Author Topic: NASA Selects Commercial Firms to Begin Development of Crew Transportation  (Read 145327 times)

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7764
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Alan Lindenmoyer's presentation to the FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference about the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program contains juicy details about the proposals that were awarded CCDev money:

Commercial Crew and Cargo Program
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Bernie Roehl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Alan Lindenmoyer's presentation to the FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference about the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program contains juicy details about the proposals that were awarded CCDev money:

Commercial Crew and Cargo Program

I noticed two very interesting points...

Boeing's capsule is a "light-weight design compatible with Atlas, Delta, and Falcon 9".  The Falcon 9 bit is news to me, and it makes it clear that Boeing is definitely covering all bets.

ULA's is developing a "modular Emergency Detection System (EDS) which can be used with Atlas V, Delta IV, and other LVs".  The "other LV's" part is interesting.


Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7764
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Yes, wonderful news. As you remarked in another thread it is very encouraging to see interoperability emerging even without an explicit NASA stimulus.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
In an industry where there is great opportunity in the face of great losses it makes a lot of sense to cooperate on some things.  Mutual interdependence could keep them all above water.

Also noticed a concept image for Blue Origin's biconic capsule in the Lindenmoyer presentation....
« Last Edit: 02/24/2010 01:51 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23375
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
And perhaps Ariane 5, though I've heard that would be very expensive to "man-rate". And with higher flight rates for EELVs ESA would have even more reason to focus on reducing costs instead of man-rating, which is what is leading them towards Ariane 6.

The United states government is not going to fund a foreign launcher/crew capsule for CCDEV, the program was made so that we no longer have to (ie. Soyuz). Once a domestic alternative is created, that would be the only design used by the US.

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7764
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
The United states government is not going to fund a foreign launcher/crew capsule for CCDEV, the program was made so that we no longer have to (ie. Soyuz). Once a domestic alternative is created, that would be the only design used by the US.

Of course. I was thinking that NASA might lean on ESA to man-rate Ariane 5 at ESA's own expense, so that it could be used as a backup.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23375
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023

Of course. I was thinking that NASA might lean on ESA to man-rate Ariane 5 at ESA's own expense, so that it could be used as a backup.

Why?  Soyuz and the manned Russian program are not going anywhere.
« Last Edit: 02/24/2010 03:39 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7764
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Why?  Soyuz and the manned Russian program are not going anywhere.

Well, those would be obvious backups too. More backups won't hurt, although they might not be urgent.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17253
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
The whole point of commercial is to have clients other than NASA. If foreign governments want to buy a capsule from you, why not sell them one. But I doubt ESA will be man-rating the Ariane 5 any time soon.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2010 04:00 am by yg1968 »

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3006
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Alan Lindenmoyer's presentation to the FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference about the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program contains juicy details about the proposals that were awarded CCDev money:

Commercial Crew and Cargo Program

What I find very encouraging is that a lot of prototype and demonstration hardware is included in the funded activities. Not just a bunch of paper studies.

Seems like everyone has learned from T/Space. They took a $6m study contract from NASA and did capsule & booster drop tests, plus other hardware.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39239
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Alan Lindenmoyer's presentation to the FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference about the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program contains juicy details about the proposals that were awarded CCDev money:

Commercial Crew and Cargo Program

What I find very encouraging is that a lot of prototype and demonstration hardware is included in the funded activities. Not just a bunch of paper studies.

Seems like everyone has learned from T/Space. They took a $6m study contract from NASA and did capsule & booster drop tests, plus other hardware.
Agreed, that's a far better way to do it.
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 yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17253
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline Freddie

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
A New York Times news article titled "Aerospace Business Has Its Doubts About Plans to Revamp NASA" can be read at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/space/12rocket.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesscience.

First paragraph of article: "Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the aerospace giants with decades of experience working on America’s space program, will happily sell rockets to carry astronauts into space, but the companies are leery about taking a leading role in President Obama’s vision for a revamped National Aeronautics and Space Administration."

...

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17253
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17253
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8904
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Interesting article on commercial space taxis:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36678222/ns/technology_and_science-space//


A passenger capsule will need windows for the tourists/miners/scientists to look out of.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6157
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Interesting article on commercial space taxis:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36678222/ns/technology_and_science-space//


A passenger capsule will need windows for the tourists/miners/scientists to look out of.

Which proposed passenger capsule does *not* have windows??? They all do. Even Cargo Dragon.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8904
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Interesting article on commercial space taxis:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36678222/ns/technology_and_science-space//

The cheap/simple one proposed in the article.  (It only had a single window for then pilot.

A passenger capsule will need windows for the tourists/miners/scientists to look out of.

Which proposed passenger capsule does *not* have windows??? They all do. Even Cargo Dragon.
The suggested one in the article.  It only had a window for the pilot.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Interesting article on commercial space taxis:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36678222/ns/technology_and_science-space//


A passenger capsule will need windows for the tourists/miners/scientists to look out of.

This is your opinion.  Mr Oberg disagrees.
"miners" are not being discussed here.  This is not a vehicle bound for an asteroid or the moon.
Yet all vehicles being discussed do have them.
Just wait until they have to deal with JSC 62500. (IIRC) 
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Seems to me he misunderstands the mission for Orion - it is to provide a stand by rescue/return docked to the station, so it does need long term endurance.

Tags:
 

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