Author Topic: NASA Selects Commercial Firms to Begin Development of Crew Transportation  (Read 145316 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Feb. 1, 2010

Grey Hautaluoma/Ashley Edwards
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-0668/1756
[email protected], [email protected]

Josh Byerly
Johnson Space Center, Houston
281-483-5111
[email protected]

CONTRACT RELEASE: C10-004

NASA SELECTS COMMERCIAL FIRMS TO BEGIN DEVELOPMENT OF CREW TRANSPORTATION CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS FOR HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT USING RECOVERY ACT FUNDS

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded $50 million through funded agreements
to further the commercial sector's capability to support transport of
crew to and from low Earth orbit. This step is the first taken by
NASA consistent with the president's direction to foster commercial
human spaceflight capabilities.

"The president has asked NASA to partner with the aerospace industry
in a fundamentally new way, making commercially provided services the
primary mode of astronaut transportation to the International Space
Station," said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. "We are pleased to
be able to quickly move forward to advance this exciting plan for
NASA."

Through an open competition for funds from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, NASA has awarded Space Act Agreements to
Blue Origin of Kent, Wash.; The Boeing Company of Houston; Paragon
Space Development Corporation of Tucson, Ariz.; Sierra Nevada
Corporation of Louisville, Colo.; and United Launch Alliance of
Centennial, Colo. The agreements are for the development of crew
concepts and technology demonstrations and investigations for future
commercial support of human spaceflight.

The Space Act Agreements are designed to foster entrepreneurial
activity leading to high-tech job growth in engineering, analysis,
design and research, and to promote economic growth as capabilities
for new markets are created. Funding for these Space Act Agreements
will stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and
demonstrate human spaceflight capabilities.

"These selections represent a critical step to enable future
commercial human spaceflight," said Doug Cooke, associate
administrator for Exploration Systems at NASA. "These impressive
proposals will advance NASA significantly along the path to using
commercial services to ferry astronauts to and from low Earth orbit,
and we look forward to working with the selected teams," Cooke said.

All Space Act Agreements are designed to partially fund the
development of system concepts, key technologies, and capabilities
that could ultimately be used in commercial crew human space
transportation systems. The selected teams also proposed matching
funds from other sources that would leverage the taxpayer investment.
The selected teams and awards are:


Blue Origin will receive $3.7 million

The Boeing Company will receive $18 million

Paragon Space Development Corporation will receive $1.4 million

Sierra Nevada Corporation will receive $20 million

United Launch Alliance will receive $6.7 million


The signed Space Act Agreements will fund performance milestones
beginning in February 2010. The aggregate value of all of the Space
Act Agreements is approximately $50 million.

The Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office at NASA's Johnson Space
Center in Houston is managing this effort.
For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo Program,
visit:



http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home


For the most current information about NASA's use of the Recovery Act
funds, visit:



http://www.nasa.gov/recovery
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline agman25

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Does Boeing still have LV people. I thought they all went to ULA.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I wonder what Blue Origin is getting paid to do? It's only $3.7 million, so either it's something suborbital or it's a paper study.

Suborbital vehicles are great for testing things that need to work in microgravity... The "Vomit Comet" really helped with the development of some of the Shuttle's subsystems.
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 butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
$20M for Dream Chaser is interesting.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
What's even more interesting is that The Dream Chaser is the one that is getting the most money. If you factor-in the fact that the Dream Chaser is supposed to fly on an Atlas rocket, this means $27 million of the $50 million of the money went towards essentially the same proposal. Although If Boeing's proposal is a capsule, it could also use the Atlas V.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2010 09:40 pm by yg1968 »

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Go Dream Chaser! If it ever flies people will come to love it much as they loved the Orbiter. A sort of a cross between Spirit and the Orbiter. The little spaceplane that could.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Sen

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I know its early, and today is a "busy day" and long term fallout/budgets programs details will take some time to become clear, but given that, what,if anything does spacex being excluded from this program mean?

As has been ponted out, the bulk of the money went to systems using ULA launchers. Is spacex finding itself, along with orbital, pushed to the sidelines as the bigger players move into the commerical crewed space? Was this award treated as a preliminary seed money to companies not yet "in the process", or does it indicate nasa's thinking about who is going to service the new commercial crewed program? Could it be that since spacex and commercial crewed has become linked in the minds of commercial space critics, Nasa decided to expand the mindshare against such arguments? Is spacex, and their dragon capsule still a contender or has the company been more or less removed from future consideration when it comes to commercial crewd services? 
« Last Edit: 02/01/2010 09:43 pm by Sen »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
I am wondering if it means anything. SpaceX's proposal was for a launch abort system. Perhaps, NASA thought that it was too early to provide funds to a launch abort system at this point in time. But I doubt that this means anything for SpaceX for future awards. 

See this thread for more info:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16836.msg517263#msg517263
« Last Edit: 02/01/2010 09:47 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Go Dream Chaser! If it ever flies people will come to love it much as they loved the Orbiter. A sort of a cross between Spirit and the Orbiter. The little spaceplane that could.
Yes, Dream Chaser sounds like a great concept... like the Shuttle Orbiter, but smaller, which will have HUGE ramifications for lowering costs. It's small enough that you can afford to change/upgrade some of the subsystems after operational experience shows what is most efficient. Plus, it can launch on different launch vehicles, allowing costs to be further minimized.

And about SpaceX: If they successfully launch Falcon 9 in the next month or four and assume regular Dragon flights to the ISS (with successful recovery of the capsule) within the next year or two, they will get a whole lot of lovin' as far as commercial crew.
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 Sen

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I am wondering if it means anything. SpaceX's proposal was for a launch abort system. Perhaps, NASA thought that it was too early to provide funds to a launch abort system at this point in time. But I doubt that this means anything for SpaceX for future awards. 

Thats a good point. I have read the appropriate documets, but its unclear exactly how the programs viewed by nasa. As a way to start the process for new players, or as an indication of future thinking. If it was a "foot in the door, place at the table" contract, then spacex and orbital already have a seat, so to speak.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Boeing had issued this press release about its proposal last September. I am assuming this is the one that got chosen:

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=849

It sound like an Orion lite (for lack of a better name).
« Last Edit: 02/01/2010 10:06 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Go Dream Chaser! If it ever flies people will come to love it much as they loved the Orbiter. A sort of a cross between Spirit and the Orbiter. The little spaceplane that could.
Yes, Dream Chaser sounds like a great concept... like the Shuttle Orbiter, but smaller, which will have HUGE ramifications for lowering costs. It's small enough that you can afford to change/upgrade some of the subsystems after operational experience shows what is most efficient. Plus, it can launch on different launch vehicles, allowing costs to be further minimized.

And about SpaceX: If they successfully launch Falcon 9 in the next month or four and assume regular Dragon flights to the ISS (with successful recovery of the capsule) within the next year or two, they will get a whole lot of lovin' as far as commercial crew.

This is one of the few good news that came out today. The Dream Chaser is one of the coolest vehicule there is. I was quitely rooting for the Dream Chaser.   

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Good to see Dreamchaser getting 20M I always like that vehicle.
It reminds me of some of the original Von Braun space plane concepts.
The design like Dragon could greatly reduce costs.

Dream chaser retains all of it's service module systems for reuse which is one part of STS that has proven to be very low maintenance.

It also looks the part of a high tech spacecraft and lands on a runway which should quell some of the public unrest over the shuttle's retirement.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2010 10:04 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
I know its early, and today is a "busy day" and long term fallout/budgets programs details will take some time to become clear, but given that, what,if anything does spacex being excluded from this program mean?

As has been ponted out, the bulk of the money went to systems using ULA launchers. Is spacex finding itself, along with orbital, pushed to the sidelines as the bigger players move into the commerical crewed space? Was this award treated as a preliminary seed money to companies not yet "in the process", or does it indicate nasa's thinking about who is going to service the new commercial crewed program? Could it be that since spacex and commercial crewed has become linked in the minds of commercial space critics, Nasa decided to expand the mindshare against such arguments? Is spacex, and their dragon capsule still a contender or has the company been more or less removed from future consideration when it comes to commercial crewd services? 

It means none of the things you are saying.  Spacex and OSC got COTS money. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Does Boeing still have LV people. I thought they all went to ULA.

Yes, but this money is for spacecraft mostly

Offline Sen

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Well Fair enough Jim, but this is a different program then cargo. So would that make this, in your estimation, a general solicitation of new ideas and capabilities? I dont have a personal opinion, im just asking for others peoples perspectives. Sometimes a contract is just a contract, afterall. :)
« Last Edit: 02/01/2010 10:17 pm by Sen »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
The good news for SpaceX is that their proposal was for a launch abort system (LAS) and it doesn't seem like any of these other companies' proposal were for a launch abort system (as far as I know). So they didn't lose out to anybody in that sense.

SpaceX insists that they only need help with the LAS and that they have enough money for Falcon 9 and Dragon with the COTS and CRS contracts. In a nutshell, NASA's not going to give SpaceX money for something that they are not even asking for. They may get money for a LAS once NASA stars awarding contracts for that. I admit that this is a guess on my part. But it seems logical to me...
« Last Edit: 02/01/2010 10:25 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Sen

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I still wonder about orbital. The Taurus II is in the low end of cpacity in the medium rocket class, and the cygnus crew capacity would be 2-3 to ISS?  It most likely has nothing to do with this award, again perhaps it comes down to the nature of the proposals falling in the scope of the award/award ammount.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2010 10:35 pm by Sen »

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2211
  • Likes Given: 662
The good news for SpaceX is that their proposal was for a launch abort system (LAS) and it doesn't seem like any of these other companies' proposal were for a launch abort system (as far as I know). So they didn't lose out to anybody in that sense.

SpaceX insists that they only need help with the LAS and that they have enough money for Falcon 9 and Dragon with the COTS and CRS contracts. In a nutshell, NASA's not going to give SpaceX money for something that they are not even asking for. They may get money for a LAS once NASA stars awarding contracts for that. I admit that this is a guess on my part. But it seems logical to me...

Well, I can report now that HMX's proposal was for a universal launch abort system applicable to several capsule concepts.  Obviously we didn't win, but we remain interested in developing the system.  It's a novel concept that we'll present later this year at AIAA Space 2010.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
I still wonder about orbital. The Taurus II is in the low end of cpacity in the medium rocket class, and the cygnus crew capacity would be 2-3 to ISS?  It most likely has nothing to do with this award, again perhaps it comes down to the nature of the proposals falling in the scope of the award/award ammount.

Orbital's proposal was for a crewed Cygnus according to the article below. The fact that their proposal wasn't picked is probably more telling than SpaceX.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/orbital-plans-develop-cygnus-based-crew-capsule.html

Some info on the various proposal were discussed in this November Space News article:
 
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/091113-discussions-commercial-crew-development-dollars.html
« Last Edit: 02/01/2010 11:05 pm by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

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