Author Topic: CCiCAP bid: Space Operations, Inc. (SpaceOps) aka Gemini on steroids  (Read 29071 times)

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729

1) aerospace knockoffs (jets) are wide in the news..its being done
2) no (you need to watch the movie)
4) PWR and most quick designs use 3D printing.


Wrong again.

1.  They are not knockoffs. Just as Buran is not knockoff of the shuttle. 
2.  Doesn't matter, you are still wrong
3.  Not applicable here

-10  LMAO    Jim you sure gave me a good laugh.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
So they took an old design that wasn't found to be worthwhile back then and believe to gain something from that 45 years later. Now THAT sounds like a plan....

If any of that holds true it pretty much means we are working hard to get to a technological level of 40 years ago now. However, somehow I really don't believe that.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2012 03:34 am by pippin »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115

1) aerospace knockoffs (jets) are wide in the news..its being done
2) no (you need to watch the movie)
4) PWR and most quick designs use 3D printing.


Wrong again.

1.  They are not knockoffs. Just as Buran is not knockoff of the shuttle. 
2.  Doesn't matter, you are still wrong
3.  Not applicable here

-10  LMAO    Jim you sure gave me a good laugh.
Every time somebody laughs in a mocking manner on the Internet as if it is some kind of reasonable response, I lose faith in humanity.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
So they took an old design that wasn't found to be worthwhile back then and believe to gain something from that 45 years later. Now THAT sounds like a plan....

If any of that holds true it pretty much means we are working hard to get to a technological level of 40 years ago now. However, somehow I really don't believe that.

can you say soyuz?   sides why reinvent the wheel ;D
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729

1) aerospace knockoffs (jets) are wide in the news..its being done
2) no (you need to watch the movie)
4) PWR and most quick designs use 3D printing.


Wrong again.

1.  They are not knockoffs. Just as Buran is not knockoff of the shuttle. 
2.  Doesn't matter, you are still wrong
3.  Not applicable here

-10  LMAO    Jim you sure gave me a good laugh.
Every time somebody laughs in a mocking manner on the Internet as if it is some kind of reasonable response, I lose faith in humanity.

can't help it ....was pure Jim I'm close to tears been laughing so much   ;D ;D
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
[quote ]
can you say soyuz?   sides why reinvent the wheel ;D
[/quote]

The difference is that Soyuz remained in production and got upgrades (plus even the Russians are running into obsolesce issues).

What you are thinking about is more akin to trying to put the model T back in production.  A real model T uses materials that are hard to find or have since been replaced with cheaper or more appropriate materials (i.e. plastic dash boards)

 Is missing very useful features (i.e. Radial tires had not been invented yet…., had no battery, no auto starter, no key, no heat, and no radio).

Would not meet any current auto safety rules ect.

Basically sometimes it truly is better to let the past stay in the past. The most they could have used was maybe the shape of Gemini everything else would have to be redone.  The model T is a great museum piece, it is not a good family car. Likewise the idea of using Gemini again for a spacecraft.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2012 04:03 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807

1) aerospace knockoffs (jets) are wide in the news..its being done
2) no (you need to watch the movie)
4) PWR and most quick designs use 3D printing.


Wrong again.

1.  They are not knockoffs. Just as Buran is not knockoff of the shuttle. 
2.  Doesn't matter, you are still wrong
3.  Not applicable here

-10  LMAO    Jim you sure gave me a good laugh.
Every time somebody laughs in a mocking manner on the Internet as if it is some kind of reasonable response, I lose faith in humanity.

Why all of humanity -- why not just the alleged-human that laughed?

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
So they took an old design that wasn't found to be worthwhile back then and believe to gain something from that 45 years later. Now THAT sounds like a plan....

If any of that holds true it pretty much means we are working hard to get to a technological level of 40 years ago now. However, somehow I really don't believe that.

can you say soyuz?   sides why reinvent the wheel ;D
Oh. Soyuz has never flown and was found to be not practical and discontinued before it's first flight and has only remained around as an idea for 45 years? Interesting. I didn't know that.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2012 01:42 pm by pippin »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Guess my points are going mostly over most reader’s heads.

I’m trying to convey that a 1950’s-1960’s design of “something” is extremely easy to duplicate at a much lower cost per item vs their design years.  The basic tools that once were the owned by the top aerospace companies have become available to the “mass manufacturing market”.

2nd major point: Many of these tools for the “mass manufacturing market” are coming in spurts to the individual, for home use.   

Regarding SpaceX this sums up the points very well: “Although some of the companies building the next generation of crew vehicles are experiencing difficulty obtaining components from a dwindling aerospace supply base in the small lots they require (see p. 44), Musk says his company's philosophy of building as much as possible in-house mitigates the problem.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_01_2012_p47-498016.xml&p=1
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105

Guess my points are going mostly over most reader’s heads.

The point which you have not answered, which both Jorge and Jim made, was irrespective of how you reverse engineer Gemini, or how cheap that process may be, the design will not work at ISS pressure.

Even if you kept the Gemini mold line, you would have to essentially redesign the shell, the systems, just about everything. You would have to do what SNC are doing in converting HL-20 into Dream Chaser. It will not be cheap.

The claim in the video that they could launch an Eclipse spacecraft in Q4 2013 is just not credible.
Douglas Clark

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Extremely easy to duplicate at a much lower cost?

I'm not sure I believe that. In the 50s and 60s, you had a lot more apprenticeship and basic machining... Nowadays, it's all computer-controlled, you say... But who is better able to build a rocket engine? Someone who played video games about rockets as a child or someone who builds model rockets as a child? We've probably lost some of the latter due to kids staying indoors more and over-protective parents (although we're making a comeback with the whole maker movement).

Nowadays, your machinists are likely to be older and command a higher wage. In the 1960s, we had an influx of a whole bunch of baby boomer youngsters doing cheaper work plus a slightly older generation who had spent the years from 1940 to 1945 building weapons (including rockets) like crazy, plus an enormous build-up of rockets and jets and other aerospace related equipment in the early part of the Cold War. The Aerospace industry was a much larger portion of the economy at that time than now, and a lot more new development programs had been completed recently.

If there's an advantage now, it is in avionics. I think digital design and manufacture is a little over-rated, though still helpful.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729

Guess my points are going mostly over most reader’s heads.

The point which you have not answered, which both Jorge and Jim made, was irrespective of how you reverse engineer Gemini, or how cheap that process may be, the design will not work at ISS pressure.

Even if you kept the Gemini mold line, you would have to essentially redesign the shell, the systems, just about everything. You would have to do what SNC are doing in converting HL-20 into Dream Chaser. It will not be cheap.

The claim in the video that they could launch an Eclipse spacecraft in Q4 2013 is just not credible.

My only interest was that the MOL version was an interesting design.  Just downloaded their Business Plan you might find your answers there.


« Last Edit: 10/05/2012 11:05 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Guess my points are going mostly over most reader’s heads.

No, your points stem from hearsay and are not founded in reality.

Manufacturing has come a long way since the 60s, but part of the story is that you design for these manufacturing technologies. You may be able to build a car in 1/4 of the time but it's DESIGNED for that, you don't build 1960's cars on modern tooling.
For example, you won't be able to use CNC equipment with titanium, it just doesn't work.

Then it's not like that tooling was cheap. We are not talking about 3D printers for design molds here, we talk about manufacturing for a real-lift system with extreme quality requirements.

Your Musk quote if one about a typical make-or-buy decision like you will see them everywhere in any industry. Go interview Orbital and you will get the exactly opposite position. Funny thing is: both probably work.
SpaceX has invested heavily into vertical integration and if that should ever pay off, they will need high-volume business, not just a few flights to ISS on duplicated heritage equipment.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Interesting concept....

Know how cheap it would be to manufacture this!   Only issue might be the 2012 NASA standards?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26262.15
Part of why SpaceOps failed to get an award was that this is a *vehicle* not a transportation *system*, which (ironically) seems to be the same mistake ATK made with Liberty but backwards (reasonable LV, very vague capsule).

IOW they failed to answer the question NASA asked. Not a good start.

As for how cheap it would be 1960's hardware tended to use humans *riveting* things together. This is likely to be a *very* expensive process by modern mfg methods. By the time you've re-designed it for production you could have just designed something from scratch (look at how the Orion and Dragon capsules are built).

And the result has *less* capability than a Soyuz. You might have noticed that all successful competitors could carry *more* than a Soyuz.

People point to the tremendous increases in computer power since the 1960's and extrapolate that to space technology and conclude it *must* be so much easier now than then.

In truth the processor power on a vehicle is a *very* small part of its costs *or* its capabilities. In some ways the industry had *regressed* as certain materials there less exotic ones as well) are either unavailable (Boron reinforced aluminum ) or banned outright (anything with Thorium and Beryllium machining is *very* specialized due to dust toxicity, despite both have very good properties).

As for the *only* issues being NASA 2012 safety standards that's a pretty damm *big* issue. Starting with the atmosphere you breath and continuing into on orbit lifetime (those fuel cells don't have the capacity for 200+days. They were never *designed* to need it) and docking processes as top line items.

It's a design from a time when compatibility with the ISS was not a requirement because ISS did not exist.

The concept (like the video) appeals to a certain audience. If you want to invest in it good luck. I would not and I'm fairly sure most people here would not either.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
A very nicely thought out post John Smith 19.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
If you want a "knock-off" of Gemini, there is one flying today, called "Yantar" or also "Kobalt".

I have always felt that there was an application for this to fly small crews into space. The "nose" of the spacecraft currently holds a camera, but I believe that this camera could be replaced with a docking adapter. If you want a cheap 2 person spacecraft, this is probably a good model.



Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
If you want a "knock-off" of Gemini, there is one flying today, called "Yantar" or also "Kobalt".

I have always felt that there was an application for this to fly small crews into space. The "nose" of the spacecraft currently holds a camera, but I believe that this camera could be replaced with a docking adapter. If you want a cheap 2 person spacecraft, this is probably a good model.




your right, its not a bad "knock-off" of Gemini.  I pulled up a quick google and found one was a design from the Ukraine bureau, and one from OK1 is that your understanding?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Yantar/Kobalt is a product of the Samara facility. I am not aware of any comparable development from Yushnoye in Dneprpetrovsk in the Ukraine.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Yantar/Kobalt is a product of the Samara facility. I am not aware of any comparable development from Yushnoye in Dneprpetrovsk in the Ukraine.


The Yushnoye design was rejected and the Samara design oked.

Yantar/Kobalt is mfg in St Petersburg.

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
I may be wrong, but I think only the recon payload is made in Spb. The biggest part of Kobalt is actually the instrument module, not the return capsule. That one is defeinitely made in Samara and also serves as basis of Volga upper stage now under development.

However, licensing Kobalt (assuming Russian Government let it happen) would not in any way play on patriotic feelings the way Gemini does, even though it's a more complete system that's flying today.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0