Quote from: yg1968 on 12/13/2010 03:57 pmProposals for CDev-2 are due today. I imagine that we will hear more about certain of the proposals (by the companies themselves) in the next few weeks. For example, I am curious to find out who Virgin Galactic has teamed up with. here is your answer..Orbitalhttp://www.spacenews.com/civil/101213-orbital-virgin-ccdev2-bid.html
Proposals for CDev-2 are due today. I imagine that we will hear more about certain of the proposals (by the companies themselves) in the next few weeks. For example, I am curious to find out who Virgin Galactic has teamed up with.
This may be a game changer. Spacex may have to start selling Dragon as not only an LEO but also BEO vehicle to hedge their bets. The field is getting crowded and not everyone will be a winner. Companies with capsules (Spacex, Boeing, LM) would do best to show BEO capabilty. How this also affects Dreamchaser marketing is interesting. Is there a need for 2 lifting, winged vehicles?
This will also require a new (or imported) liquid upper stage for the Taurus II, one assumes.
I have no direct insight into Orbital's thinking with respect to business case but CCDev is not soley about eventual transport to ISS. If that is all the companies are thinking about - and not working with others such as Bigelow, Virgin, have their own plans, etc - I would think they will not be likely candidates to actually get money from NASA. In doing these proposals, it may make practical sense to diversify their own business capabilities - but build on experience with certain systems - to meet the partners expectations. It also may make financial sense to not have to provide every element themselves (and instead can be a customer with, for example, the launch vehicle) allowing them to focus limited resources and deliver to market that much quicker.Remember this is supposed to be partially about building an industry that can exist seperately and in parallel to NASA initiatives.
Quote from: OV-106 on 12/14/2010 01:07 amI have no direct insight into Orbital's thinking with respect to business case but CCDev is not soley about eventual transport to ISS. If that is all the companies are thinking about - and not working with others such as Bigelow, Virgin, have their own plans, etc - I would think they will not be likely candidates to actually get money from NASA. In doing these proposals, it may make practical sense to diversify their own business capabilities - but build on experience with certain systems - to meet the partners expectations. It also may make financial sense to not have to provide every element themselves (and instead can be a customer with, for example, the launch vehicle) allowing them to focus limited resources and deliver to market that much quicker.Remember this is supposed to be partially about building an industry that can exist seperately and in parallel to NASA initiatives. Well put OV.~Jon
Very interesting. I wonder what kind of lifting body they are planning - and if it is based on any previous work. It is HL-20-ish, or like the LM lifting body CEV concept, or something more minimal like the Russian Kliper concept?
Quote from: Lars_J on 12/14/2010 12:18 amVery interesting. I wonder what kind of lifting body they are planning - and if it is based on any previous work. It is HL-20-ish, or like the LM lifting body CEV concept, or something more minimal like the Russian Kliper concept? It will be interesting to see. Recall that Orbital had a conceptual design for a lifting body craft back in the OSP days, though I don't know far along into the design process they were. It reminded me of the canceled European Hermes spaceplane. Here it is shown with the Delta IV heavy: http://www.spacetoday.org/images/SpcShtls/SpacePlane/OrbitalSpacePlaneLaunch600x450.jpg
Quote from: vt_hokie on 12/14/2010 02:10 amQuote from: Lars_J on 12/14/2010 12:18 amVery interesting. I wonder what kind of lifting body they are planning - and if it is based on any previous work. It is HL-20-ish, or like the LM lifting body CEV concept, or something more minimal like the Russian Kliper concept? It will be interesting to see. Recall that Orbital had a conceptual design for a lifting body craft back in the OSP days, though I don't know far along into the design process they were. It reminded me of the canceled European Hermes spaceplane. Here it is shown with the Delta IV heavy: http://www.spacetoday.org/images/SpcShtls/SpacePlane/OrbitalSpacePlaneLaunch600x450.jpgHere is the rest of the (2003?) article that goes with the image:http://www.spacetoday.org/SpcShtls/SpacePlane.html
Development cost is the key issue. ... Orbital has stated a range of $2.5B and $3B in public remarks in 2009, but presumably that for for a capsule-type spacecraft.
Interesting, yes now that you pointed to that image, I remember seeing it.This will be very interesting to see develop. And the situation for DreamChaser just got very interesting as well - Both concepts are lifting bodies launched by Atlas V. I'm guessing there's only room for one of them to succeed. (if any of them will indeed succeed) But it is very exciting now to have 4 serious players in the commercial crew market!
And to think we could have had that by 2008 if we hadn't scrapped OSP in favor of the Constellation debacle!
The Space News article has been updated today, to include an image.http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101214-orbital-unveils-supplier-ccdev2.html
Either way, quite interesting. I wonder what the extent of the pressure vessel is. Dreamchaser/HL-20 goes all the way to the back, where the docking port is, but the "CCV" probably has a much smaller interior volume.
Quote from: Malderi on 12/14/2010 09:30 pmEither way, quite interesting. I wonder what the extent of the pressure vessel is. Dreamchaser/HL-20 goes all the way to the back, where the docking port is, but the "CCV" probably has a much smaller interior volume.Agreed... It actually looks like it has cargo doors in the back, allowing it to carry back significant unpressurized cargo, something that we will (otherwise) lose when Shuttle retires.
NASA?s Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program incorporated elements of past efforts such as the Space Transportation Architecture Study (STAS), Crew Return Vehicle (CRV), and Space Launch Initiative (SLI). Significant goals of these efforts were to improve safety, reduce the cost of crew transportation to space, and to provide robust crew rescue and crew transfer capability for the International Space Station (ISS). NASA?s requirements for OSP were assessed and evaluated, and several critical design drivers were derived: number of crew, mission duration, launch vehicle throw weight, vehicle lift efficiency, flight rate, reusability, and ascent abort and emergency return capabilities. NASA Langley Research Center?s HL-20 shape was used as an initial reference design to better understand and assess the impact of NASA requirements as they were flowed down to the vehicle subsystem level. Configuration and aerodynamic trades were conducted to optimize the performance of the OSP in response to these requirements. Most importantly, issues of volumetric efficiency, high L/D for cross range, low wing loading for reduced landing speed, and passive stability for all abort conditions were addressed. As the optimization process continued, the HL-20 initial reference shape eventually evolved into the Blended Lifting Body (BLB). The BLB combines volumetric efficiency with superior aerodynamic qualities and was designed to launch vertically and land horizontally. The BLB design offers an optimized configuration with excellent aerodynamic performance and may have many other flight applications. This paper discusses the evolution process, design solutions and features of the configuration used during the development of the BLB for the OSP program.
Looks the same as their old proposal, except the new one doesn't have a vertical stabilizer, and the end of the wing is now a full (nearly) vertical winglet (and probably also has a control surface on the winglet).
http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=756
• The proposal baselines using a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket, but is flexible enough to accommodate other launch vehicle options.
But I am liking this slimmed down Orbital plane. It looks even lighter (and more affordable) than DreamChaser.
Quote from: Lars_J on 12/15/2010 06:53 amBut I am liking this slimmed down Orbital plane. It looks even lighter (and more affordable) than DreamChaser.How can one honestly even begin to make that conclusion?
Quote from: OV-106 on 12/15/2010 02:26 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 12/15/2010 06:53 amBut I am liking this slimmed down Orbital plane. It looks even lighter (and more affordable) than DreamChaser.How can one honestly even begin to make that conclusion?Are you just trying to be argumentative today? Note the *looks* part of my sentence. It is not a fact claim, just my impression
How can one honestly even begin to make that conclusion?
One thing to note from the drawing, the location of the LIDS looks like there would be interference with the other docking/berthing locations, so either a Node 4 has to be launched. Anyhow because of the interference issues I would guess that it would be more of a taxi and might not be capable of serving in the cRV mode. If that is the case, might not look as good to the selecting committee or to any further use in other fields like Bigelow. Of course it is just art work, so perhaps I am over analyzing.
Quote from: Lars_J on 12/14/2010 12:18 amVery interesting. I wonder what kind of lifting body they are planning - and if it is based on any previous work. It is HL-20-ish, or like the LM lifting body CEV concept, or something more minimal like the Russian Kliper concept? It will be interesting to see. Recall that Orbital had a conceptual design for a lifting body craft back in the OSP days, though I don't know far along into the design process they were.
the shape shown in our proposal is a "fifth-generation" one
Do you still see any use for the X-34 in whatever testing you may have planned and can you share any results that you may know about its "worthiness" after inspections?
Quote from: OV-106 on 12/15/2010 05:20 pmDo you still see any use for the X-34 in whatever testing you may have planned and can you share any results that you may know about its "worthiness" after inspections? The current interest in X-34 (including the "mysterious" move to Mojave) is all focused on reusable LV first stages; NASA Dryden wanted to know to what degree the two old airframes were still airworthy after all these years. To answer the question we had to open some inspection panels. There was no available hangar space at DFRC over the next few weeks. The guys at Mojave did. Quick trip to KMHV for the inspection. Results not in yet, may be "owned" by DFRC when they do. That's all.The X-34 "DNA trace" leading to BLB-2 (and X-37 on the other branch) has simply a hstorical value. X-34 was not designed as an orbital reentry vehicle (but it had excellent landing characteristics!)
Particularily troublesome was the increase in base drag if you wanted the cylindrical fuselage shape to extend all the way to the back for volume and hatch locationpurposes (the current design, like BLB, has two hatches for a number of reasons, including crew emergency egress.)
Can you explicitly say the five generations?
So does the current design have two hatches, a rear one for docking/berthing, and the top one is for crew ingress/egress - is that correct? (in that case the ISS approach/departure image shows an incorrect orientation of the craft)
Any ETA on a snazzy name for this vehicle?
The current interest in X-34 (including the "mysterious" move to Mojave) is all focused on reusable LV first stages; NASA Dryden wanted to know to what degree the two old airframes were still airworthy after all these years.
Quote from: antonioe on 09/16/2007 02:05 amAlso, comparisons between X-33 and X-34 are totally inappropriate: X-33 was meant to demonstrate the feasibility of SSTO (or put a final nail on its coffin - that would have been a very useful result). X-34 was meant to measure the cost of reuseability of a reuseable first stage (in terms of parts to be replaced, labor required for turnaround, degree of inspection and retesting required, etc.) Vital data to validate the non-mass-fraction costs of reusability for which there is still only ONE data point.Doesn't that sound familiar, like a certain new AF EELV replacement?http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21369.0
Also, comparisons between X-33 and X-34 are totally inappropriate: X-33 was meant to demonstrate the feasibility of SSTO (or put a final nail on its coffin - that would have been a very useful result). X-34 was meant to measure the cost of reuseability of a reuseable first stage (in terms of parts to be replaced, labor required for turnaround, degree of inspection and retesting required, etc.) Vital data to validate the non-mass-fraction costs of reusability for which there is still only ONE data point.
Hmm, a little googling reveals that there are at least three Schultz doctrines, none of which seem especially appropriate. One is named after a much-beloved and recently retired county judge, another deals with trade in stolen antiquities and the third one concerns "preemptive counter-insurgency"...
Quote from: mmeijeri on 12/15/2010 07:07 pmHmm, a little googling reveals that there are at least three Schultz doctrines, none of which seem especially appropriate. One is named after a much-beloved and recently retired county judge, another deals with trade in stolen antiquities and the third one concerns "preemptive counter-insurgency"...Ho-GAN!!! He "noes nut-hing, NUT-HING!!!"
Quote from: vt_hokie on 12/14/2010 02:10 amQuote from: Lars_J on 12/14/2010 12:18 amVery interesting. I wonder what kind of lifting body they are planning - and if it is based on any previous work. It is HL-20-ish, or like the LM lifting body CEV concept, or something more minimal like the Russian Kliper concept? It will be interesting to see. Recall that Orbital had a conceptual design for a lifting body craft back in the OSP days, though I don't know far along into the design process they were.Very perceptive; the shape shown in our proposal is a "fifth-generation" one that started with X-34 (whose DNA, by the way, made it into X-37 by the way of Rockwell/Boeing who was our partner on "X-34A"), then proceeded to Kliper/HL-10/HL-20 derivatives, and culminated in the BLB shape shown in the above-mentioned OSP picture.During the 1997-2003 time period we burned thousands of CFD hours and hundreds of physical wind tunnel hours developing a useable shape. The main challenge was to acheive reasonable landing speeds (the topic warrants a discussion of its own) at sizes compatible with a 4 to 6 person crew (it is easier with smaller vehicles like X-37 because wing area scales as the square of size but weight more like the cube) AND with a reasonable internal fuselage volume.Particularily troublesome was the increase in base drag if you wanted the cylindrical fuselage shape to extend all the way to the back for volume and hatch locationpurposes (the current design, like BLB, has two hatches for a number of reasons, including crew emergency egress.)With large base drag you get a low approach and landing L/D which in turn has all sorts of nasty consequences. The BLB/5th gen trick was to shape the trailing edge of the delta (not straight, like X-37) wing and the blending of the wing root with the body in order to create interference between the wing airflow and the body airflow at approach and landing conditions that DECRESED the base drag. Not impossible, but very hard - we checked it in real wind tunnel testing.
Yah it needs a snazzy name as that seems very important to sell a concept.
Ho-GAN!!! He "noes nut-hing, NUT-HING!!!"
During the 1997-2003 time period we burned thousands of CFD hours and hundreds of physical wind tunnel hours developing a useable shape. The main challenge was to acheive reasonable landing speeds (the topic warrants a discussion of its own) at sizes compatible with a 4 to 6 person crew (it is easier with smaller vehicles like X-37 because wing area scales as the square of size but weight more like the cube) AND with a reasonable internal fuselage volume.Particularily troublesome was the increase in base drag if you wanted the cylindrical fuselage shape to extend all the way to the back for volume and hatch locationpurposes (the current design, like BLB, has two hatches for a number of reasons, including crew emergency egress.)With large base drag you get a low approach and landing L/D which in turn has all sorts of nasty consequences. The BLB/5th gen trick was to shape the trailing edge of the delta (not straight, like X-37) wing and the blending of the wing root with the body in order to create interference between the wing airflow and the body airflow at approach and landing conditions that DECRESED the base drag. Not impossible, but very hard - we checked it in real wind tunnel testing.
Quote from: antonioe on 12/15/2010 05:08 pmDuring the 1997-2003 time period we burned thousands of CFD hours and hundreds of physical wind tunnel hours developing a useable shape. The main challenge was to acheive reasonable landing speeds (the topic warrants a discussion of its own) at sizes compatible with a 4 to 6 person crew (it is easier with smaller vehicles like X-37 because wing area scales as the square of size but weight more like the cube) AND with a reasonable internal fuselage volume.Particularily troublesome was the increase in base drag if you wanted the cylindrical fuselage shape to extend all the way to the back for volume and hatch locationpurposes (the current design, like BLB, has two hatches for a number of reasons, including crew emergency egress.)With large base drag you get a low approach and landing L/D which in turn has all sorts of nasty consequences. The BLB/5th gen trick was to shape the trailing edge of the delta (not straight, like X-37) wing and the blending of the wing root with the body in order to create interference between the wing airflow and the body airflow at approach and landing conditions that DECRESED the base drag. Not impossible, but very hard - we checked it in real wind tunnel testing.How does Shuttle deal with this issue? It is even bigger than OSP and has a big blunt rear.
Quote from: zaitcev on 12/17/2010 02:15 amHow does Shuttle deal with this issue? It is even bigger than OSP and has a big blunt rear.Larger wings, hence higher subsonic L/D. The shuttle isn't a lifting-body.
How does Shuttle deal with this issue? It is even bigger than OSP and has a big blunt rear.
Mr. Frank Culbertson, Orbital Science’s Senior Vice President and former NASA astronaut stated: Virgin Galactic is clearly breaking new ground in the commercial space market, and we are now very excited to have them on our team. This partnership for marketing and supporting our innovative and affordable design carries a great deal of promise for achieving the kind of growth in commercial spaceflight that will help to make this a sustainable market in the future.”
Upon hearing this, Arnie Aldrich exclaimed indignantly "you mean, if we loose an APU, we loose the bird?"Before the presenter had a chance to answer, a voice from the back of the room - which to this day will remain anonymous - shouted, in reference to the subsonic L/D of the orbiter:"What do you mean "bird?" You must mean "brick"!"
Somewhere it was written that the SR-71, after suffering double engine unstart (before they worked out an effective automatic control system for the inlet cones), "glides about as well as a manhole cover".
How do you know it "integrates all of the service module functions into the reentry vehicle"? All we have seen is early CG renderings of a landed vehicle.
But even if it does include all of it - isn't that a good thing? It should improve re usability.
Quote from: Lars_J on 12/19/2010 09:02 pmHow do you know it "integrates all of the service module functions into the reentry vehicle"? All we have seen is early CG renderings of a landed vehicle.the attached image shows the artwork for the spacecraft in orbit, without any expendable service module. Say what you want to about the quality of the ISS model, one would expect an image of one's product to be as accurate about one's product to the fullest extent possible.
Quote from: moose103 on 12/15/2010 05:37 pmCan you explicitly say the five generations?Hmm.. I'm not sure I could - I was being a bit poetic and counting on my fingers. Let me try this stream of consciousness:1) X-34 in 1997-1998 great landing characteristics but, as noted above, not really a reentry-from-orbit vehicle (LE radii too small)2) Our first CRV shape, 1999 - runway landing, unlike JSC's X-38 concept, but crew rescue only - insufficient volume for a practical crew transport. Reasonable landing characteristics, but nothing to write home about. Very heavily influenced by HL-10/HL-20.3) Our first (non-BLB) OSP, 1999-2000 (here's where we bumped against the landing speed problem) otherwise good volume, cross-range and rentry characteristics.4) The first BLB, 2000-2003 (solved the landing speed problem via some sneaky aerodynamics)5) The revised, vertical-tail-less BLB in 2009-2010. Addressed some ISS docking interference issues (BTW: I'm surprised at the previous statements stating that there appeared to be said interference - I thought we had checked it rather thoroughly; our recent Cygnus work has given us A LOT of experience in that area, eveh though Cygnus berths, whereas our BLB concept docks using LIDS)
The unnamed vehicle will be the fifth generation of a lifting body shape that traces its heritage back to NASA’s HL-10/20 testbeds of the 1960s and ’70s, and includes work Orbital did on the Orbital Space Plane ISS crew rescue concept early in this decade, according to Antonio L. Elias, executive vice president and general manager for advanced programs.
The aforementioned article says "Orbital selected a lifting body for cross range and softer landings, as well as possible benefits that may be derived from using the flight surfaces to handle atmospheric loads on ascent." So presumably more than resolved.
...They also don't have to always reach a runway for a safe landing....
Quote from: douglas100 on 12/22/2010 08:05 am...They also don't have to always reach a runway for a safe landing....No reason Spaceplanes can't have landing rockets too. Thunderbird 1 style, or rotate for a tail landing.
Quote from: kkattula on 12/22/2010 11:30 amQuote from: douglas100 on 12/22/2010 08:05 am...They also don't have to always reach a runway for a safe landing....No reason Spaceplanes can't have landing rockets too. Thunderbird 1 style, or rotate for a tail landing.Then why have wings at all?
No reason Spaceplanes can't have landing rockets too. Thunderbird 1 style, **or rotate for a tail landing**.
Quote from: kkattula on 12/22/2010 11:30 amNo reason Spaceplanes can't have landing rockets too. Thunderbird 1 style, **or rotate for a tail landing**.Have you got any idea how hard that rotation would be? Transitions (vertical->horizontal flight or vice versa) for VTOL aircraft are *hard* to make work properly/safely even when they're basically a thrust vector change. This would be something more like a post-stall manoevering "death swoop" - bad idea. And having both landing rockets and wings has to trash your mass!
See the problems with the XFY-1. The transition from horizontal to vertical meant the pilot had to back down to land from 1000's of feet.
Quote from: sb on 12/22/2010 11:58 amQuote from: kkattula on 12/22/2010 11:30 amNo reason Spaceplanes can't have landing rockets too. Thunderbird 1 style, **or rotate for a tail landing**.Have you got any idea how hard that rotation would be? Transitions (vertical->horizontal flight or vice versa) for VTOL aircraft are *hard* to make work properly/safely even when they're basically a thrust vector change. This would be something more like a post-stall manoevering "death swoop" - bad idea. And having both landing rockets and wings has to trash your mass!Not hard at all, I can tell you that. DC-X did it and they didn't have wings to help.
Orbital's press release mentions Northrop Grumman as the lead airframe structures designer. I wonder if that could refer to Scaled Composites as it is now owned by them?
Quote from: Hotdog on 12/24/2010 12:04 amOrbital's press release mentions Northrop Grumman as the lead airframe structures designer. I wonder if that could refer to Scaled Composites as it is now owned by them?Maybe for an aerodynamic drop test model made with composites (which could be half-scale or so), but the actual spacecraft would likely use traditional Al/Al-Li construction, which is more of a core competency for Northrup Grumman proper. So, presumably, the processing flow would be to have pressure vessel, avionics, and aerostructure all manufactured separately, and then integrated. Would seem to make sense for NG to take the pressure vessel and avionics and build the aerostructure around them. Then, ship the near-complete spacecraft to Orbital just for final outfitting, before transferring it to ULA for integration on the launch vehicle.
Why do you presume the spacecraft would be aluminum rather than composite?
Quote from: butters on 12/27/2010 07:17 amWhy do you presume the spacecraft would be aluminum rather than composite?Because every other manned spacecraft, either flown or in progress, is of aluminum or Al-Li construction, mostly for reasons of compression strength (the weak point of carbon fibre) and heat tolerance. Plus, the Alenia pressure vessel is known to be aluminum, as it's based on their ISS/Cygnus work. Plus plus, OSC is not company that takes unnecessary technological risks, which is precisely what a composite construction would be.
IIRC Alenia makes the rear barrel & bonnet of the 787 in Italy so they're not inexperienced with composite airframes.
The spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpw
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwMore interestingly, it has a budget. $3.5-4B, with a B. That's got to be a budgetary non-starter. SNC claims <$1B for comparable approach. And there are other proposals on the table that are even less, with more capability.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 02/01/2011 12:10 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwMore interestingly, it has a budget. $3.5-4B, with a B. That's got to be a budgetary non-starter. SNC claims <$1B for comparable approach. And there are other proposals on the table that are even less, with more capability.Yeah, saw that too. But the article also says that's the cost for ugrading the Atlas and a couple of test flights. Obviously not sure if that means "man-rating" the rocket like planned or something else.
Quote from: OV-106 on 02/01/2011 12:24 amQuote from: HMXHMX on 02/01/2011 12:10 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwMore interestingly, it has a budget. $3.5-4B, with a B. That's got to be a budgetary non-starter. SNC claims <$1B for comparable approach. And there are other proposals on the table that are even less, with more capability.Yeah, saw that too. But the article also says that's the cost for ugrading the Atlas and a couple of test flights. Obviously not sure if that means "man-rating" the rocket like planned or something else. I don't think the DreamChaser number includes man-rating Atlas-V.
I agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown. It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever). I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions. Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?
Quote from: OV-106 on 02/01/2011 02:07 amI agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown. It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever). I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions. Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?ULA had 5-6 years and a $1.5 billion program, for the Delta IV. Augustine had 6-7 years and $1.8 billion for the same. In both, the Atlas V was listed as being available immediately and without cost penalty.
Quote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 02:14 amQuote from: OV-106 on 02/01/2011 02:07 amI agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown. It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever). I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions. Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?ULA had 5-6 years and a $1.5 billion program, for the Delta IV. Augustine had 6-7 years and $1.8 billion for the same. In both, the Atlas V was listed as being available immediately and without cost penalty.That makes no sense. How do you claim the Atlas V is man-rated but the Delta IV is not?
I think you're kind of missing the point I was making. It's not a big deal.
Quote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 02:14 amQuote from: OV-106 on 02/01/2011 02:07 amI agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown. It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever). I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions. Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?ULA had 5-6 years and a $1.5 billion program, for the Delta IV. Augustine had 6-7 years and $1.8 billion for the same. In both, the Atlas V was listed as being available immediately and without cost penalty.Not that this thread is the place to ask, but where did ULA give those numbers, because I don't remember hearing numbers in that range before. Most of the ULA numbers I had heard were for much lower amounts.~Jon
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwOh, sounds like someone at OSC is a Stargate SG-1 fan.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 02/01/2011 03:48 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwOh, sounds like someone at OSC is a Stargate SG-1 fan.That or they're Alien fans. Ridley Scott is making an Alien-universe "prequel" called Prometheus
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwMore interestingly, it has a budget. $3.5-4B, with a B. That's got to be a budgetary non-starter. ...
Quote from: HMXHMX on 02/01/2011 12:10 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwMore interestingly, it has a budget. $3.5-4B, with a B. That's got to be a budgetary non-starter. ...Depends where and how that money is spent. Congress might well prefer to spend a lot more in the 'right' places. They generally do.
Do we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for? If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 01/31/2011 10:12 pmThe spaceplane has a name: Prometheushttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?_r=1&hpwDOAElons pricing idea for the Merlin 2 and the HLV suddenly are looking cheap again. More interestingly, it has a budget. $3.5-4B, with a B. That's got to be a budgetary non-starter. SNC claims <$1B for comparable approach. And there are other proposals on the table that are even less, with more capability.
Quote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 05:41 pmDo we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for? If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.So far the plan is that all commercial crew vechiles will use Atlas 402. Orion it seems will either use Delta IV or SLS. Which makes me suspect that ULA is aiming for an SLS that is Delta IV derived. Human rating the delta IV is another question.
ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight. The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern. It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would. Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6). Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc. It's a ton of minor tweaks.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 02/01/2011 05:52 pmQuote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 05:41 pmDo we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for? If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.So far the plan is that all commercial crew vechiles will use Atlas 402. Orion it seems will either use Delta IV or SLS. Which makes me suspect that ULA is aiming for an SLS that is Delta IV derived. Human rating the delta IV is another question. ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight. The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern. It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would. Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6). Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc. It's a ton of minor tweaks.
Quote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 06:41 pmULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight. The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern. It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would. Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6). Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc. It's a ton of minor tweaks. I agree but the problem is no commitment to launch anything with people on it.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 02/01/2011 07:01 pmQuote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 06:41 pmULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight. The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern. It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would. Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6). Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc. It's a ton of minor tweaks. I agree but the problem is no commitment to launch anything with people on it. Exactly, until there is a commitment, why waste money doing it?
These "minor tweaks" cost money, drive schedule, etc. I think you will find many asking (and I believe HMX was also alluding to this) that why can we place multi-billion dollar sats and probes but not people? It does not make logical sense in today's world of technical capability and experience.I know better than many on here the commitment, dedication and attention to detail required consistently if launching a crew into space. Yet there comes a point when you have to ask if we're at the wall of diminishing returns and, for a lack of a better phrase, is "good enough, good enough" right now? Obviously some mods will be required, such as some sort of system that allows the actual spacecraft to monitor key launch vehicle parameters to trigger the LAS if necessary and an ability to actually get the crew in the ship. The majority of the rest, and the likely paper work requirement of traceability all the way to the ore being removed from the ground, I don't believe is necessary in large part.
Quote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 06:41 pmQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 02/01/2011 05:52 pmQuote from: Downix on 02/01/2011 05:41 pmDo we know which lift vehicle this is aimed for? If it is Delta, it could include the $1.5 billion to update the Delta for human flight.So far the plan is that all commercial crew vechiles will use Atlas 402. Orion it seems will either use Delta IV or SLS. Which makes me suspect that ULA is aiming for an SLS that is Delta IV derived. Human rating the delta IV is another question. ULA's pretty clear on what needs to be done for getting the Delta IV ready for human spaceflight. The USAF's signed off on it, so that eliminates that concern. It's a case of adding in pieces which an unmanned launcher doesn't need, but a manned would. Flame mitigation, for instance. (like what happened at SLS-6). Redundant valves, sensors, metering systems, cutoff systems, etc. It's a ton of minor tweaks. These "minor tweaks" cost money, drive schedule, etc. I think you will find many asking (and I believe HMX was also alluding to this) that why can we place multi-billion dollar sats and probes but not people? It does not make logical sense in today's world of technical capability and experience.I know better than many on here the commitment, dedication and attention to detail required consistently if launching a crew into space. Yet there comes a point when you have to ask if we're at the wall of diminishing returns and, for a lack of a better phrase, is "good enough, good enough" right now? Obviously some mods will be required, such as some sort of system that allows the actual spacecraft to monitor key launch vehicle parameters to trigger the LAS if necessary and an ability to actually get the crew in the ship. The majority of the rest, and the likely paper work requirement of traceability all the way to the ore being removed from the ground, I don't believe is necessary in large part.
While there may be some well-meaning elements that honestly think that all these "tweaks" will make a vehicle the NRO thinks is good enough for $1B spy sats "safer", and while I'm sure ULA wouldn't mind getting paid $1.5B to make all those tweaks and get paid to do some flight tests...that money would be better spent elsewhere than in the pursuit of what may be illusory safety gains. Especially with how few times Orion is likely to fly on DIV-H.~Jon
On the cost subject, keep in mind who we're talking about here. Orbital is a well-established systems integrator and satellite/launch vehicle provider. While I personally doubt anyone's cost numbers for a project of this size, complexity, and newness, I would tend to trust OSC's numbers more than Sierra Nevada's. I know SN's been around the block a few times themselves, so that's not a knock against them really, but more that OSC probably has a bit more data behind their cost models, maybe higher reserves, etc.Do we know if OSC's cost for Prometheus is a total cost, or just cost-to-NASA? My understanding is that CCDev required matching funds. In which case, a $3B estimate means only $1.5B from NASA, which is probably more feasible, although still higher than others.
Huh, I could swear I remembered reading about that, but thank you for that correction. In that case, the chances of NASA giving $3-4B to OSC is very low, since that will be roughly the total funding of the entire CCDev program, and NASA wants more than one provider.Is it possible OSC would be willing the take the rather massive risk of subsidizing a large portion of the development themselves, essentially only asking NASA for some percentage of the development cost? It seems to me, though, that it would take at least a $1B buy-in (or more!) from OSC to make the price palatable to NASA. For comparison, public data says that their entire 2007 revenue was around $1B, so I consider that extremely unlikely.
Quote from: Malderi on 02/03/2011 05:58 amHuh, I could swear I remembered reading about that, but thank you for that correction. In that case, the chances of NASA giving $3-4B to OSC is very low, since that will be roughly the total funding of the entire CCDev program, and NASA wants more than one provider.Is it possible OSC would be willing the take the rather massive risk of subsidizing a large portion of the development themselves, essentially only asking NASA for some percentage of the development cost? It seems to me, though, that it would take at least a $1B buy-in (or more!) from OSC to make the price palatable to NASA. For comparison, public data says that their entire 2007 revenue was around $1B, so I consider that extremely unlikely.The House was considering adding this as a requirement but their bill didn't pass. As far as COTS is concerned, NASA did ask that the commercial companies put skin in the game. But it wasn't clear ho much of their skin, they had to put.
Quote from: OV-106 on 02/01/2011 02:07 amI agree the "man-rating" arguement is a bit overblown. It's just needs to be something that allows the vehicles on top to trigger the LAS if necessary. That said, during Augustine I believe it was Aerospace that suggested it would take something like seven years (whatever). I also remember seeing something, somewhere (can't find it now) about this costing something on the order of billions. Anyone remember that or know where I may have seen it?I think some of the so called manrating requirements was just baloney just to keep the EELVs from being a viable alternative to Ares.If either Atlas V or Delta IV had an emergency detection system both vehicles probably would have much higher safety margins then Soyuz and Long March 2F.
If either Atlas V or Delta IV had an emergency detection system both vehicles probably would have much higher safety margins then Soyuz and Long March 2F.
Quote from: Patchouli on 02/04/2011 07:32 amIf either Atlas V or Delta IV had an emergency detection system both vehicles probably would have much higher safety margins then Soyuz and Long March 2F.Probably ? Based on what ?
I don't know if the EELVs can be considered superior to Soyuz is
Any explanation why?
Quote from: Space Lizard on 04/19/2011 01:30 pmAny explanation why?Here's the breakdown. My guess is that SNC made a better business case, and in this industry, that means a lot.
.... Orbital’s losing bid for work on NASA’s Commercial Crew Development 2 program, which is intended to nurture commercially operated astronaut-transport systems, will likely lead the company to shut down those operations unless some other opportunity arises.
A bit of a surprise in a small segment of Charlie Bolton's online chat today. In response to one question about the return to Capsules, he included this small bit:"We expect that for low Earth orbit operations such as transportation to the ISS, at least two of the prospective competitors, Orbital Sciences and Sierra Nevada, have proposed winged vehicles for their designs."perhaps Promethius is not as dead as I'd thought.
A bit of a surprise in a small segment of Charlie Bolton's online chat today. In response to one question about the return to Capsules, he included this small bit:"We expect that for low Earth orbit operations such as transportation to the ISS, at least two of the prospective competitors, Orbital Sciences and Sierra Nevada, have proposed winged vehicles for their designs."perhaps Prometheus is not as dead as I'd thought.
The selection statement for CRS-2 stated that Prometheus was a better design than DreamChaser, but that SNC had a better business case. Both designs will improve by the time of CRS-3, so it will really be down to (another) non-technical decision...
Investing in a project that displays only technical excellence, only for the company to go bankrupt and for the capability to be abandoned, would not be responsible.
Quote from: peter-b on 08/17/2011 07:03 pmInvesting in a project that displays only technical excellence, only for the company to go bankrupt and for the capability to be abandoned, would not be responsible. True, but OSC is not about to go bankrupt, and can point to a much longer record of on-budget complex projects (as opposed to SNC, which has only ever done subcomponents). I've gotta think it was deeper than that...