New commercial lunar transportation system

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wvbraun

Guest
LTS<br /><br /><i> BELLEVUE, WA, January 28, 2005—Walter Kistler and Bob Citron formed Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc. (LTS) early last year in response to the President’s new Vision for Space Exploration. LTS’s goal is to raise major financing from the private sector to develop, build, ground test, flight test, and operate a new Earth-Moon transportation system. Initially, the government would be an important customer, and eventually, LTS would serve new lunar commercial markets.<br /><br />The two entrepreneurs have a long history of stimulating new space market activities using private investment. Kistler founded Kistler Instruments AG and was the first investor in SPACEHAB, and co-founded Kistler Aerospace Corporation with Bob Citron, who also founded SPACEHAB.<br /><br />LTS goals also fit nicely with the new White House Space Transportation Policy, which recognizes the need for commercial systems, particularly for launch and exploration. The new policy echoes the President’s vision and encourages the government to facilitate commercial space activities.<br /><br />“Our new LTS lunar architecture enables NASA to meet the near-term strategic objectives spearheaded by President Bush in the Vision for Space Exploration a year ago, as well as recommendations presented by the Aldridge Commission on how to implement that Vision,” said Bob Citron, CEO of LTS. “We are thrilled to see the new White House Space Transportation Policy further support commercial activities, just like what we are proposing.”<br /><br />Walter Kistler, who conceived the LTS Earth-Moon transportation system, said, “The Vision for Space Exploration calls for a greater role of the private sector in space exploration. Bob Citron and I firmly believe that entrepreneurial companies can bring new perspectives to the Vision, building opportunities for a strong future for space exploration.”<br /><br />Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc. has l</i>
 
B

bobvanx

Guest
Pretty Nifty.<br /><br />I notice the use of L1 as a staging area. Does this make sense? Your vehicle burns through delta-V in order to stop there. Then it has to accelerate up again to leave.<br /><br />IIRC Apollo passed from Earth's gravity to the Moon's with about 1000mph velocity. This is an effect of the three-day transit time. If they'd stopped at L1, that's 1000mph of dV to stop, then 1000mph of dV to get going again. Imagine adding a 2000mph dV burden onto your craft!<br /><br />Admittedly, if you are aiming for L1, you would likely aim for much less dV to reach that point. Which adds a bunch of time to your trip. You'll never get down to zero, however. <br /><br />Why wouldn't the refueling and staging station be located in Earth orbit? Protection from solar storms for your crews, and any dV you impart you get to keep all the way to the Moon.
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
<i>LTS intends to employ reusable launch vehicles <b>if</b> and when these capabilities become available.</i> <br /><br />If? IF?? Has Kistler lost hope of finishing his own RLV? Instead of the first real CATS vehicle we get this yet-another 'space' firm based on pretty renderings and little else. Excuse me for not making waves.
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
<font color="yellow">"It's yet another of their tricks to suck more money from NASA like they did the other year."</font><br /><br />Who did, Kistler? No, read their report to the senate. From part two describing their contract with NASA:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In February 2004, NASA issued a synopsis announcing its intent to exercise existing options and modify our existing contract to add data from four additional ARPO flights; flights in which the K-1 will demonstrate that it can navigate progressively closer to the ISS. NASA's decision came only after an extended process in which NASA evaluated the alternatives and concluded that only Kistler is in a position to meet NASA's needs in the time frame required. NASA recently issued what is known as a 'JOFOC', or justification for other than full and open competition, describing this process. There is no doubt that NASA's decision is good news for Kistler. The original contract value, as announced by NASA, was worth up to $135 million, and the modification brings the total contract to approximately $227 million (of which $8 million has already been paid for data deliverables).<br /><br />Kistler's contract with NASA is a good deal for the government. NASA pays neither to develop the K-1 vehicle nor for launch services. Rather, NASA pays only for data, and only upon performance. It has no obligation to pay until data are delivered and accepted. This allows the government to leverage private capital investment in the K-1 for broad government and industry benefit, without any upfront risk or expenditure. Further, NASA has made clear that any contracts for ISS resupply launch services will be subject to a separate procurement. Kistler has supported this position completely.</font><br /><br />Paying for actual flight data instead of studies doesn't sound like fruitless money sucking. Thanks t
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
Yes, Elon Musk and Burt Rutan are much more credible. <br /><br />IIRC Musk has spent $100-150 million on development of the Falcon I rocket so far. Development costs of the K-1 are expected to reach $500 million and this vehicle will have less capabiliy than Falcon V (which will probably cost less to develop than Falcon I since it's essentially a scaled up version of that rocket).<br /><br />I wish Kistler all the best but their track-record is not that impressive expecially when compared to Musk's and Rutan's.
 
M

mikejz

Guest
The more i think about Kistler, the more I see how and why it failed.<br /><br />First they tried to do something very complex (complete RLV) without even trying to design a progession to build experence, reduce risk, and increase access to capitial. <br /><br />SpaceX clearly was build around looking at Kistler and resolving not to do the same mistakes. First was the fact that Kistler relyed so much on the same contractors that result in the current high priced rockets we have today. SpaceX did most work in house. Resulting in lower costs. <br /><br />In addition, SpaceX had a real step by step idea. They are shooting for something moddest, with the goal of reducing costs by focusing on the traditional cost drivers, as opposed to relying on fancy technology. In addition, the Falcon I is a lot less risky. After all is Kistler's K-1 blows up they would almost surely lost most of there investment. SpaceX priced its Falcon I without taking into account any cost saving of the reusable first stage, therefore they are still viable as a traditional expendable launcher.
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
<font color="yellow">" First was the fact that Kistler relyed so much on the same contractors that result in the current high priced rockets we have today. SpaceX did most work in house. Resulting in lower costs."</font><br /><br /> I agree. Kistler's team is(was?) full of old brass from Apollo era NASA, Rockwell etc. with a lot of old relationships to the contractors. It's revealing to look at the press releases, after March 1999 'strategic partnership' with Northrop Grumman further technical announcements effectively ceased. I bet the big established aerospace firms have special beancounting departments analysing how to suck most money from unsuspecting start-ups before they go bust <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <br /><br />IMHO the engine choice was pretty good though, using COTS. NIH-attitude is not always the best. But instead of Aerojet they should have gone straight to the russians and contract them to do re-testing for K-1.<br /><br />vishniac: let's all hope that Elon's rocket gets off the pad soon and makes a succesful flight. The point was NASA <i>would</i> have paid for actual flight data of K-1. No flight, no results, no payment. Usually it's like NASA pays a lot up front, hopes for some results and then oops yet another X-project bites the dust.<br /><br />And again, Rutan is an apple, Musk is an orange. Kistler was an orange but turned into a raisin by sunshine from strategic partnerships.
 
N

no_way

Guest
"I notice the use of L1 as a staging area. Does this make sense?"<br /><br />It makes sense for certain long-term goals. If you ever plan launching further than moon, if you plan to launch raw materials or processed goods from the moon.<br />Here's a pretty good post with pros and cons outlined<br />http://www.space-frontier.org/cgi-bin/BBS/MoonBase/read/8505<br /><br />
 
B

bobvanx

Guest
These engineers ought to take a lesson from history.<br /><br />I looked at the link, and I can see that there are some real long-term benefits to having a way station at EML-1 (Earth-Moon L1). As the first node in the interplanetary superhighway (low delta-V to all the other quasi-stable gravitational shallows), it certainly will become important.<br /><br />Here's what I mean about history. Just in my lifetime, as I've traveled I-5, I can tell you the places that have some "there" there, are where things happen. You've got Los Angeles and Sacramento as anchors along the stretch I'm thinking of. 40 years ago, if anyone said, "Someday, we're going to want a city full of gas stations and motels right here," and started to build any of the little burgs that are popping up, they'd have lost their shirt. Westley, Patterson, Caolinga, that complex at the Buttonwillow exit...<br /><br />They've been there all along. Populations in the tens or hundreds. Suddenly, now that there is enough traffic flowing, people move there and we have a population explosion all along the route.<br /><br />Stops that didn't even exist are being built into the gaps, too.<br /><br />I think EML-1 is more like the gaps, than a place. It has no utility for a Earth-Moon highway, except to cancel out the burden the ISS carries in its high-inclination orbit (if you build vehicles at ISS, this makes sense).<br /><br />Similarly, even the Moon makes no sense if you are aiming for Mars. It's like Sacramento and LA, and deciding you have to build up Bakersfield before you can make the trip. I suppose by that analogy, EML-1 is like Gorman. If you plan correctly, you can zip right by.
 
C

crossovermaniac

Guest
<font color="yellow">Paying for actual flight data instead of studies doesn't sound like fruitless money sucking. Thanks to Elon Musk's whining the JOFOC part is history. After that there hasn't been much news so I guess the original $135M deal is still on.</font><br /><br />The only thing Musk whined about was not having an open-bidded contract. IOW, a chance to compete.
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
AFAIK the stuff covered by JOFOC (four additional ISS rendezvous flights) was an extension to existing contract which was won fair and square by Kistler in an open competition. NASA made the decision based on the fact that nobody else was even close to meet their needs. Now Musk seems to have Falcon I ready but it's in much smaller class than K-1 and upper stages of both Falcon I & V seem to lack separate OMS which is pretty much obligatory for delicate maneuvering towards a space station.<br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts