Quote from: docmordrid on 11/10/2016 11:34 pmElephant in the room; ITSThey say a mid-20's replacement which coincides with SpaceX's timeline, by definition it'll have a long duration ECLSS, large internal propellant stores, and its cargo capability would eliminate the need for developing a large cargo lander for Mars. Crew size: no problem.Just saying...ITS is quite something, but it has the problem of being unmatched. NASA probably won't want to go with a commercial provider with no backup. Unless BO's capsule for NG is something really huge (like 40+ people), or someone else pops up with a colonization-class spacecraft, theres no backup for ITS yet. I expect NASA will eventually fund a "mega-CCDev" to make more vehicles like that, but by the time it actually happens ITS will probably have a very large lead
Elephant in the room; ITSThey say a mid-20's replacement which coincides with SpaceX's timeline, by definition it'll have a long duration ECLSS, large internal propellant stores, and its cargo capability would eliminate the need for developing a large cargo lander for Mars. Crew size: no problem.Just saying...
Quote from: okan170 on 11/11/2016 12:48 amQuote from: docmordrid on 11/10/2016 11:34 pmElephant in the room; ITSThey say a mid-20's replacement which coincides with SpaceX's timeline, by definition it'll have a long duration ECLSS, large internal propellant stores, and its cargo capability would eliminate the need for developing a large cargo lander for Mars. Crew size: no problem.Just saying...If SpaceX can build, test and fund the entire thing on their own by that time, while building a revolutionary ECLSS system of unprecedented scale, I'll honestly be very impressed. But I'm not going to count on it, especially with SpaceX's dates.What SpaceX can do entirely with internal funding is irrelevant. What is relevant is what they could do with the Orion plus SLS budget. And the answer is: ITS.
Quote from: docmordrid on 11/10/2016 11:34 pmElephant in the room; ITSThey say a mid-20's replacement which coincides with SpaceX's timeline, by definition it'll have a long duration ECLSS, large internal propellant stores, and its cargo capability would eliminate the need for developing a large cargo lander for Mars. Crew size: no problem.Just saying...If SpaceX can build, test and fund the entire thing on their own by that time, while building a revolutionary ECLSS system of unprecedented scale, I'll honestly be very impressed. But I'm not going to count on it, especially with SpaceX's dates.
Is there a difference between one company and the establishment kieretsu? Nope, it's a single source vs a distributed single source. Same difference.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/11/2016 02:40 amQuote from: okan170 on 11/11/2016 12:48 amQuote from: docmordrid on 11/10/2016 11:34 pmElephant in the room; ITSThey say a mid-20's replacement which coincides with SpaceX's timeline, by definition it'll have a long duration ECLSS, large internal propellant stores, and its cargo capability would eliminate the need for developing a large cargo lander for Mars. Crew size: no problem.Just saying...If SpaceX can build, test and fund the entire thing on their own by that time, while building a revolutionary ECLSS system of unprecedented scale, I'll honestly be very impressed. But I'm not going to count on it, especially with SpaceX's dates.What SpaceX can do entirely with internal funding is irrelevant. What is relevant is what they could do with the Orion plus SLS budget. And the answer is: ITS.Yes and have your entire HLV and architecture beholden to one company
with no public benefits.
I don't see why its so desirable that NASA should fund Elon's personal colonization dreams, any more than any of the other Mars plans pitched to NASA over the years by Lockheed and co. But then again I know what forum I'm posting in.
Quote from: docmordrid on 11/11/2016 02:51 amIs there a difference between one company and the establishment kieretsu? Nope, it's a single source vs a distributed single source. Same difference.If SpaceX goes out of business, does NASA own the IP? Thats basically what this whole thing is about with Orion to begin with, that they can shop it around in case Lockheed is unable to pick up the pace and lower the cost.
What SpaceX can do entirely with internal funding is irrelevant. What is relevant is what they could do with the Orion plus SLS budget. And the answer is: ITS.
If SpaceX can build, test and fund the entire thing on their own by that time, while building a revolutionary ECLSS system of unprecedented scale, I'll honestly be very impressed. But I'm not going to count on it, especially with SpaceX's dates.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/11/2016 02:40 amQuote from: okan170 on 11/11/2016 12:48 amQuote from: docmordrid on 11/10/2016 11:34 pmElephant in the room; ITSThey say a mid-20's replacement which coincides with SpaceX's timeline, by definition it'll have a long duration ECLSS, large internal propellant stores, and its cargo capability would eliminate the need for developing a large cargo lander for Mars. Crew size: no problem.Just saying...If SpaceX can build, test and fund the entire thing on their own by that time, while building a revolutionary ECLSS system of unprecedented scale, I'll honestly be very impressed. But I'm not going to count on it, especially with SpaceX's dates.What SpaceX can do entirely with internal funding is irrelevant. What is relevant is what they could do with the Orion plus SLS budget. And the answer is: ITS.Yes and have your entire HLV and architecture beholden to one company with no public benefits. I don't see why its so desirable that NASA should fund Elon's personal colonization dreams, any more than any of the other Mars plans pitched to NASA over the years by Lockheed and co. But then again I know what forum I'm posting in.
The government is currently paying for Orion and SLS to achieve some ends. If they can achieve all those ends cheaper by funding ITS instead, the government should do that. If that accidentally also enables Elon to send people to Mars, that's not a reason to disqualify them.
NASA isn't looking for services to buy, they're looking for hardware to buy. Unless SpaceX has decided to start selling hardware rather than services then talk of ITS, Dragon, or anything else is moot.
Lockheed Martin issued a short statement in response to Eric Berger's story (see attachment).
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 11/11/2016 11:56 amNASA isn't looking for services to buy, they're looking for hardware to buy. Unless SpaceX has decided to start selling hardware rather than services then talk of ITS, Dragon, or anything else is moot.You read the article?
I did. I read the RFI too.https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=235165b05e83184c0bbdeaaedbc2d429&tab=core&tabmode=list&The RFI doesn't seem to give any indication at all about substituting alternate spacecraft.
The RFI doesn't seem to give any indication at all about substituting alternate spacecraft.
"If a respondent wishes to provide a broader input beyond the topics described in this RFI or beyond the technical scope of the Orion spacecraft, then it is requested alternate responses be submitted separately,” the RFI states. It adds that these “alternate approaches” should include an analysis of their cost implications for NASA.
The original structure of NASA’s contract with Lockheed Martin is such that NASA “owns” the design work when it is completed, so another contractor, if it could demonstrate a compelling cost advantage, could take over for Exploration Mission-3 and beyond.
Any talk of ITS in the context of this RFI just seems way beyond the pale. It is so far from being a reality and so not compatible with NASA's mission plans (so far that they have conceptualized them), that IMO, it's really not helpful.Also, just IMO, it makes sense to de-couple Orion and SLS if one seeks to salvage at least one of those programs going forward. To me it seems that SLS (if it is deemed worthy of survival by the next Administration) would make a formidable cargo-only LV that can work nicely as part of multi-launch missions where the alternative crew vehicle selected (if it shakes out that way) is launched by an LV from Blue, ULA, SpaceX, or even ESA (Ariane 6?). It also could have great utility as an LV for unmanned planetary probe missions, as we have read a lot about.