Author Topic: NASA oversight of CCDev-2 Partners reveals progress milestones  (Read 16635 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Could have made four articles out of this, but decided to do a full four company run down, so I we can refer back to it as we update the status of each vehicle, etc.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/nasa-ccdev-2-partners-reveals-progress-milestones/

(Hosting in Commercial Space Flight - obviously, leaving a mirror in Space Policy to try and brighten up the "wild wild west" a bit ;))

Offline Blackout

  • Member
  • Posts: 78
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Great article Chris!  I have one question though....

Quote
Such a rocket-assisted landing also allows for the potential for landings on the moon and Mars, without the need for additional hardware, or additional vehicles, such as landers.

Does this mean a Dragon could be used without modification (other than perhaps chutes) to land on Mars?  Sounds too good to be true.

Over all it is great news to see all the progress.  It is good to have reminders of all the incredible things that are happening in HSF instead of focusing just on bad news.  We might not get BEO anytime soon, but the LEO game has completely changed, and for the better.  That is certainly something to be happy about.

Online Chris Bergin

Thanks Blackout! :)

Yeah, that's what they are claiming, as much as some others also are a bit "Hmmmm" about that.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24979.0

SpaceX: "Over time, the same escape thrusters will also provide the capability for Dragon to land almost anywhere on Earth or another planet with pinpoint accuracy"

Offline Maverick

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Newcastle, England - UK
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 24
That was a big article, lots of info, thanks!

Offline Hunt101

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 138
  • ULA
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 11
Excellent work as always Chris.

Offline Jason Sole

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Chicago
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
I was hoping you'd be the commercial attack dog Chris, every other news site seems to be selling out to the commercial love in. Don't be a sell out.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
I was hoping you'd be the commercial attack dog Chris, every other news site seems to be selling out to the commercial love in. Don't be a sell out.

Could you elaborate on which part of the article constituted Chris "selling out"?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4440
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1607
  • Likes Given: 1
Sad that we aren't past the turf battle yet.  I think it was Jeff Greason that said NASA and commercial should be each others best friend.  Whoever said it they weren't wrong.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2011 06:35 AM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline AlexCam

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Sad that we aren't past the turf battle yet.  I think it was Jeff Greason that said NASA and commercial should be each others best friend.  Whoever said it they weren't wrong.

True. I wonder where US domestic crew capabilities would be now if the original Steidle/O'Keefe approach starting in 2004/2005 would have been continued.

Good article in any event, I do not get why SpaceX would claim their double use LAS would allow them to land on e.g. the Moon with Dragon. Makes no sense.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Liked: 304
  • Likes Given: 167
I do not get why SpaceX would claim their double use LAS would allow them to land on e.g. the Moon with Dragon. Makes no sense.

Because it doesn't rely on an atmosphere to soft land.

Getting the Dragon to the correct spot at the correct velocity in order for it to do so then becomes the job of the delivery vehicle.

To my knowledge no mention has yet been made about this part.

Offline rklaehn

  • telemetry plumber
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1208
  • germany
    • www.heavens-above.com
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 163
Good article in any event, I do not get why SpaceX would claim their double use LAS would allow them to land on e.g. the Moon with Dragon. Makes no sense.

It has more than enough thrust to soft-land on the moon or mars. On mars you could probably just reenter and let the atmosphere slow the capsule down before igniting the engines.

On the moon you would need a crasher stage approach, where the falcon heavy upper stage gets the dragon in a ballistic trajectory, and the dragon only doing the last 100m/s or so.

(The dragon is not very efficient at doing significant deceleration due to the very large cosine losses and the low expansion ratio of the landing/abort engines)
Try the ISS 3D visualization at http://www.heavens-above.com/ISS_3D.aspx

Offline kcrick

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 281
  • Connecticut
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 1503

Good article Chris !

Nice to see commercial making progress !
Kevin

Online Chris Bergin

Thanks everyone. All part of what I noted would be our transition. However, we've always been able to get hold of "all vehicle" content, but we've always "had to" (for obvious reasons) prioritize Shuttle (foundation of the site, always been the lead vehicle of spaceflight), so you're just seeing us stretch our legs a bit.

Now I've got to deal with this...

I was hoping you'd be the commercial attack dog Chris, every other news site seems to be selling out to the commercial love in. Don't be a sell out.

I don't know if I should laugh, or re-visit Chicago - great city - and put you in a headlock, cheeky sod ;D I know, I *should* say "thanks for your feedback", but bollox to that, you've been on here long enough to know I'm one to shy away from this.

Trust me fella, if you knew me, you'd know I'd be the last person to sell out, but if you want to run around the forum armwaving, thinking you're a walking, talking antidote to those who run around armwaving about SLS, then you need to sit down, take a deep breath, read the article and work out that this is about NASA and commercial working together on FOUR NEW HSF VEHICLES.

Sorry if you thought I'd "attack" that like some "oh know, they are new space" op-ed, but I'd have to be one massive idiot to do so.

I report news, good and bad. Such as you know I'm a massive shuttle hugger, but we always reported their problems first (as much as we were safe in the knowledge we'd be following that story to resolution, part of SSP's charms, via their brilliance), and we'll give all vehicles - be it SLS or SS2 - the same treatment.

Objective news content here.

Offline demorcef

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • SCE to AUX
  • Chicago, IL
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Chris,

Thank you once again for providing us with great detailed information in one of your excellent articles!  If it wasn't for you non-insiders like myself would be left in the dark.  Keep up the good work you amazing guy!

It sounds like there are too many commercial options going on, however.  Shouldn't more resources be poured into flight-proven vehicles such as SpaceX's Dragon?  I know you are a fan of the Dreamchaser, but to me it sounds like it will need the most development work and will be the last to fly.

Thanks again!

Offline mikegro

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Columbus, OH
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 27
Excellent article Chris!  It's good to hear things are progressing well.  I can't wait to see the Dream Chaser atmospheric test vehicle flying!

We (HSF) really need these guys to succeed and I'm glad to see full NSF coverage of the developments!

-Mike
« Last Edit: 08/02/2011 01:28 PM by mikegro »
Part time F-16 and KC-135 Crew Chief, full-time spaceflight enthusiast!

Online Chris Bergin

Cheers Mike! Yeah, me too ;D And thanks Demo, although it's all about the sum total of the site, not me, never has been - I can just type a bit and know some people.


It sounds like there are too many commercial options going on, however.  Shouldn't more resources be poured into flight-proven vehicles such as SpaceX's Dragon?  I know you are a fan of the Dreamchaser, but to me it sounds like it will need the most development work and will be the last to fly.

Thanks again!

I think NASA - and rightly so - are avoiding the "eggs in one basket" scenario, which may serve them well on COTS/CRS as Orbital appear to be having a few hiccups on that score.

NASA's big on redundancy and while they probably could throw everything into SpaceX, they know it only takes one big failure - which no one is immune from - and they'd be in a heap of trouble. NASA know best as they are the ones with the data, not the media, especially when it comes to SpaceX, because they simply do not talk to the media unless it's what I'd describe as fluffy mass media style interviews.

Very much a PAO situation (and I'm sure they are just being protective), as we've covered SpaceX from the start, with a run of Elon interviews (great guy), but now even their PAO won't take any technical questions (they agreed to take some not so long ago, saw the questions, ran a mile and never responded) when they simply should have said "can't answer those". I have no doubt Elon would answer them, but - given how big SpaceX now are - it'll be at events like AIAA the other day.

Heard a lot of similar stories from the media folk citing similar, so that's something they need to change or those media who are op-ed - or rely heavily on PAO - will turn on them, but they shouldn't care "too much" about op-ed media.

At the same time I kinda understand why SpaceX are like that, as they got so much crap from some media during those early Falcon I failures, a lot of it was very unfair.
 
Meanwhile, some of the others are actually opening up a bit. Such as we know a lot of ULA here, and they're cool people, who get what we're about and certainly deal with us in a professional and friendly manner, which is great.

Next we'll knock on the doors of others (SNC is obviously a personal favorite) and we'll test the waters, but we'll always have our NASA friends and thus we'll always have - at the very least - this level of content, which is going to serve us all well.

Offline AlexP

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 29
Chris,

Thank you once again for providing us with great detailed information in one of your excellent articles!  If it wasn't for you non-insiders like myself would be left in the dark.  Keep up the good work you amazing guy!

It sounds like there are too many commercial options going on, however.  Shouldn't more resources be poured into flight-proven vehicles such as SpaceX's Dragon? I know you are a fan of the Dreamchaser, but to me it sounds like it will need the most development work and will be the last to fly.

Thanks again!

NASA (from my reading of their CCDev2 decision, anyway) wanted to fund a lifting body as well as capsules, and Dreamchaser also made a good business case, which is the whole point of the program. 

They've also said they can be orbital by 2014, you can decide for yourself whether to be skeptical of that date.

Great article anyway Chris, I look forward to following their progress on the site for years to come.

Offline DARPA-86

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • Pig farmer from Ryan, Iowa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1


True. I wonder where US domestic crew capabilities would be now if the original Steidle/O'Keefe approach starting in 2004/2005 would have been continued.


It is my understanding that a good portion of CST-100 from Boeing (and long time partners) goes back to that time frame, at the very least from a concept and initial design.  It's just that nobody was willing to pay for it to mature in.  So now you are getting piece by piece advancement but I can tell you this milestone approach is a real departure from business as usual, quite frankly refreshing for all involved because believe it or not - project personnel actually like to accomplish things in a tangible manner from time to time.

Boeing is the one firm that all along has had the capacity to do something of this scale and scope - but it is not in their business nature nor their corporate culture to risk their capital on this, not while they have a lot on their plate elsewhere.  But they are, and have been in a position to make advancments, provided someone else pay for them.

What I do like is that here is an opportunity to build upon, and realize a further return on investment from things like Orbital Express; a mission heavily involving Boeing (and others) which demonstrated proximity ops, capture & docking, and fluid/fuel transfer - all mission critical capabilities for any Space Station destinations.

Offline yamato

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

It sounds like there are too many commercial options going on, however.  Shouldn't more resources be poured into flight-proven vehicles such as SpaceX's Dragon?  I know you are a fan of the Dreamchaser, but to me it sounds like it will need the most development work and will be the last to fly.


No. You need multiple vehicles. You need back-up. Unless you wish to be grounded for years after every mishap, such as Challenger or Columbia. It costīs NASA more money, but still it is cheaper then solely government development of one vehicle. And you get 4 different approaches, so your chance for success is higher.
After all, the more players, the more competition.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 39
Great article, Chris. One quibble - you mention the BA Sundancer station in the CST-100 section, but Bigelow has cancelled that module. His station now uses the BA-330.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 40
Great article Chris!  I have one question though....

Quote
Such a rocket-assisted landing also allows for the potential for landings on the moon and Mars, without the need for additional hardware, or additional vehicles, such as landers.

Does this mean a Dragon could be used without modification (other than perhaps chutes) to land on Mars?  Sounds too good to be true.

Here's an article about using Dragon as an MTV and ERV. I can't tell if it's written by Michael Stolz or if Stolz is posting an article by Zubrin.

Three Falcon heavy launches (each 53 tonnes to LEO). This gives an MTV, an ERV, as well as an MAV.

The article seems to suggest using aerobraking rather than LAS for EDL.

The whole thing seems optimistic in the extreme.


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9291
  • Liked: 1239
  • Likes Given: 797
Objective news content here.

You are more objective than most but I wouldn't say entirely/100% objective. For example, your recent SLS articles have added some introduction comments that were critical of the administration's foot dragging in making a decision for the SLS. It's obvious from the tone of these comments that you are pro-SLS.

But being pro-SLS doesn't mean that you are anti-commercial. The compromise that was reached in the NASA Authorization bill allows for some people to be pro-NASA Authorization bill (i.e. pro-SLS for BEO exploration and pro-commercial for LEO). I would put you more in that camp. Incidentally, it's also pretty obvious that you have a soft spot for the "baby Shuttle" (Dream Chaser).  But I am pro-Dream Chaser too. So that's fine with me!
« Last Edit: 08/02/2011 02:26 PM by yg1968 »

Online Chris Bergin

Great article, Chris. One quibble - you mention the BA Sundancer station in the CST-100 section, but Bigelow has cancelled that module. His station now uses the BA-330.

Good note, thanks!

Online Chris Bergin

Objective news content here.

You are more objective than most but I wouldn't say entirely (100%) objective. For example, your recent SLS articles have added some introduction comments that were critical of the administration's foot dragging in making a decision for the SLS. It's obvious from the tone of these comments that you are pro-SLS.

But being pro-SLS doesn't mean that you are anti-commercial. The compromise that was reached in the NASA Authorization bill allows for some people to be pro-NASA Authorization bill (i.e. pro-SLS for BEO exploration and pro-commercial for LEO). I would put you more in that camp. Incidentally, it's also pretty obvious that you have a soft spot for the "baby Shuttle" (Dream Chaser).  But I am pro-Dream Chaser too. So that's OK with me!

Fair enough comment! I doubt anyone can be 100 percent objective, unless they were - for example - a copy editor who was detached from caring about the subject. I know, as I used to write production line style copy during my sports reporting days ;)

On SLS, the article was so negative I felt I needed to add a bit of context into the problems. Yeah, I'm a big fan of massive expensive rockets, so I'm not going to say I'm against SLS, but I was more careful than I might of gotten away with on that, as that is what the NASA guys tell me, so it was fair game to report. PS I'm a fan of the rocket, but not its current situation.

Dream Chaser was always going to get some affection from me, and I'd say that's fine, so long as I didn't then go and write about "boring capsules" when writing about CST-100 :D

Offline demorcef

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • SCE to AUX
  • Chicago, IL
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Chris,

Thank you once again for providing us with great detailed information in one of your excellent articles!  If it wasn't for you non-insiders like myself would be left in the dark.  Keep up the good work you amazing guy!

It sounds like there are too many commercial options going on, however.  Shouldn't more resources be poured into flight-proven vehicles such as SpaceX's Dragon? I know you are a fan of the Dreamchaser, but to me it sounds like it will need the most development work and will be the last to fly.

Thanks again!

NASA (from my reading of their CCDev2 decision, anyway) wanted to fund a lifting body as well as capsules, and Dreamchaser also made a good business case, which is the whole point of the program. 

They've also said they can be orbital by 2014, you can decide for yourself whether to be skeptical of that date.

Great article anyway Chris, I look forward to following their progress on the site for years to come.

Point well taken!  I hope to see all of the above lift off and return to the Earth in the near future!

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Heh!

Quote
I can just type a bit and know some people.

I know some reporters I gotta share this with. Great line!

Anyway, Chris, it seems you do know a lot of people and you type rather well.

Great article!
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline AlexP

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 29
Point well taken!  I hope to see all of the above lift off and return to the Earth in the near future!

100% with you there :) Shuttle is going to leave a big void (technically and emotionally) in human spaceflight, we can only hope for as much as possible to get up and running in order to help fill it!

Offline Jason Sole

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Chicago
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Sorry Chris, was in a bad mood and I knew you'd take it on the chin and respond. Love the Englishness in that response too ;D

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2429
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Great article! Exciting years still ahead with all of this commercial stuff!

Offline deskpro590

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Fort Worth, Texas
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 19
It's exciting to see these programs move forward.  I wonder how many ex-NASA (Unite Space Alliance...etc) folks have been absorbed by these firms?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
It's exciting to see these programs move forward.  I wonder how many ex-NASA (Unite Space Alliance...etc) folks have been absorbed by these firms?

About 10. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline deskpro590

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Fort Worth, Texas
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 19
It's exciting to see these programs move forward.  I wonder how many ex-NASA (Unite Space Alliance...etc) folks have been absorbed by these firms?

About 10. 

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Let me clarify to some extent.  There are a handful of USA personnel involved in a couple of these vehicles.  Boeing has been able to retain some (a relatively small percentage) of its people for work on CST-100 (but also told they cannot guarantee anything for the long term). 

I know of only a few instances where USA, Boeing, etc have actually got onboard directly with these companies.  While we have all heard the various rumors, etc of a "stigma" (which is load of *&%# and hope they are just rumors) I know in reality it is not the fault of any these companies because it is simply NOT possible to hire the vast amounts of people, and the experience and knowledge that goes with it, without totally destroying their cost structure (not to mention where they would get the money in the first place). 

Most people are leaving the space industry and likely will never come back.  A lot of folks are going to Boeing commercial in Seattle or South Carolina.  Some have are going to work in energy/chemical/oil/gas.  Some are just going here or there.  A good number don't have anything yet from what I can tell. 

That's what is so frustrating about all of this and why somehow, someway I believe there is more going on here.  SLS is being kept even from viewing a picture.  There is no plan for anything else and with no plan there can be no contracts and no work, etc.  So it all just evaporates. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online Chris Bergin

Sorry Chris, was in a bad mood and I knew you'd take it on the chin and respond. Love the Englishness in that response too ;D

No worries ;)

Offline grr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • Highlands Ranch, Colorado
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Great article, Chris. One quibble - you mention the BA Sundancer station in the CST-100 section, but Bigelow has cancelled that module. His station now uses the BA-330.

Good note, thanks!

Lack of talking about it != cancelled.

It is possible that he will run the sundancer down the 330 line and have uses for it. For example, it might be interesting for running around in LEO as a real taxi/truck between space stations. It can handle 3 for a long duration, but can handle more for short durations. Likewise, this might be a good way to send water/fuel between moon and earth.

Offline demorcef

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • SCE to AUX
  • Chicago, IL
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Let me clarify to some extent.  There are a handful of USA personnel involved in a couple of these vehicles.  Boeing has been able to retain some (a relatively small percentage) of its people for work on CST-100 (but also told they cannot guarantee anything for the long term). 

I know of only a few instances where USA, Boeing, etc have actually got onboard directly with these companies.  While we have all heard the various rumors, etc of a "stigma" (which is load of *&%# and hope they are just rumors) I know in reality it is not the fault of any these companies because it is simply NOT possible to hire the vast amounts of people, and the experience and knowledge that goes with it, without totally destroying their cost structure (not to mention where they would get the money in the first place). 

Most people are leaving the space industry and likely will never come back.  A lot of folks are going to Boeing commercial in Seattle or South Carolina.  Some have are going to work in energy/chemical/oil/gas.  Some are just going here or there.  A good number don't have anything yet from what I can tell. 

That's what is so frustrating about all of this and why somehow, someway I believe there is more going on here.  SLS is being kept even from viewing a picture.  There is no plan for anything else and with no plan there can be no contracts and no work, etc.  So it all just evaporates. 

What if everyone who had anything to do with the Manhattan Project had been laid off and had to fend for themselves.  Talk about a brain drain...
« Last Edit: 08/02/2011 08:39 PM by demorcef »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31819
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10366
  • Likes Given: 316

What if everyone who had anything to do with the Manhattan Project had been laid off and had to fend for themselves.  Talk about a brain drain...

No,  post Apollo is a closer approximation.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2011 09:03 PM by Jim »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 0
It's exciting to see these programs move forward.  I wonder how many ex-NASA (Unite Space Alliance...etc) folks have been absorbed by these firms?

About 10. 

A lot more than 10....but way, way too few.

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22387
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 258
No. You need multiple vehicles. You need back-up. Unless you wish to be grounded for years after every mishap, such as Challenger or Columbia. It costīs NASA more money, but still it is cheaper then solely government development of one vehicle. And you get 4 different approaches, so your chance for success is higher.
After all, the more players, the more competition.

You might not be grounded for multiple years on the US side, but one cannot simply flip the switch and increase production if something happened on one side of the contracts.  That might even cause a crew reduction on the ISS side, especially if Falcon 9/Dragon were one of the systems.  So yes in terms of sole source failure things would be better, but the ISSP would still suffer if there was some sort of incident with a Commercial crew craft.
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Great article, Chris. One quibble - you mention the BA Sundancer station in the CST-100 section, but Bigelow has cancelled that module. His station now uses the BA-330.

Good note, thanks!

Lack of talking about it != cancelled.

It is possible that he will run the sundancer down the 330 line and have uses for it. For example, it might be interesting for running around in LEO as a real taxi/truck between space stations. It can handle 3 for a long duration, but can handle more for short durations. Likewise, this might be a good way to send water/fuel between moon and earth.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15581.msg776733#msg776733

Offline grr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • Highlands Ranch, Colorado
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Great article, Chris. One quibble - you mention the BA Sundancer station in the CST-100 section, but Bigelow has cancelled that module. His station now uses the BA-330.

Good note, thanks!

Lack of talking about it != cancelled.

It is possible that he will run the sundancer down the 330 line and have uses for it. For example, it might be interesting for running around in LEO as a real taxi/truck between space stations. It can handle 3 for a long duration, but can handle more for short durations. Likewise, this might be a good way to send water/fuel between moon and earth.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15581.msg776733#msg776733

I know. I read it when it first came out.
However, when Galaxy was stopped, it was openly said that it was cancelled and that all work was moving towards sundancer.
Yet, with Sundancer, it has not been directly cancelled. They are saying that they are devoting full effort on BA-330.
Right now, it makes far more sense to do the BA-330, esp. for space stations.

But when sending a mission to the moon, this unit is only 4 tonnes, while the BA-330 is 10-12 tonnes. If you send 4-6 ppl to the moon, then putting a sundancer on the ground as well as doing transport in a sundancer makes good sense.
---------------------- edit ------------
Sorry, the above paragraph is incorrect. Please do not use it.
« Last Edit: 08/07/2011 08:27 AM by grr »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8221
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 108
I know. I read it when it first came out.
However, when Galaxy was stopped, it was openly said that it was cancelled and that all work was moving towards sundancer.
Yet, with Sundancer, it has not been directly cancelled. They are saying that they are devoting full effort on BA-330.
Right now, it makes far more sense to do the BA-330, esp. for space stations.

But when sending a mission to the moon, this unit is only 4 tonnes, while the BA-330 is 10-12 tonnes. If you send 4-6 ppl to the moon, then putting a sundancer on the ground as well as doing transport in a sundancer makes good sense.

According to Wikipedia Sundancer weights 8.6 tonne.  So something weighing 4 tonne would be a different spacecraft.  I will nickname it MoonWaltzer.  The specifications of the MoonWaltzer will need investigating.  Since the journey is short the spacecraft can be smaller.  The capsule (or lifting body) can be used as the control room so the MoonWaltzer may not need navigation hardware.

Offline Wyvern

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Welp here I am
  • Calgary
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
That CST-100 model has a pretty cool color scheme.

Is that standard?
Darn it where is my Moon base!

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 0
That CST-100 model has a pretty cool color scheme.

Is that standard?

Standard...in what way?  I think it is just a basic functional scheme.  I am sure it will be modified down the road.

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • V
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
It's exciting to see these programs move forward.  I wonder how many ex-NASA (Unite Space Alliance...etc) folks have been absorbed by these firms?

About 10. 

Ow

Offline grr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • Highlands Ranch, Colorado
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I know. I read it when it first came out.
However, when Galaxy was stopped, it was openly said that it was cancelled and that all work was moving towards sundancer.
Yet, with Sundancer, it has not been directly cancelled. They are saying that they are devoting full effort on BA-330.
Right now, it makes far more sense to do the BA-330, esp. for space stations.

But when sending a mission to the moon, this unit is only 4 tonnes, while the BA-330 is 10-12 tonnes. If you send 4-6 ppl to the moon, then putting a sundancer on the ground as well as doing transport in a sundancer makes good sense.

According to Wikipedia Sundancer weights 8.6 tonne.  So something weighing 4 tonne would be a different spacecraft.  I will nickname it MoonWaltzer.  The specifications of the MoonWaltzer will need investigating.  Since the journey is short the spacecraft can be smaller.  The capsule (or lifting body) can be used as the control room so the MoonWaltzer may not need navigation hardware.

wow.
For some odd reason, I could have SWORN that it was 4 tonnes, not 8. And that WAS from wiki. Yet, when I look at wiki, it is 8 and not edited. Thank you for checking. That was slop on my part. Sorry.

Tags: