman and chief executive, said in a statement.Orbital has annual sales of about $1.1 billion and employs 3,800 people across the country, including about 2,000 in the D.C. region. The bulk of its business is related to developing technologies for NASA and working on missile defense systems for the Pentagon. It also sells commercial communications satellites.SpaceX was founded by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk, who is among the first entrepreneurs to compete in the business of flying cargo -- and eventually astronauts -- to space.Bill Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA's space operations, said in a conference call that Orbital and SpaceX won the seven-year contract because they had "good sound plans and good technical proposals." The two companies beat out a team that included PlanetSpace, a Chicago-based company that makes space-related technologies, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and ATK, a Minneapolis company that makes rocket motors."This contract is about trying to leverage suppliers who are willing to take on some risk themselves to develop new technologies," said Chris Donaghey, a defense technology industry analyst at SunTrust Robinson Humphrey in Atlanta. "SpaceX is the poster child for that and Orbital committed very early on to developing this rocket on their own. For NASA, this is about getting a capability they know they need, but trying to get it at a better price than they've historically been able to get from traditional suppliers."Awarding a contract to SpaceX and Orbital is a "way of sustaining an American participation in the space station," said John Pike, a space expert at Global Security.org, a Washington think tank. "We've spent tens of billions of dollars on the space station and this is a way for us to continue to participate in it," he said."Otherwise the shuttle gets retired in 2010 and we have no way of getting people or toilet paper up there," Pike said. "This is significant because it is a way of taking American taxpayers' dollars to pay an American company to take American payloads to the space station so we're not entirely dependent on the kindness of the Russians to get to our space station."As part of the deal, SpaceX and Orbital will build unmanned cargo vehicles that can carry a minimum of 20 metric tons. Eight flights, costing about $1.9 billion, will be handled by Orbital and 12 flights that will cost about $1.6 billion will be done by SpaceX, NASA officials said.Marco Caceres, a senior analyst on the aerospace and defense industry at the Teal Group in Fairfax, said the cargo contract "kills two birds with one stone. They get the cargo service to the space station, which gives them a Band-Aid solution, and they're doing what they've always wanted to do -- provide incentives for the commercialization of space."For Lockheed Martin, losing the NASA contract is somewhat of a blow, according to Paul Nisbet, an aerospace analyst at JSA Research."It is partially a surprise that Lockheed lost," he said. "NASA is sort of spreading the wealth here. They have several participants in their programs including Lockheed, Boeing and Orbital. It was just Orbital's turn this time."Jeffery Adams, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, referred comments on the NASA deal to PlanetSpace, which was the lead contractor for their team. Officials at Planet Space did not respond to e-mails or calls seeking comment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/23/AR2008122302709_pf.html    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nec208 · Dec 25, 2008

There was a time NASA use to do things them self now they want the private sector.But with private sector it has be profitable but government run does not . Going to mars is not profitable but scientific only so private sector are going to looks for ways to make money.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

job1207 · Dec 26, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd imagine going forward the price per launch will come down, one thing i'm not certain about is the cost of the dragon capsule. Combine that with whatever NASA's payload requirements are and while it doesn't end up at $133 million I'd bet that it'll fall somewhere in between. On top of that the pricing is probably based on conservative estimates of launch costs as its not a flying rocket yet. He could end up with alot of profit in his pocket depending on actual costs. If that were the case I'd bet future contracts end up less per launch. I'm rather surprised though at the cost per flight for Orbital. Orbitals contract works out to $237.5 million per launch. That ends up at just about $47k per pound. I'd be curious what a standard Atlas V or Delta IV launch costs. I'm going to assume they weren't proposed though do to NASA not wanting to make the EELV's look like an option versus Ares-1. Posted by windnwar</DIV>LMT and BA flights generally go for about $300 million. So I would bet that Elon's bid considered that fact.I do think that he will be making a lot of money off each flight. The Dragon capsule is part of EACH flight. When the get to reusing stage I and the capsule that will bring costs way down.  If I were a USA employee, I would walk my resume over to the SpaceX people at the Cape.

windnwar · Dec 26, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>LMT and BA flights generally go for about $300 million. So I would bet that Elon's bid considered that fact.I do think that he will be making a lot of money off each flight. The Dragon capsule is part of EACH flight. When the get to reusing stage I and the capsule that will bring costs way down.  If I were a USA employee, I would walk my resume over to the SpaceX people at the Cape.  Posted by job1207</DIV> Let me clarify my post, I meant I'm not sure what the dragon capsule costs in addition to a falcon 9 rocket, I've not seen seperate prices for the capsule. I know in the $133 million bid, that the capsule cost is included, i'm just trying to figure out what the margin is between the cost of the hardware and what they are charging NASA for it. I know it'll be more then the cost of the Falcon 9 alone but less then $133 million. I'm still amazed at the price difference though for Orbital's rocket. It's basically closer to Delta II class, and its got a cost closer to Delta IV or Atlas V, though granted that price includes the cargo pod in it as well, its still a shocking difference in price. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein" </div>

windnwar · Dec 26, 2008

One question I have about the upper stage on the Falcon 9, it's stated as a Merlin vacuum engine, but with no seperate specs other then burn duration. Is it's specs the similar to the first stage Merlins vacuum specs or is it a pressure fed version of the Merlin? Reason I ask is, compared to most RL10 powered upper stages, if it has similar performance to the first stage vacuum performance it has massively more thrust then any RL-10 stage, though it has about half the burn time, which I guess with the reduced ISP is about even to a dual RL-10 upper stage?I don't know enough of the math to calculate it out, just curious if anyone knew the specs of that upper stage engine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein" </div>

docm · Dec 26, 2008

SpaceX lists a generic F9 LEO launch at $36.75 million so do the math, of course taking into account the likely much increased logistics & integration costs.IIRC the vacuum Merlin 1C is turbopump fed just like the 'regular' version.<ul><li>Sea level thrust: 125,000 lbf (556 kN)</li><li>Vacuum thrust: 138,400 lbf (616 kN)</li><li>Chamber pressure: 6.14 MPa (890 psi)</li><li>Sea level specific impulse: 275 s (2.6 kN·s/kg)</li><li>Vacuum specific impulse: 304 s (3.0 kN·s/kg)</li><li>Thrust-to-weight ratio (fully accounted): 96</li><li>Fuel: RP-1 (rocket grade kerosene)</li><li>Oxidizer: Liquid oxygen</li></ul>  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

PistolPete · Dec 26, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Let me clarify my post, I meant I'm not sure what the dragon capsule costs in addition to a falcon 9 rocket, I've not seen seperate prices for the capsule. I know in the $133 million bid, that the capsule cost is included, i'm just trying to figure out what the margin is between the cost of the hardware and what they are charging NASA for it. I know it'll be more then the cost of the Falcon 9 alone but less then $133 million. I'm still amazed at the price difference though for Orbital's rocket. It's basically closer to Delta II class, and its got a cost closer to Delta IV or Atlas V, though granted that price includes the cargo pod in it as well, its still a shocking difference in price. Posted by windnwar</DIV>I'd have to agree that the launch costs given have to include the operational costs of the Dragon capsule and the Cygnus spacecraft respectively, otherwise the numbers don't make sense.  Another thing that needs to be taken into consideration is development cost.  The Delta II, which is comparable to the Taurus II, cost only roughly $80m when adjusted for inflation.  The reason this rocket is so cheap compared to others is because it is so old that the development costs have long since been absorbed.  Falcon 9, Taurus II, and even the EELVs are new rockets so development costs play a large factor in the per unit cost. Speaking of the Delta II, the reason that NASA wants Orbital to develop the Taurus II is because Boeing is discontinuing the Delta II after 2011 and NASA doesn't want to use the larger and more expensive EELVs to launch their small planetary probes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

PistolPete · Dec 26, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd imagine going forward the price per launch will come down, one thing i'm not certain about is the cost of the dragon capsule. Combine that with whatever NASA's payload requirements are and while it doesn't end up at $133 million I'd bet that it'll fall somewhere in between. On top of that the pricing is probably based on conservative estimates of launch costs as its not a flying rocket yet. He could end up with alot of profit in his pocket depending on actual costs. If that were the case I'd bet future contracts end up less per launch. I'm rather surprised though at the cost per flight for Orbital. Orbitals contract works out to $237.5 million per launch. That ends up at just about $47k per pound. I'd be curious what a standard Atlas V or Delta IV launch costs. I'm going to assume they weren't proposed though do to NASA not wanting to make the EELV's look like an option versus Ares-1. Posted by windnwar</DIV>I think you did your math wrong here.  The prices you gave are correct if they are the price per kilogram, however, the price per pound works out to a much more reasonable with the Falcon 9 pricing in at $6,109/lb and the Taurus II at $19,588/lb.  The Taurus II is much higher priced per pound than the Falcon 9, but I think that this is partially due to the fact that the Falcon 9 had a several year head start on the Taurus II and SpaceX is already turning a profit off of backordered launches. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

docm · Dec 26, 2008

Waco Tribune editorial;Link....EDITORIAL: High-flying SpaceX proves all the thunder and light were worth the trouble  Friday, December 26, 2008 A month ago SpaceX shook the very ground beneath us. Some of us wondered if the sky was falling.Turns out anything but.In a year or so, we’ll gaze into the night sky and ponder the upstart aerospace company’s pivotal role in 21st-century space travel, all while taking civic satisfaction that work in Central Texas made it possible.Talk about wishing upon a star: Years after Waco-area leaders began drumming up what seemed a far-fetched idea to some — that the Waco area become a vital hub of aviation and aerospace activity — SpaceX is turning those big dreams into reality.And for those of us who thought our high-flying aims couldn’t get much better than L-3 Communications and its already considerable work, the years ahead with SpaceX appear dazzling.Hours before Christmas Eve, SpaceX, with its key testing facility in McGregor, announced it had landed a $1.6 billion contract from NASA to design launches and haul cargo back and forth to and from the International Space Station. If successful, the arrangement could grow to more than $3 billion.SpaceX beat out significant competitors, including aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Also winning a contract with NASA this round was Orbital of Dulles, Va., another small company that, like SpaceX, is eager to take up NASA’s invitation to join in the fast and competitive space sweepstakes.News sources say that to fulfill its part of the contract — running about seven years — SpaceX will be responsible for about a dozen of 20 rocket launches.No doubt about it. SpaceX will find itself etching a new chapter across the skies, now that NASA’s aging shuttles are due to be put out to pasture in 2010. Russian rockets will take astronauts to the space station till new spacecraft can be built. Till then, Orbital and SpaceX will handle unmanned cargo ships dispatched to the station.All of which means we’re on the cusp of a new age in space travel.SpaceX moved in the old Beal Aerospace facilities in McGregor about five years ago, but its presence has been fairly low-key beyond the town of 4,800, where it has proven itself a strong employer (of nearly 100) and thoughtful civic partner.The rest of us in the county were reminded of SpaceX’s becoming our neighbor late last month when an atypically noisy rocket test created a mighty rumbling in the land and, for those who could see beyond the trees, an eerie glow in the night sky, prompting nervous calls to area police and fire departments. While some thought catastrophe had struck, the locals in McGregor knew better.Now that we all know better, the occasional thunder and light coming from the western corner of McLennan County will remind us to look heavenward and dream. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

windnwar · Dec 27, 2008

Your right I got my math backwords.  I never could figure out why Boeing decided to kill off the Delta II, its affordable, there are lots of payloads available for it to launch and I doubt Boeing was losing money on it, the only reason to kill it would be to sell more Delta IV flights instead and that ups the price considerably. The Taurus II should be interesting, I'll be curious how long it'll be before Aerojet is manufacturing new engines versus the recertified old engines they have right now. I know they've been licensed to do so, I just wonder how long it'll take to build up the tooling etc, to make an engine that's not been built in over 30ish years, as well as what improvements they may find in the process. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein" </div>

job1207 · Dec 27, 2008

http://www.space.com/news/081223-nasa-spacestation-cargo-contract.htmlthe article says 20 tons on 12 flights. Any way you cut it the price is VERY high. That is $40000 a pound. There is no way to get to $6000 a pound.

Slava33 · Dec 31, 2008

Elon Musk complains that SpaceX got a lot less per-flight than Orbital:"SpaceX: More NASA Launches, Less Money"  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Dec 31, 2008

I think the difference is that there are different rates for pressurize and unpressurized cargo. A significant  part of Dragon's total cargo fits in tke unpressurized trunk. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

job1207 · Jan 1, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the difference is that there are different rates for pressurize and unpressurized cargo. A significant  part of Dragon's total cargo fits in tke unpressurized trunk. Posted by docm</DIV>Interesting interview. The exciting part is this. We will know this year, more or less, if Spacex is going to be sending our astronauts to the Space station. Considering the costs of Orion and Ares I, SpaceX is very inexpensive. So, to Elon, he knows, all he has to do is perform, and he will be getting Billions of dollars from NASA, not to mention, paying space tourists.  That is an interesting place to be as we enter a New Year!!!

docm · Jan 1, 2009

And the stated goal of DragonLab being both crew and capsule means NASA isn't necessarily the only consideration as to IF it will go crew or not.  IMO it's possible that SpaceX could demo a crew mission to drive crewed DragonLab sales (non-NASA). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Boris_Badenov · Jan 1, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And the stated goal of DragonLab being both crew and capsule means NASA isn't necessarily the only consideration as to IF it will go crew or not.  IMO it's possible that SpaceX could demo a crew mission to drive crewed DragonLab sales (non-NASA). Posted by docm</DIV>IIRC the only thing holding up the crewed version of Dragon is the LAS. If Falcon IX flys witout a hitch Elon just might get outside investment to develop the LAS without NASA involvement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <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> </div>

windnwar · Jan 2, 2009

So anyone seen this where Planetspace is considering protesting the CRS bid award?http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123094020551750263.htmlI really hope they don't go through with it as it'll only add delay and most likely screw over the CRS contract altogether. Not to mention I can't see the planetspace option as being particularly friendly to delicate cargo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein" </div>

NASA Taps SpaceX, Orbital Sciences to Haul Cargo to Space Station

dragon04

Guest

job1207

Guest

windnwar

Guest

docm

Guest

nec208

Guest

nec208

Guest

job1207

Guest

windnwar

Guest

windnwar

Guest

docm

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

docm

Guest

windnwar

Guest

job1207

Guest

Slava33

Guest

docm

Guest

job1207

Guest

docm

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

windnwar

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page