So, is this the resurrection of Hermes?
Quote from: aquanaut99 on 01/09/2014 04:04 amSo, is this the resurrection of Hermes?.. with similar capasity, much much lower mass. What I'm missing here?Dreamchaser is something like 11 tonnes, hermes was getting too heavy for ariane V which could lift something like 20 tonnes. Both have similar class of capasity. How is dream chaser so much lighter?
I am sceptical. First of all, ESA can already fly to the ISS with the Russians or whatever NASA choses as a commercial crew vehicle. That's part of the deal, right? So maybe ESA plans to contribute to ISS operations with Dreamchaser participation? (similar to the SM of Orion). I don't like the sound of that, at least not in the case of commercial crew. In any case, its very unlikely that ESA would fund an american company to build a crew vehicle for them. I don't think that is how ESA works. Regarding launch on the Ariane 5, that seems to be another ploy from the DLR to keep Ariane 6 from happening too soon.
ESA is spreading it's eggs over multiple baskets. Risk reduction. Soyuz for ISS flights.
Actually, it is more likely that ESA will want to have orbital access for non-ISS missions.
And I don't think SN will be building DC's for ESA. It very much more likely will be that ESA will be buying DC flight services.
Could anyone expand on this? As Europe has no re-entry capability, I had assumed all the experience and practical knowledge of TPS is largely in the US!
Great article as usual, Chris. Exciting stuff indeed but the bit that caught my eye in particular was:"...with references to how the Europeans may be able to offer a lighter version of the Thermal Protection System (TPS) that is currently allocated to the future Dream Chaser fleet..."Could anyone expand on this? As Europe has no re-entry capability, I had assumed all the experience and practical knowledge of TPS is largely in the US!Thanks,Andrew.
Great article Chris! Very wily on the part of SNC in their talks to “internationalize” Dream Chaser. It demonstrates their willingness to work with the international partners for ISS, establishes lines of communications and building relationships which is NASA’s plan for future space activities...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/09/2014 01:22 pmGreat article Chris! Very wily on the part of SNC in their talks to “internationalize” Dream Chaser. It demonstrates their willingness to work with the international partners for ISS, establishes lines of communications and building relationships which is NASA’s plan for future space activities...I don't know the selection criteria for the next round, but SNC's business plan for DC just got a few extra points added. Offering actual non-ISS LEO missions to the ESA is certainly more appealing that depending on a non-existent Bigelow station for extra flights.
Quote from: Oli on 01/09/2014 06:21 amI am sceptical. First of all, ESA can already fly to the ISS with the Russians or whatever NASA choses as a commercial crew vehicle. That's part of the deal, right? So maybe ESA plans to contribute to ISS operations with Dreamchaser participation? (similar to the SM of Orion). I don't like the sound of that, at least not in the case of commercial crew. In any case, its very unlikely that ESA would fund an american company to build a crew vehicle for them. I don't think that is how ESA works. Regarding launch on the Ariane 5, that seems to be another ploy from the DLR to keep Ariane 6 from happening too soon.ESA is spreading it's eggs over multiple baskets. Risk reduction. Soyuz for ISS flights. From the deal with SN it is not immediately clear that the use of DreamChaser will be for ISS flight. Actually, it is more likely that ESA will want to have orbital access for non-ISS missions.And I don't think SN will be building DC's for ESA. It very much more likely will be that ESA will be buying DC flight services.
“With the start of these new relationships with ESA and DLR we are able to continue to expand the Dream Chaser Space System globally. The combined strengths of our partner space agencies, industrial companies and education institutions will significantly advance space education, exploration and, for various missions such as microgravity science, spacecraft servicing, debris removal, and materials manufacturing, provide economic benefits to all partners and strengthen U.S. and international ties.”
Quote from: Lars_J on 01/09/2014 06:24 amI find the idea that DC would be too heavy for Ariane V to be very bizarre.As do I...
I find the idea that DC would be too heavy for Ariane V to be very bizarre.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/09/2014 03:11 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 01/09/2014 06:24 amI find the idea that DC would be too heavy for Ariane V to be very bizarre.As do I...Too big =/= too heavy.
before adding he thinks the Dream Chaser is currently a little bit too heavy for the launcher.
The article mentioned they wanted to put it inside a fairing for un-manned missions. That fairing would definitely add some weight, but does it add that much ??
The ETA will now be upgraded for one or two more flights – listed as ALT-1 and ALT-2 – beginning later this year. Both will once again be conducted at the Dryden Flight Research Center in California.
Ariane 5 is mass-limited to LEO because it's designed as a GTO launcher.I don't know what the ME version will be able to carry but the ES version they currently use for ATV and which has structurally reinforced first stages is no longer around, it got discontinued long ago when they knew they're going to stop ATV. That might be what they need to fix, they probably still know how to do it but it will come at a cost.
Excellent article, thanks Chris. Cool, so two more drop tests this year and first orbital test in two years very exciting. She has a bit more lift under her wings than we thought.
Could an Ariane-launched DreamChaser reach the future Chinese Space Station?
I am surprised that no one is considering that the DC could serve as the upper stage for Ariane 5, obviating the need for the launcher to carry a dedicated upper stage.
Quote from: Danderman on 01/09/2014 06:15 pmI am surprised that no one is considering that the DC could serve as the upper stage for Ariane 5, obviating the need for the launcher to carry a dedicated upper stage.Because it doesn't have the dV, just like on Atlas.
Quote from: M129K on 01/09/2014 03:15 pmQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 01/09/2014 03:11 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 01/09/2014 06:24 amI find the idea that DC would be too heavy for Ariane V to be very bizarre.As do I...Too big =/= too heavy.Lars and I were referring to this:Quote from: Chris's articlebefore adding he thinks the Dream Chaser is currently a little bit too heavy for the launcher.
The Atlas first stage isn't a sustainer stage, and Centaur does a lot of the ∆V to reach orbit. The Ariane core almost reaches orbit and the ES upper stage only performs a small, 100-200 m/s burn on LEO flights. Are you sure DC isn't capable of that?
Quote from: M129KThe Atlas first stage isn't a sustainer stage, and Centaur does a lot of the ∆V to reach orbit. The Ariane core almost reaches orbit and the ES upper stage only performs a small, 100-200 m/s burn on LEO flights. Are you sure DC isn't capable of that?100-200 m/s? For a 20t payload a little calculation gives me 1228 m/s.
Isn't ITAR going to be a problem for Europeans? For instance if they want to refurbish the craft themselves between launches?
Quote from: hkultala on 01/09/2014 04:26 amQuote from: aquanaut99 on 01/09/2014 04:04 amSo, is this the resurrection of Hermes?.. with similar capasity, much much lower mass. What I'm missing here?Dreamchaser is something like 11 tonnes, hermes was getting too heavy for ariane V which could lift something like 20 tonnes. Both have similar class of capasity. How is dream chaser so much lighter?It's smaller.
Quote from: manboy on 01/10/2014 02:27 amQuote from: hkultala on 01/09/2014 04:26 amQuote from: aquanaut99 on 01/09/2014 04:04 amSo, is this the resurrection of Hermes?.. with similar capasity, much much lower mass. What I'm missing here?Dreamchaser is something like 11 tonnes, hermes was getting too heavy for ariane V which could lift something like 20 tonnes. Both have similar class of capasity. How is dream chaser so much lighter?It's smaller.That and the original Ariane V had less performance. An Ariane V could probably put 23tonnes to 25tonnes on LEO.
Quote from: gosnold on 01/10/2014 08:51 amIsn't ITAR going to be a problem for Europeans? For instance if they want to refurbish the craft themselves between launches?I am not an expert on ITAR but I don't think that SNC would sell a DC to ESA. They would rent it and SNC (or one of their U.S. subcontractors) would operate it. I believe that there are efforts to remove spacecrafts from ITAR. But that has yet to be done.
Quote from: yg1968 on 01/10/2014 01:19 pmQuote from: gosnold on 01/10/2014 08:51 amIsn't ITAR going to be a problem for Europeans? For instance if they want to refurbish the craft themselves between launches?I am not an expert on ITAR but I don't think that SNC would sell a DC to ESA. They would rent it and SNC (or one of their U.S. subcontractors) would operate it. I believe that there are efforts to remove spacecrafts from ITAR. But that has yet to be done.Well it would seem to go against the ESA "buy european" policy then. I was thinking DLR might buy a DC on its own funds (no political problems with ESA in this case) and then ESA could operate it with european industries doing the maintenance/refurbishment. But it is too early to tell anyway.
At the end of an initial evaluation and planning phase, which will continue through 2014, the organisations expect to continue the relationship through a long-term agreement leading to flight operations. Both entities foresee further arrangements to continue the partnership towards the potential use of Dream Chaser for European missions.
Named DC4EU (Dream Chaser for European Utilization), the project is to explore ways in which the Dream Chaser®can be used to cover German and European requirements for the transportation of payloads and astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) and for deployment as a manned or unmanned space vehicle allowing German and European scientists to conduct research under weightless conditions over extended periods of time. Given the capability which the Dream Chaser® has for reaching orbits at a substantially greater altitude than the ISS, the study will determine the extent to which it is able to supply satellites or remove decommissioned satellites from their orbits.
Quote from: adrianwyard on Today at 03:45 PM I am not sure if ESA ever had in mind to upgrade their Soyuz launch facilities for ESA manned flights...
Quote from: Oli on 01/09/2014 07:39 pmQuote from: M129KThe Atlas first stage isn't a sustainer stage, and Centaur does a lot of the ∆V to reach orbit. The Ariane core almost reaches orbit and the ES upper stage only performs a small, 100-200 m/s burn on LEO flights. Are you sure DC isn't capable of that?100-200 m/s? For a 20t payload a little calculation gives me 1228 m/s.After rechecking myself, it gave me about 600 m/s. The EPS is short fueled for ATV missions to about 5 tons I believe. Anyway, this could very well be because ATV doesn't have the thrust to make a circ burn on it's own, forcing an upper stage to be used, and it only gives that much delta V because it is optimized with a ~5 ton prop load. DC doesn't have this thrust problem and doesn't have to require an upper stage for insertion, so it's possible the Ariane core does more of the burn to orbit. This would reduce payload of course, but if an Atlas V 402 can lift it into orbit, it shouldn't be that much of a problem.
Dreamchaser can be launched to GTO by Ariane 5 wonder what missions it could do in GEO rendezvous with a Bigalow station maby?
Quote from: floss on 01/11/2014 11:45 pmDreamchaser can be launched to GTO by Ariane 5 wonder what missions it could do in GEO rendezvous with a Bigalow station maby?Ariane 5 could potentially launch DC into a GTO - But DC would not have enough propellant to circularize the orbit, and would not be able to de-orbit from GEO either.
Quote from: Lars_J on 01/11/2014 11:49 pmQuote from: floss on 01/11/2014 11:45 pmDreamchaser can be launched to GTO by Ariane 5 wonder what missions it could do in GEO rendezvous with a Bigalow station maby?Ariane 5 could potentially launch DC into a GTO - But DC would not have enough propellant to circularize the orbit, and would not be able to de-orbit from GEO either.And then there's the radiation belts to deal with.
Quote from: floss on 01/11/2014 11:45 pmDreamchaser can be launched to GTO by Ariane 5 wonder what missions it could do in GEO rendezvous with a Bigalow station maby?If a spacecraft can be launched to GTO it can presumably be launched to EML-1 Transfer Orbit.The extra propellant, radiation hardening and enhanced hear shield suggest a variant of the Dream Chaser would be used for EML-1 trips.
Ariane 6 would not be able to lift DC to GEO or L1/L2 and it is not going to be man-rated either.If things go to plan Ariane 5 should be phased out starting in 2021. Not much time before that for interesting DC missions.
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 01/12/2014 07:24 amAriane 6 would not be able to lift DC to GEO or L1/L2 and it is not going to be man-rated either.If things go to plan Ariane 5 should be phased out starting in 2021. Not much time before that for interesting DC missions.Ariane 5 won't be phased out before 2025.
Quote from: gosnold on 01/10/2014 02:44 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 01/10/2014 01:19 pmQuote from: gosnold on 01/10/2014 08:51 amIsn't ITAR going to be a problem for Europeans? For instance if they want to refurbish the craft themselves between launches?I am not an expert on ITAR but I don't think that SNC would sell a DC to ESA. They would rent it and SNC (or one of their U.S. subcontractors) would operate it. I believe that there are efforts to remove spacecrafts from ITAR. But that has yet to be done.Well it would seem to go against the ESA "buy european" policy then. I was thinking DLR might buy a DC on its own funds (no political problems with ESA in this case) and then ESA could operate it with european industries doing the maintenance/refurbishment. But it is too early to tell anyway.DLR is not ESA.
Could a separate propulsion module be adapted to DC? Such as the ATV SM is being adapted to Orion?That would be more European tech content.
Quote from: Jcc on 01/12/2014 02:18 pmCould a separate propulsion module be adapted to DC? Such as the ATV SM is being adapted to Orion?That would be more European tech content.A propulsion module, as in a small rocket stage? Sure. The SM is very different from that, however, as it provides life support and power as well as propulsion.
Quote from: M129K on 01/12/2014 02:30 pmQuote from: Jcc on 01/12/2014 02:18 pmCould a separate propulsion module be adapted to DC? Such as the ATV SM is being adapted to Orion?That would be more European tech content.A propulsion module, as in a small rocket stage? Sure. The SM is very different from that, however, as it provides life support and power as well as propulsion. People doing that Lego thing again.
You have something against LEGOs?OK, I get it, if DC has not been designed to use an add-on propulsion unit, there can be a lot of issues trying to add one, then, what is the use case? It's just that extended uses beyond transport to ISS are being discussed, so it's pertinent.
Quote from: Jcc on 01/12/2014 04:43 pmYou have something against LEGOs?OK, I get it, if DC has not been designed to use an add-on propulsion unit, there can be a lot of issues trying to add one, then, what is the use case? It's just that extended uses beyond transport to ISS are being discussed, so it's pertinent.No, just spaceflight hardware being treated as LEGOs.If you want extended uses beyond transport to ISS then use purpose designed hardware and not kludging together pieces because they exist.
Does anyone realistically think that DC is ever going to space? They will probably not win the NASA contract, so where is all this development money coming from? Yes there is a deal with the europeans - but do you see them putting a whole lot of money into DC? If Europeans want to go to space in the next 3-7 years- Spacex/Boeing or Soyult.
Also, it's LEGO (as in "LEGO something"[1]) not LEGOs.. LEGO, like all brand names, is an adjective not a noun. The LEGO Group prefer that it always be rendered in ALL CAPS as that is how they do it. It's their brand.
Purpose designed hardware is the best way to do anything. If cost is no object. In the real world cost is always an object.
I see no reason why Dream Chaser couldn't be used with a small rocket stage specifically designed to fit on Dream Chaser, including an adapter if that's necessary. I'm not proposing playing rocket lego with existing parts, especially not using the Orion SM on Dream Chaser. I know rockets aren't legos.I think a propulsion module on DC would be kind of pointless as it likely can't reenter from BLEO anyway.
Quote from: HIP2BSQRE on 01/12/2014 06:50 pmDoes anyone realistically think that DC is ever going to space? They will probably not win the NASA contract, so where is all this development money coming from? Yes there is a deal with the europeans - but do you see them putting a whole lot of money into DC? If Europeans want to go to space in the next 3-7 years- Spacex/Boeing or Soyult. ESA is not exactly a huge cash-cow right now. Not with the financial crisis having hit Europe particularly hard. And it never was a cash-cow to begin with; with only a quarter of the annual budget of NASA. Chances of ESA/DLR inputting substantial amounts of money into DC (think 10's to 100's of millions of Euro's) are very slim.The current studies into synergies are dirt-cheap. Getting into anything serious beyond that is not.
Quote from: HIP2BSQRE on 01/12/2014 06:50 pmDoes anyone realistically think that DC is ever going to space? They will probably not win the NASA contract, so where is all this development money coming from? Yes there is a deal with the europeans - but do you see them putting a whole lot of money into DC? If Europeans want to go to space in the next 3-7 years- Spacex/Boeing or Soyult. I totally agree with you.
Quote from: HIP2BSQRE on 01/12/2014 06:51 pmQuote from: HIP2BSQRE on 01/12/2014 06:50 pmDoes anyone realistically think that DC is ever going to space? They will probably not win the NASA contract, so where is all this development money coming from? Yes there is a deal with the europeans - but do you see them putting a whole lot of money into DC? If Europeans want to go to space in the next 3-7 years- Spacex/Boeing or Soyult. I totally agree with you.Forgot to switch accounts?
From a cost perspective, launching Europeans to ISS may be cheaper for ESA with DC on an Ariane
The Europeans currently fly astronauts to the ISS via Soyuz. If Boeing or Sierra Nevada win the Commercial Crew contract, the Atlas V 402 rocket would be used as the launch vehicle. Note that NASA just paid $187 Million dollars for an Atlas 401 rocket to launch MAVEN, and that wasn't man-rated.From a cost perspective, launching Europeans to ISS may be cheaper for ESA with DC on an Ariane 5 than paying NASA with Commercial Crew. Ariane 5 costs are $200 Million, but the money stays in Europe and helps them with fixed costs & flight rate. Ideally, there would be some way to take along some cargo on each flight as well, to take advantage of the launch vehicle's performance.
that is not the cost of an Atlas. That is the launch service cost of MAVEN. There are many other costs rolled up in that number. Also, manrating only going to have a minor cost impact limited to the extra avionics involved.
I don't think it is unreasonable for ESA to conduct a study to see if Ariane V is cheaper than Atlas with DC.
Quote from: Todd Martin on 01/14/2014 06:41 pmI don't think it is unreasonable for ESA to conduct a study to see if Ariane V is cheaper than Atlas with DC. What says SNC is going to allow DC to fly on Ariane? SNC may not want to sell DC's but just seats on DC.
The Atlas V has 9 flights scheduled for 2014. All of them are US Government launches.
SNC pass Milestone 7 for CCiCAP.Allow me to write an article on this, as opposed to falling over each other to post a link to a site that copies and pastes the press release, or I'll come round to your house and tip over a table in disgust or something
And frankly what does it matter if all their launches or most of them are for the Government. Who else was supposed to launch our planetary missions like curiosity or our critically important spy, weather and Armed Services Communications Sats.? And now enter SpaceX that will add some competition for many providers including ULA to become more flexible on costs and all that implies. It's a good thing. But man oh man, can we give ULA a break once and a while?Let's see how competitive SNC's proposal is to NASA for CC with regards to flying on an AtlasV. I hope ULA finds a way to dramatically lower costs. We need a strong and vibrant AtlasV family of launchers along with the F9 to ensure we have cost effective and reliable access to space for our crews and cargo.Also, I suspect the timing of much of SNC's latest globe trotting has more to do with their projections on where they will fit in with the August CC selections.
Quote from: rcoppola on 01/16/2014 06:54 pmAnd frankly what does it matter if all their launches or most of them are for the Government. Who else was supposed to launch our planetary missions like curiosity or our critically important spy, weather and Armed Services Communications Sats.? And now enter SpaceX that will add some competition for many providers including ULA to become more flexible on costs and all that implies. It's a good thing. But man oh man, can we give ULA a break once and a while?Let's see how competitive SNC's proposal is to NASA for CC with regards to flying on an AtlasV. I hope ULA finds a way to dramatically lower costs. We need a strong and vibrant AtlasV family of launchers along with the F9 to ensure we have cost effective and reliable access to space for our crews and cargo.Also, I suspect the timing of much of SNC's latest globe trotting has more to do with their projections on where they will fit in with the August CC selections.I've never quite got why it seems so popular to run ULA down.
Quote from: Star One on 01/16/2014 07:03 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 01/16/2014 06:54 pmAnd frankly what does it matter if all their launches or most of them are for the Government. Who else was supposed to launch our planetary missions like curiosity or our critically important spy, weather and Armed Services Communications Sats.? And now enter SpaceX that will add some competition for many providers including ULA to become more flexible on costs and all that implies. It's a good thing. But man oh man, can we give ULA a break once and a while?Let's see how competitive SNC's proposal is to NASA for CC with regards to flying on an AtlasV. I hope ULA finds a way to dramatically lower costs. We need a strong and vibrant AtlasV family of launchers along with the F9 to ensure we have cost effective and reliable access to space for our crews and cargo.Also, I suspect the timing of much of SNC's latest globe trotting has more to do with their projections on where they will fit in with the August CC selections.I've never quite got why it seems so popular to run ULA down.Not everybody, just the loud ones...
....The Atlas V has 9 flights scheduled for 2014. ...
Quote from: Star One on 01/16/2014 07:03 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 01/16/2014 06:54 pmAnd frankly what does it matter if all their launches or most of them are for the Government. Who else was supposed to launch our planetary missions like curiosity or our critically important spy, weather and Armed Services Communications Sats.? And now enter SpaceX that will add some competition for many providers including ULA to become more flexible on costs and all that implies. It's a good thing. But man oh man, can we give ULA a break once and a while?Let's see how competitive SNC's proposal is to NASA for CC with regards to flying on an AtlasV. I hope ULA finds a way to dramatically lower costs. We need a strong and vibrant AtlasV family of launchers along with the F9 to ensure we have cost effective and reliable access to space for our crews and cargo.Also, I suspect the timing of much of SNC's latest globe trotting has more to do with their projections on where they will fit in with the August CC selections.I've never quite got why it seems so popular to run ULA down.I think its mainly their launch costs, and the way they have been increased over time. But I also think that that's what usually happens with monopolies. However it now sounds like they are becoming more efficient now that they are under more competition. Who knows, over time they might even regain the positive aspects of how they were earlier thought of.
Quote from: faramund on 01/16/2014 07:22 pmQuote from: Star One on 01/16/2014 07:03 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 01/16/2014 06:54 pmAnd frankly what does it matter if all their launches or most of them are for the Government. Who else was supposed to launch our planetary missions like curiosity or our critically important spy, weather and Armed Services Communications Sats.? And now enter SpaceX that will add some competition for many providers including ULA to become more flexible on costs and all that implies. It's a good thing. But man oh man, can we give ULA a break once and a while?Let's see how competitive SNC's proposal is to NASA for CC with regards to flying on an AtlasV. I hope ULA finds a way to dramatically lower costs. We need a strong and vibrant AtlasV family of launchers along with the F9 to ensure we have cost effective and reliable access to space for our crews and cargo.Also, I suspect the timing of much of SNC's latest globe trotting has more to do with their projections on where they will fit in with the August CC selections.I've never quite got why it seems so popular to run ULA down.I think its mainly their launch costs, and the way they have been increased over time. But I also think that that's what usually happens with monopolies. However it now sounds like they are becoming more efficient now that they are under more competition. Who knows, over time they might even regain the positive aspects of how they were earlier thought of.It just seems odd to complain about success, for when you get down to the basics ULA are very successfully at what they do.
Quote from: Star One on 01/17/2014 08:41 amQuote from: faramund on 01/16/2014 07:22 pmQuote from: Star One on 01/16/2014 07:03 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 01/16/2014 06:54 pmAnd frankly what does it matter if all their launches or most of them are for the Government. Who else was supposed to launch our planetary missions like curiosity or our critically important spy, weather and Armed Services Communications Sats.? And now enter SpaceX that will add some competition for many providers including ULA to become more flexible on costs and all that implies. It's a good thing. But man oh man, can we give ULA a break once and a while?Let's see how competitive SNC's proposal is to NASA for CC with regards to flying on an AtlasV. I hope ULA finds a way to dramatically lower costs. We need a strong and vibrant AtlasV family of launchers along with the F9 to ensure we have cost effective and reliable access to space for our crews and cargo.Also, I suspect the timing of much of SNC's latest globe trotting has more to do with their projections on where they will fit in with the August CC selections.I've never quite got why it seems so popular to run ULA down.I think its mainly their launch costs, and the way they have been increased over time. But I also think that that's what usually happens with monopolies. However it now sounds like they are becoming more efficient now that they are under more competition. Who knows, over time they might even regain the positive aspects of how they were earlier thought of.It just seems odd to complain about success, for when you get down to the basics ULA are very successfully at what they do.Correct. They are extremely succesfull at what they do. People seem to fall primarily over the ever-increasing cost of the things ULA does.
From what I've read, LM recently is working on improved manufacturing techniques to lower costs without sacrificing quality - I am looking forward to seeing the integrated systems costs as I expect that competition is driving ULA to new and different approaches - it will be interesting to see cost comparisons between ULA and SpaceX
Quote from: Todd Martin on 01/14/2014 06:41 pm....The Atlas V has 9 flights scheduled for 2014. ......interestingly, there are 6 Delta flights (if you include the two Delta II flights) scheduled for 2014, too. That's 15 flights for ULA this year (though next year it's scheduled as 12, with 10 of them on Atlas V... SpaceX has a /chance/ of catching up to them in 2015), compared to 11 in 2013, and 10 in 2012. SpaceX is also gearing up, probably will get 5 to 7 launches in this year. Plus, 3 Antares flights in 2014 are likely. It's looking good for the US launch industry in 2014!It's not a zero-sum game. The more competitive everyone is, the more the market in general will grow. It's good especially for the US space sector (though everyone benefits).
Quote from: BrightLight on 01/16/2014 08:54 pmFrom what I've read, LM recently is working on improved manufacturing techniques to lower costs without sacrificing quality - I am looking forward to seeing the integrated systems costs as I expect that competition is driving ULA to new and different approaches - it will be interesting to see cost comparisons between ULA and SpaceXHow is what LM is doing related to ULA?
LM is looking at ways to reduce cost in manufacturing might translate to ULA reduced cost on Atlas
Dordain said at a press conference this friday that it was SNC who approached ESA and ESA has no intention whatsoever to influence the commercial crew selection process.
Quote from: gosnold on 01/10/2014 02:44 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 01/10/2014 01:19 pmQuote from: gosnold on 01/10/2014 08:51 amIsn't ITAR going to be a problem for Europeans? For instance if they want to refurbish the craft themselves between launches?I am not an expert on ITAR but I don't think that SNC would sell a DC to ESA. They would rent it and SNC (or one of their U.S. subcontractors) would operate it. I believe that there are efforts to remove spacecrafts from ITAR. But that has yet to be done.Well it would seem to go against the ESA "buy european" policy then. I was thinking DLR might buy a DC on its own funds (no political problems with ESA in this case) and then ESA could operate it with european industries doing the maintenance/refurbishment. But it is too early to tell anyway.The launcher is European why would the spacecraft be an issue if this was for the ISS?Let me throw this idea out there...... Couldn't the ESA partner with the USA as a replacement for Soyuz seat purchase?If the concern is loss of commercial launches to SpaceX; It could be sold as a new commercial market for the ESA?your thoughts...
Quote from: Prober on 01/21/2014 03:28 pmQuote from: gosnold on 01/10/2014 02:44 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 01/10/2014 01:19 pmQuote from: gosnold on 01/10/2014 08:51 amIsn't ITAR going to be a problem for Europeans? For instance if they want to refurbish the craft themselves between launches?I am not an expert on ITAR but I don't think that SNC would sell a DC to ESA. They would rent it and SNC (or one of their U.S. subcontractors) would operate it. I believe that there are efforts to remove spacecrafts from ITAR. But that has yet to be done.Well it would seem to go against the ESA "buy european" policy then. I was thinking DLR might buy a DC on its own funds (no political problems with ESA in this case) and then ESA could operate it with european industries doing the maintenance/refurbishment. But it is too early to tell anyway.The launcher is European why would the spacecraft be an issue if this was for the ISS?Let me throw this idea out there...... Couldn't the ESA partner with the USA as a replacement for Soyuz seat purchase?If the concern is loss of commercial launches to SpaceX; It could be sold as a new commercial market for the ESA?your thoughts...You're still exporting a lot of cash. The issue isn't money going to SpaceX (could as well be ULA), the issue is money going to a domestic launch and spacecraft company. If it's not domestic, it's hard to sell to the public. You don't get the multiplier effect (unless there's reciprocal trade).EDIT: The question is: do you want to support the European launch industry or the domestic launch industry?