Private suppliers to the ISS --- ??

[holmec]

NASA wants to use private firms to supply trips (because I just crack up typing "ferries") to the ISS.<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/051116_aas_commercial.html<br /><br />So putting 1 and 1 and 1 together, wouldn't this be where the t/space CXV, AirLaunch LLC, and the falcon rockets come into play?<br /><br />Heck maybe even SeaLaunch LLC.<br />Just making a note. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

As Boeing and LM are going to be concentrating on the CEV system (along with the eventual SHLV) then I would take that as a big "yes" to the oppotunities for these various start up companies to really get into the field, and actually make real hardware instead of PowerPoint presentations!!<br /><br />I personally consider this to be one of the better benifits of the ISS!! It does help to relieve the chicken or the egg syndrome, of needing some kind of goal to help defray the costs of such start up efforts!!

 

[dobbins]

Nobody is going to haul anything to the ISS if they can't get a payload into orbit. I would love to see the start ups succeed, but I don't have a pair of rose colored glasses. Until they actually demonstrate that they can deliver a payload into orbit I'm not going to pretend that all that is left is for them to sign the contracts to haul cargo and crew up to the ISS.<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

No one is going to provide serious capital to develop a commercial cargo transport capability unless NASA can prove that the cargo supply budget isnt going to magically disappear next year due to CEV cost overruns, and that they aren't going to tarbaby the project with impossible prox ops requirements. Noting NASA's historic reliability in regard to meeting past commercial commitments, if I were a venture capitalist I wouldnt trust a NASA administrator as far as I could throw him. <br /><br /> />>"Nobody is going to haul anything to the ISS if they can't get a payload into orbit. I would love to see the start ups succeed, but I don't have a pair of rose colored glasses. Until they actually demonstrate that they can deliver a payload into orbit I'm not going to pretend that all that is left is for them to sign the contracts to haul cargo and crew up to the ISS."<br /><br />Jesus, how many Zenits have to be sucessfully launched to demonstrate to you that commercial providers can put a payload into orbit? Obviously 37 isnt good enough. Do you need 100 to be convinced? 500?

 

[frodo1008]

I don't think that Dobbins is talking about the Zenit which even if it is part of some private group today was developed by the USSR! What he is referring to is the newer start up companies in the US itself. While he and I have both stated that we wish such companies all the luck in the universe, they do have to actually start to launch something before going on to bigger and better things. <br /><br />Also, I certainly would call Boeing, LM, and Northrupp private companies. At least I think such companies are private as you or I or anyone else can buy their stock on the NYSE. Just because they are established and experienced, and indeed have launched literally thousands of rockets of all sizes doen't mean they are not worthy and private companies. Also, just because they have worked hard for the government in the past, (that isn't just NASA by the way), it also includes the US military as well as other government organizations that have a need to launch satellites, also certainly makes them just as private as spacex or any of the other start up companies as private contractors to the various government agencies that they have worked for. Heck, they have even done a great deal of the pure private launches for the US and other countries communications industry!<br /><br />These companies have not found it hard deal with NASA, and they have many more investors than any of the start up companies have. NASA is no more unreliable than any other organization! The US military has also in the past had to cancel many such contracts due either to the changing political picture, or sometimes even the changing legitimate needs of the military.<br /><br />If you want to talk about unreliability, the greatest of these IS the pure private communication industry! If you would remember some time ago there were plans to place hundreds if not thousands of smaller satellites into LEO and use them for global communications! For various readons, most of them quite legitimate, these

 

[dobbins]

What does an old Soviet Rocket that is going out of production have to do with anything?<br /><br />Boeing and LockMart are commercial providers with a track record of launching equipment into space with their own boosters. If NASA wanted to go with non-American equipment it could go direct to Energia.<br /><br />Did you see the SDC interview with Michael Coats?<br /><br />The role of entrepreneurial firms at NASA needs to be encouraged, Coats said, as they can be incredibly creative. “At the same time, you’ve got to realize that there really are no shortcuts to space.”<br /><br />Some of the smaller private firms want to be a Boeing or a Lockheed Martin, but call upon NASA to give them billions of dollars to stimulate their growth, Coats advised. “NASA doesn’t have that kind of money to invest in these outfits.”<br /><br />If these companies bring to NASA a demonstrated, proven capability for sale, “that’s the definition of commercial,” Coats said, and the space agency can entertain the purchase if it’s cost effective.<br />http://www.space.com/news/051116_coats_jsc.html<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"What does an old Soviet Rocket that is going out of production have to do with anything? "<br /><br />Firstly, not Soviet, Ukrainian. Secondly, it's only but one of the many American operated, low cost, reliable, commercial, and routinely launched 'not-invented-here' vehicles that NASA refuses to launch CEV sized payloads on.

 

[thinice]

<i>Jesus, how many Zenits have to be sucessfully launched to demonstrate to you that commercial providers can put a payload into orbit?</i><br /><br />And what payload these Zenits put into orbit? Scientific platforms? No - comsats, for which launch cost is just a fraction of the overall cost. Where do you think startup will get money to pay for Zenit launch?

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"Where do you think startup will get money to pay for Zenit launch?"<br /><br />Dunno. ISS cargo supply contracts maybe? Probably not, since ISS resupply will likely be the next to go after ISS science.

 

[dobbins]

I would love to see at least a half dozen different American companies launching rockets AGAIN. I'm old enough to remember when there were many American Aerospace firms building rockets. Most of them are gone, merged into Boeing or LockMart. It's a tough business for a large established company to stay it, let alone for a small company to break into at a time when the market for launchers is depressed.<br /><br />I will be utterly delighted if that Falcon 1 launch goes off later this month, but even that is just one step on a long road. SpaceX will still have the task of launching rockets reliably, of showing they can generate the profits needed to stay in business off the prices they have set, and of developing and flying a larger booster at a profit because Falcon 1 doesn't have a large enough payload to be a cargo and personal hauler to the ISS.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

If NASA wanted to launch on non-American equipment they could eliminate the middleman and go direct to the Russians, the Ukranians, the Chinese, etc.<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

If NASA ain't buying launches on the current cheap as chips American operated sealaunch Zenit, I'm pretty darn sure that they aren't going to be buying cheap as chips Falcons either. <br /><br />Not while they've got their shiny, $300m/shot Keep-The-Team-Together/ATK-Subsidiser-9000 launcher.

 

[dobbins]

NASA isn't buying non-US rockets because they would be up to their eyeballs in dodo in a Congressional hearing if they went outside the USA to buy launchers without a permission slip from Congress. It isn't some stupid plot against start ups. This is the real world, not the Xfiles TV series with all of it's complex governmental conspiracies.<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"NASA isn't buying non-US rockets because they would be up to their eyeballs in dodo in a Congressional hearing if they went outside the USA to buy launchers without a permission slip from Congress."<br /><br />They aint buying the two very capable CLV sized American made rockets either. <br /><br />As a hypothetical, If they were creating a market for, say, a large number of non-inhouse developed CLV sized american built rockets, would it not be a little less difficult for certain new players to close the business case on developing a new, much cheaper CLV sized American built rocket to compete?

 

[dobbins]

Do you think there is some guy named Joe Nasa that can do whatever he feels like? Congress wants a Shuttle derived launcher to keep the people working on the shuttle employed. Period. End of story. NASA uses the EELVs for non-human launches.<br /><br />They haven't passed some new amendment to the Constitution that grants a right to succeed in the rocket business. Starting a rocket company isn't as simple as buying a few Estes models, launching them, and getting a multi-billion dollar contract from NASA. This is the real world. If NASA gives a big contract to some dinky little company that has never done anything and that company goes bust without even launching a 1 gram washer into space then you can bet your last dollar that a lot of NASA people are going to find their butts before a Congressional hearing full of Congress critters screaming "Waste, fraud, abuse" at the very least, and they darn well could find themselves facing criminal charges for fraudulent use of the tax payers money.<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

Well, not being an American, I dont much care how your congress chooses to run things. If people like you want to keep running your country the way you are, I'm quite happy to buy my tourist ride with my non-hyperinflated currency on a chinese built Zenit equivalent.<br /><br />Hope the two dozen of the last Americans to walk on the moon have a blast.

 

[shoogerbrugge]

The booster is only one part of the problem. What about the avionics and the docking. Not even SpaceX has any experience with creating a spacecraft. This is probably as complicated as the booster itself.<br /><br />I wonder what kind of foreign subcontractors/suppliers are acceptable for NASA/Congress. I mean, not all of the parts used by NASA are homegrown (at least, I reckon). So, would it be acceptable if a privat company would use a Russian Docking system, or European engines?<br /><br />But if you want an all American system for re-supplying the ISS, you either have to go with LockMart or Boeing, and get ripped off. Or wait about a decade, maybe a little less, till SpaceX/Kistler/T-Space reinvented the wheel.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"I wonder what kind of foreign subcontractors/suppliers are acceptable for NASA/Congress..."</font><br /><br />From a NASA Industry Day presentation it says there is a "50% rule and INA restrictions." <br /><br />I must assume that INA means Immigration and Nationality Act and not the International Naturists Association <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br /><br />Not sure what the 50% rule is, but perhaps it means the percentage of US citizen involvement. <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>

 

[dobbins]

INA is the Iran Nonproliferation Act.<br />

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"INA is the Iran Nonproliferation Act."</font><br /><br />Of course <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" />.<br /><br />That's twice today I've misremembered things. DrWayne would be proud of me <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. <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>

 

[drwayne]

For what again?<br /><br />lol at me. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>Nobody is going to haul anything to the ISS if they can't get a payload into orbit. I would love to see the start ups succeed, but I don't have a pair of rose colored glasses. Until they actually demonstrate that they can deliver a payload into orbit I'm not going to pretend that all that is left is for them to sign the contracts to haul cargo and crew up to the ISS. <<br /><br />SeaLaunch LLC has been launching successfully. <br /><br />http://www.sea-launch.com/past_launches.htm<br /><br />Anyway I guess its a worth while enterprise when half of the people say it can't happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>I would love to see at least a half dozen different American companies launching rockets AGAIN. I'm old enough to remember when there were many American Aerospace firms building rockets. Most of them are gone, merged into Boeing or LockMart. It's a tough business for a large established company to stay it, let alone for a small company to break into at a time when the market for launchers is depressed. <<br /><br />I hear you Dobbins. You bring an nice element to this forum. Yes the real truth is that many starups will fade away. And maybe one or two will go on. <br /><br />But I am enthused that NASA is looking for help from the commercial sector. Its a new phase to the space industry. It is going from satelite and expanding to cargo and hopfully crew shuttleing. NASA can't do it all. And I'm glad they realize this. <br /><br />I can see in the future that NASA becomes a research and a overseeing body for "know how" for commericial launches. Of course this won't deter from NASA's deep space exploration.<br /><br />There is a lot out there. There's a lot to regulate. There's a lot to look out for. Commerical launches will have to contend with Solar winds, cosmic radiation, and who know s what we will come across as our galaxy soars through space.<br /><br />But at least this is a start. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

><br />I personally consider this to be one of the better benifits of the ISS!! It does help to relieve the chicken or the egg syndrome, of needing some kind of goal to help defray the costs of such start up efforts!!<<br /><br />I totally agree frodo1008. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

So don't you guys think that the CXV will possibly fall into this part of NASA's plan? That is in commercial launches. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>