Next-Generation Space Vehicle Tested in Pacific Ocean Drop <br />08/04/2005<br /><br />CRESCENT CITY, CA -- Aug. 4, 2005 -- A new space vehicle to carry crews to the International Space Station moved closer to realization yesterday when Transformational Space Corporation LLC tested its parachute landing system by dropping a replica into the Pacific Ocean.<br /><br /><br />NASA chose Transformational Space Corp. ("t/Space") in September 2004, along with seven other aerospace companies, to develop concepts for the next generation of NASA vehicles. t/Space won a $6 million contract with a promise to go beyond paper design studies to actual hardware prototyping.<br /><br /><br />The August 3, 2005 test focused on a proposed Crew Transfer Vehicle (CXV) to ferry astronauts to the Space Station at lower cost and risk than the Space Shuttle. The Drop Test Article (DTA) representing the CXV was full size (14.75 feet long by 14 feet diameter) and full weight at 8,100 lbs. A Sikorsky S-61 helicopter carried the DTA three miles offshore from Crescent City and released it from 9,400 feet. The triple-parachute descent system splashed down six minutes later. After hitting the Pacific Ocean at 17 miles per hour, divers deployed from the recovery ship Two Sisters attached a line for the helicopter to return the DTA to shore.<br /><br /><br />Former astronaut Jim Voss, t/Space Vice President for Space Exploration Systems said, "We are pleased with the overall success of this engineering test and that we understand why one of the three parachutes opened only partially. Early testing will allow us to identify problems quickly and fix them before changes become expensive."<br /><br /><br />NASA plans a competition this fall to select a new vehicle to carry crew to the Space Station. t/Space will offer its four-person CXV. NASA also is moving forward with a separate effort to create a new Crew Exploration Vehicle for Moon and Mars Exploration. <br /><br /><br />In May and June, t/Space completed three suc
- Status
I guess that is what they are hoping the outcome of the competition in the Fall will be. So far it looks like no other small company is as far ahead as T/Space, so I really think it may be safe to say that they have that one in the bag.
Do you think they will comission them to build there capsule? <br /><br />I mean its possible this CXV can lead too a lifeboat for ISS?<br /><br />Never know could be a possibility.....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
<font color="yellow">What will they win?<br /><br /><font color="white">I've found this on thier web site, looks like some funds will be available and in just the way that would suit t/Space Link<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The CXV plan is separate from the competition between the two major aerospace teams competing to build the Crew Exploration Vehicle. NASA Administrator Mike Griffin announced on June 21, 2005, that the agency would release a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) in "very early Fall" seeking innovative crew and cargo solutions for the International Space Station. This BAA will result in a contract for one "leader" company to build and fly a crew Earth-to-orbit vehicle, and one or more "follower" contracts for companies to mature their designs for such vehicles. If the leader misses a milestone, one of the followers can take its place. Alternatively, if the initial leader is delivering great results, a follower can be promoted to full development funding.<br /><br />The contracts will be structured to enable NASA to demand commercial accountability from vendors --NASA will make progress payments but will withhold a portion of the funding until the crew vehicle successfully reaches orbit, just as a commercial communications satellite deal typically postpones final payment until the comsat is working in orbit.</font></font></font>
Are all of the competitors small companies? And just who are these "Magnificent Seven?"<br /><br />The big outfits aren't even interested?
By the way, that was also the methodology of the EELV projects, if either Boeing (Delta IV) or LM (Atlas V) did not get the government satellite into its orbit, they did not get paid. So far I understand that all the launches for the government have been successful. I wonder why?
> <i><font color="yellow">By the way, that was also the methodology of the EELV projects</font>/i><br /><br />Slightly off topic... I seem to recall that when Boeing and LM started their EELV projects they were expecting a large commercial market via various Internets and telecom networks in space (e.g., Iridium). Is this recollection correct?</i>
I think that all those expectations of a very large market for LEO satellite systems were the reason for much unbridled enthusiam some time ago. I believe that Bill Gates was partially funding one such system for over 200 satellites in LEO! Then the very first of those systems themselves came out and was called Iridium, it was a flop. It was too expensive for most people to use. And then along came large fiber optics cable systems, and the entire thing went Kablooyie!!<br /><br />However, this was well before the EELV projects even got started. You are correct in one thing, while the government (specifically the Air Force) was behind the EELV project, both Boeing and LM thought that there would be a market opening in commercial satellites as well. This was because of the reduction in the price of placing a pound to LEO of from the more traditional methods of some $10,000 per pound to some $2,000 to $3,000 per pound for the EELV's. I don't know whether it was a general downturn in the number of launches, or whether even cheaper launch vehicles from the Russians and Chinese have been the reasons that this didn't seem to work as planned!
I feel your pain! I lost thousands in my Loral 401k thanks to the brilliant leadership of Bernard Schwartz! Always putting the shareholders first....yeah right! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
I guess I could consider myself as very fortunate. Never having enough money to actually invest in any way in such investements as the stock market, I have invested what little I had in my family. So far that investment has been a big winner!
I like the idea of this "competition". It will force the participating companies to go cheap, and to use their minds. It really sounds like a true fly off. Something that wouldn't work too well for the CEV, but would be fine for the CXV. <br />And I really think NASA knows who the lead company will be. T/Space is the furthest ahead, and really the only company showing interest in the CXV at the moment. If NASA keeps the cash flow trickeling over to T/Space I'm sure we will see many more great things.
t/Space isn't the only contender. I expect Kistler to try and make a comeback aswell, for the cargo ISS part at least. A Kistler SpaceX partnership would also be interesting.<br /><br />t/space does seem to be the front runner though.
One point, it wasn't fiber that killed Iridium, it was the expansion of mobile phone networks that did them in. When Iridium was originally proposed, cellular service was available in cities only. By the time they launched, networks had been expanded to cover most of Europe, North America and the air routes inbetween - their prime customer base.<br /><br />Additionally, they made a bad choice - when they designed the satellites they had to decide how much bandwidth to allocated to data services. This was before the Internet explosion, so they said that 9600bps was fast enough. I don't know if you've ever 'surfed' at 9600bps, but it's <b>painful</b>. If they had been able to offer even 19.2k, they might have been able to survive as the go anywhere Internet company.<br /><br />It is worth noting, however, that the new Iridium company <b>is</b> making money, but that's only because they bought the multi-billion dollar infrastructure for a mere $20M.
This is good. But I'm confused.<br /><br />Will NASA have the CXV built and fly it along with CEV? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
"As of right now, no."<br /><br />Actually, the answer is yes, sort of. NASA will pay for the development of a crew transfer vehicle and it's quite likely that t/space will win that contract. The announcement will come this fall.<br /><br />CEV development will proceed independently of this effort.
> <i><font color="yellow">CEV development will proceed independently of this effort.</font>/i><br /><br />Right now we can just go on rumors, speculation, and imagination. Just keep that in mind when reading (at least my) posts.<br /><br />(1) Initially the Project Constellation involved Earth Orbit Rendezvous (and up to four rockets for a single Lunar mission).<br /><br />(2) Later there was the "pow! straight to the Moon" approach where the CEV (with crew) would launch on an in-line SDHLV go all the way to the lunar surface and all the way back (the Lunar Surface Rendezvous architecture).<br /><br />(3) Now there seems to be a swing back to at least a partial Earth Orbit Rendezvous where the crew would <i>not</i> launch on any of the SDHLV, but would go up on another booster (e.g., SRB) dock with the rest of the craft in LEO, and then proceed to the Moon. The rationale seems to be as much safety and principal as it is cost and capability. For example, the SDHLV would only launch "cargo" (including uncrewed manned spacecraft?) and would therefore have different requirements placed on it.<br /><br />The t/Space CXV (with modifications) could be worked into this architecture. Also, I think having two independent means to access LEO, including the ISS has a lot of value.</i>
a CTV would affect the requirements for the CEV. The crew module will either become spaceborne or will assume the role of a re-entry lifeboat rather than a means of delivering astronauts to LEO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
"Hmm, i'll stick by my original statement. As of right now, no."<br /><br />Maybe I should have made myself more clear: I don't *assume* that NASA will make such an announcement, I know. Griffin himself said there will be a program to develop a crew transfer vehilce independently of the CEV. It is intended mainly for flights to the ISS. Read the latest press release on the t/space site, it's in there.
Not at the moment but I hope that the other companies make a mess of it. Then griffin can tell all those at congress (and the press) that the CXV is the only way to go.
"I'm just going by an article I read sometime back, and on these forums, saying that Griffin wassn't going ahead with the CXV development."<br /><br />Correct, Griffin first said he had no money to spare for a parallel development effort but then he and his team realized that they could not make VSE a reality if they had to support ISS with the (rather costly) CEV over the next decade. At least that's how Chris Shank, one of Griffin's closest aides explained it at the Return to the Moon conference a few weeks ago. So Griffin changed his mind. NASA will apparently finance the development of a crew transfer vehicle through its new Innovative Partnerships Program (Centennial Challenges is part of that program as well).
I was getting mixed up with the ISS servicing contract and the CEV.<br />I was refering to the CXV as a possible CEV. But yes it is in the running for the ISS contract.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 151
-
-
-
The great silence: Just 4 in 10,000 galaxies may host intelligent aliens
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 113
-
-
Ancient supermassive black hole is blowing galaxy-killing wind, James Webb Space Telescope finds
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 5
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram