Well some already have hats in a different ring (i.e. Space-X) and might not be interested in yet another program.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 09/23/2009 06:24 pmWell some already have hats in a different ring (i.e. Space-X) and might not be interested in yet another program. What would this different ring be according to you? I wasn't aware this was yet another commercial crew program.
Of coure, I might be missing something.
I would doubt it is Orion Lite since Orion is built by LMCO.
Quote from: mike robel on 09/23/2009 06:38 pmI would doubt it is Orion Lite since Orion is built by LMCO.Orion Lite is just a shell with the same aerodynamic properties. Virtually nothing else is the same. Hope they come up with another name for it, really. Might as well call Orion "Big Apollo CM"
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 09/23/2009 06:51 pmOf coure, I might be missing something.You are. COTS-D is out of the game. This is currently it.
...c) Any guesses for Group C?
"Joining Boeing on the CCDev team will be Las Vegas-based Bigelow Aerospace,LLC."Looks like Mr. Big dumped Lockheed's 'Orion Lite' and signed on with Boeing. I doubt, as others have speculated, that Boeing's LEO crew transport is based on Orion. The design is probably similar to Dragon."...Boeing also has joined three other teams competing for CCDev agreements. These teams are submitting their own proposals.NASA has announced it will sign funded agreements with one or more teams in November ... approximately $50 million is available to distribute and ... will run through September 2010."Any idea who the other three teams are?a) SpaceX is a no-brainer. They have links to the CCDev program and a "COTS-like" article written by Max Vozoff on their homepage.b) Orbital is a very strong possibility. They have a COTS contract, are developing the Orion LAS, and then a Sept 11th SpaceNews article:http://www.spacenews.com/civil/orbital-plans-develop-cygnus-based-crew-capsule.html"'We're definitely supportive of the idea of commercial crew,' Orbital spokesman Barry Beneski said Sept. 11. ... Beneski said a crew variant of Orbital's Cygnus pressurized cargo module capable of carrying three or four astronauts, along with a human-rated version of Taurus 2, could be developed at a cost of $2 billion to $3 billion."c) Any guesses for Group C?
Quote from: tamarack on 09/24/2009 02:50 am...c) Any guesses for Group C?LM or ULA with SpaceDev proposing Dream Chaser on an Atlas V 402?
Quote from: kkattula on 09/24/2009 03:13 amQuote from: tamarack on 09/24/2009 02:50 am...c) Any guesses for Group C?LM or ULA with SpaceDev proposing Dream Chaser on an Atlas V 402?I wish: HMX with "Phoenix Redux"
I suspect the Boeing vehicle might be a scale up of the X37.This actually would be sensible as the X37 should be launched early next year. It would allow them to reuse a lot of flight test data from the USAF project and from the shuttle.
Ironically it is being launched on an Atlas.
How much bigger than an X-37 would a four person OSPish vehicle be and could you launch it in a shroud to avoid some of the issues of a winged vehicle on top of an EELV?
Istanbul was Constantinople. Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.
Quote from: Antares on 09/24/2009 01:30 amIstanbul was Constantinople. Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.I don't think I've ever seen a reference to They Might Be Giants in a space-related discussion before, ever.
Quote from: Patchouli on 09/24/2009 04:54 amI suspect the Boeing vehicle might be a scale up of the X37.This actually would be sensible as the X37 should be launched early next year. It would allow them to reuse a lot of flight test data from the USAF project and from the shuttle.That makes no sense. Just uninformed conjecture. It would be too costly to develop and compete with the others.
I understand that a manned version of an X-37 derived vehicle would be too big for a shroud and thus cause issues with its wings. But I don't understand why the durable TPS wouldn't be scalable. I mean isn't the point of the X-37 to test key systems for use in future vehicles, including the TPS?
Quote from: kkattula on 09/24/2009 03:16 amQuote from: kkattula on 09/24/2009 03:13 amQuote from: tamarack on 09/24/2009 02:50 am...c) Any guesses for Group C?LM or ULA with SpaceDev proposing Dream Chaser on an Atlas V 402?I wish: HMX with "Phoenix Redux"I may have tilted at a few windmills in my day, but I'm not stupid.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 09/24/2009 04:14 amQuote from: kkattula on 09/24/2009 03:16 amQuote from: kkattula on 09/24/2009 03:13 amQuote from: tamarack on 09/24/2009 02:50 am...c) Any guesses for Group C?LM or ULA with SpaceDev proposing Dream Chaser on an Atlas V 402?I wish: HMX with "Phoenix Redux"I may have tilted at a few windmills in my day, but I'm not stupid.So I probably shouldn't start a "NASA should just give Gary Hudson a billion dollars..." thread?
But getting back closer to topic, I really hope that Congress follows-through on the A-com suggestion to put serious money into developing commercial crew capabilities. I'd really love to see an industry where there are several competent players capable of putting people into space. I hope one of these days we'll actually get to see some of what Boeing and others have proposed.
Is there any chance Boeing proposed (again) a winged orbital space plane?http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_b_osp_plane_02.jpg
Quote from: sdsds on 09/23/2009 09:34 pmIs there any chance Boeing proposed (again) a winged orbital space plane?http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_b_osp_plane_02.jpgNope. This concept has been in work for some time.
Quote from: jongoff on 09/26/2009 05:15 amBut getting back closer to topic, I really hope that Congress follows-through on the A-com suggestion to put serious money into developing commercial crew capabilities. I'd really love to see an industry where there are several competent players capable of putting people into space. I hope one of these days we'll actually get to see some of what Boeing and others have proposed.Agree. The DoD regularly gives out multiple development contracts; F-35 and engine, Littoral Combat Ship, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, KC-X, etc. This is more expensive at first, like COTS, but the outcome is a more capable product with lower long-term costs. Even after NASA decides which vehicle to use, having 'close 2nds' available in case problems arise with the 1st choice insures NASA gets and maintains commercial LEO crew-access.
Quote from: OV-106 on 09/26/2009 01:41 pmQuote from: sdsds on 09/23/2009 09:34 pmIs there any chance Boeing proposed (again) a winged orbital space plane?http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_b_osp_plane_02.jpgNope. This concept has been in work for some time.{sarcasm mode}We're too stupid, cheap, and incompetent an aerospace industry to do anything but a capsule. After we wipe off the drool for several decades, maybe there may be residual engineering engineering gene fragments that may breed back into the culture to in a hundred years try something thats both safe and a little more developed than falling (with style!) into an ocean. At least Soyuz does land, unlike POR Orion.{/sarcasm mode}
Quote from: tamarack on 09/26/2009 08:36 amQuote from: jongoff on 09/26/2009 05:15 amBut getting back closer to topic, I really hope that Congress follows-through on the A-com suggestion to put serious money into developing commercial crew capabilities. I'd really love to see an industry where there are several competent players capable of putting people into space. I hope one of these days we'll actually get to see some of what Boeing and others have proposed.Agree. The DoD regularly gives out multiple development contracts; F-35 and engine, Littoral Combat Ship, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, KC-X, etc. This is more expensive at first, like COTS, but the outcome is a more capable product with lower long-term costs. Even after NASA decides which vehicle to use, having 'close 2nds' available in case problems arise with the 1st choice insures NASA gets and maintains commercial LEO crew-access.People keep repeatedly missing the point on what this about. What was just described above is the standard contracting business. In many cases the government agency awards development contracts to multiple companies until a final down select decision is made and the real DDT&E and production contracts are awarded.What this whole concept has at its core, is very little government money is available (even less if it goes to multpile companies) and it is up to them to bring the rest of the money roll. NASA would be a customer just as any one else could be a customer for this vehicle. Customer, very important word, because in this context it does not mean the same as having ultimate contract authority where every move made is at the blessing of the agency who pays for everything you do. Do you think it is coincidence that Boeing has partnered with Bigelow? If this really continues to gain traction, I expect the FAA to enter into the mix here soon, more so than they are already, and there will be a standardized set of requirements crewed vehicles must achieve in order to get certification. NASA will have input into that but I doubt they will be the ultimate authority.
NASA doesn't want to be the authority, unless it is also the customer.
If this really continues to gain traction, I expect the FAA to enter into the mix here soon, more so than they are already, and there will be a standardized set of requirements crewed vehicles must achieve in order to get certification. NASA will have input into that but I doubt they will be the ultimate authority.
Quote from: nooneofconsequence on 09/27/2009 06:10 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 09/26/2009 01:41 pmQuote from: sdsds on 09/23/2009 09:34 pmIs there any chance Boeing proposed (again) a winged orbital space plane?http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_b_osp_plane_02.jpgNope. This concept has been in work for some time.{sarcasm mode}We're too stupid, cheap, and incompetent an aerospace industry to do anything but a capsule. After we wipe off the drool for several decades, maybe there may be residual engineering engineering gene fragments that may breed back into the culture to in a hundred years try something thats both safe and a little more developed than falling (with style!) into an ocean. At least Soyuz does land, unlike POR Orion.{/sarcasm mode}Sarcasm aside, why isn't a capsule good enough? Over-complexity is not something one would want in a very, very young commercial market where your competition could out price you and crush your business just because they did not over do the plumbing and it doesn't look as "cool" as one would think because of a sci-fi movie or something.
1. Boeing could offer to study modifications that would make X-37 suitable for a Commercial Crew Transport System. Would that be of interest to anyone at NASA?2. As for why this is better than a capsule: the goal of 72 hour turnaround seems feasible for a winged vehicle that has smoothly landed on a runway, but seems implausible for a splashed or hard-landed capsule.
Quote from: sdsds on 09/28/2009 01:00 am1. Boeing could offer to study modifications that would make X-37 suitable for a Commercial Crew Transport System. Would that be of interest to anyone at NASA?2. As for why this is better than a capsule: the goal of 72 hour turnaround seems feasible for a winged vehicle that has smoothly landed on a runway, but seems implausible for a splashed or hard-landed capsule.1. No it couldn't, because the X-37 is too small for manned applications.2. There is no legitimate requirement for such a turnaround nor is it possible on an EELV. This the task of prop loading would take longer.
Agree. The DoD regularly gives out multiple development contracts; F-35 and engine, Littoral Combat Ship, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, KC-X, etc. This is more expensive at first, like COTS, but the outcome is a more capable product with lower long-term costs. ..
The capsule is the way of the future. ...Wings are practically obsolete in space.
1 As regards 1:The SMV is "about 29 ft. long with a roughly 15-ft. wingspan", has "a small payload bay" capable of carrying "small satellites." The payload bay can also "be reconfigured for diverse operations." A human in an EMU might be about the size of a small satellite. SMV could be, 'For those times you really need to get to or from ISS in six and a half hours.'As regards 2:Again quoting Covault: "It is designed for quick turnaround - 72 hr. or less between missions." USAF apparently wants that, whether or not the requirement for such a turnaround is 'legitimate.' In a national security "Operationally Responsive Space" scenario, consider one functional SMV and four EELV pads. Each pad need only launch every 12 days to keep the SMV busy. (The need for more launch personnel would be met by their "shadow force" of uniformed missile-men. ULA wouldn't mind them manning their launch systems, would they?)
Wings are practically obsolete in space.
The capsule is the way of the future.
Capsules, lifting bodies, or winged rlvs it doesn't matter, what matters is that it be cheap, robust, and safe. That's why I keep coming back to NASA returning to a research and development agency, not an operational space agency, nor an exploration agency, at least in the human space flight arena.The thing that hamstrings every exploration or operational space program is the cost of access to LEO. Until that becomes not merely cheap but routine there isn't a single exploration program that will be sustainable. Anything else is wishful thinking.
The capsule is the way of the future. Was it Henry Spencer or someone, who had a nice historical analogy:Zeppelins, airships operated with the sea ship mentality: lots of crew and manual operations everywhere. To increase power, you call the engine room etc... Passengers had lots of luxuries and there were only very few of them.Airplanes (at least the successful ones) started with a completely different mindset. The ship paradigm just didn't work there, because space was at premium.They probably seemed small, ugly and inelegant compared to the massive airships with large crews, but they just came and wiped out the airships with their superior capabilities.Air was a different environment than the sea, and you needed very different solutions there. Sometimes you just have to let go of obsolete assumptions.Wings are practically obsolete in space.
I cannot disagree with you more and you have it completely backwards.Dragon is the only one of the present crop of capsule vehicles that at least tries to do something better.It did move most of the service module systems into the reentry vehicle and claims to have a reusable LV.But F9/Dragon is no DC3 at best it's a ford trimotor.Vehicles like the shuttle but also Orion,Apollo,Gemini,Soyuz,and the ATV are akin to the Zeppelins because they are expensive to fly and require large ground crews.Vehicles similar Skylon or Delta Clipper when built will likely be the first DC3 of space.But the vehicle also has to be safe for most people to use.If you have to be a fit test pilot to ride it the vehicle will never be hugely successful.As for an earlier post about needing to fit in a fairing the shuttle does not have a fairing a fairing and it should be unnecessary for any other vehicle that has an aerodynamic shape.In someways the post Columbia mindset is a cancer when you consider innovation.
safety requires a direct reentry (medical reasons - shortest path).
Yeah, my post was too simplistic. Wings are not categorically an obsolete technique in a launch / re-entry vehicle.It's just that one can't say capsules are bad because they are old-fashioned. (Maybe you didn't mean that but that's the gist of what I understood.)You could likely quite easily soft-land capsules with parawings / parafoils. This seems to me to be the optimal path: very small mass and still precision landings. (Maybe not thousands of kilometers of cross range but tens of kilometers anyway.)http://gravityloss.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/the-last-five-kilometers/Capsules can be extremely light. This solves so many other problems it's a very good idea to look at them hard. Lifting bodies are heavy and things with wings are elephants. Capsules have great margins in control and thermal issues and are very easy to build.I'm not dismissing winged vehicles out of hand. Just saying they start with a significant weight disadvantage, which effects everything down below in the hierarchy, the launcher, ground infrastructure... There are good reasons why all operational re-entry vehicles but one have been capsules.Like there are reasons why airplanes were airplanes and not airships, re-entry craft are not spaceplanes automatically - the environment is different and requires a clean sheet thinking to find the best approach.
Quote from: Patchouli on 09/29/2009 03:34 am...Dragon is the only one of the present crop of capsule vehicles that at least tries to do something better.It did move most of the service module systems into the reentry vehicle and claims to have a reusable LV....What is Dragon doing differently in an ops concept? It launches on a rocket, orbits earth, the service module separates, the capsule lands in the ocean.....sounds real familar.
...Dragon is the only one of the present crop of capsule vehicles that at least tries to do something better.It did move most of the service module systems into the reentry vehicle and claims to have a reusable LV....
But the concept of steerable parachutes is a good one. Wasn't that an early suggested landing mode for Big Gemini? (Landing on extendable struts using a steerable parachute)
That L-M lifting body looks nice... But that thing would have been extremely heavy. Not to mention the added complexity of a lifting body splitting in half in an emergency to just pull the front half away. (I thought first the whole lifting body would have separated, but according to the article above posted by Star-Drive, the lifting body separated in the middle) But the concept of steerable parachutes is a good one. Wasn't that an early suggested landing mode for Big Gemini? (Landing on extendable struts using a steerable parachute)EDIT - I found the Big Gemini landing picture: http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/b/biglandg.jpg