Next Gen Shuttle-Capable vehicle interest as secret effort to save orbiters ends

[Namechange User]

I am looking forward to see the X-37 data of the TPS perfomance on orbit for the prolonged periods. Would provide valuable insight for a Next Gen Shuttle... When declassified of course...

The one that landed didn't have any noticeable issues.  Also, given the right circumstances I find it hard to believe that the USAF would classify any TPS damage related to long-duration flight. 

Yes, it looked clean to me. I only mention classified in terms of China wanting its own space plane equivalent to X-37. They would probably love to get their hands on advanced TPS technology. Now the successful performance on long orbital stay may be a step in the right direction for the Dream Chaser being used as a lifeboat onboard ISS, with other mods of course.

Just a note of caution, I'm not sure I would characterize the TPS technology as "advanced" but perhaps just more "evolved" based on lessons learned and past experience. 

[kirghizstan]

my secret dream, if hubble is ever to the point that it cannot be serviced, bring it down in a shuttle capable vehicle to display that fine piece of american history.

[Lars_J]

Ever heard the saying "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"? It applies here. A shuttle-like successor, with no funding from NASA? Does everyone get ponies too?

Honestly, step back and look at this again.

The information is all to hand, if you want to use actual information, and not baseless, and pointless, assumptions.

http://www.marylynnedittmar.com/

"“The guy”, whose name is Kevin Holleran, turned out to be brilliant, gifted investor and entrepreneur, a genuinely original thinker, a man possessed of great wit, and a natural leader despite his being an English bloke (joke!)"

"Kevin’s leadership was extraordinary on all fronts."

Remember MLD's calibre, then re-read the above.

I have read it and I wouldn't rephrase what I wrote. Using "appeal to authority" doesnt change how unlikely it sounds.

Noone is immune to wishful thinking, nor confirmation bias. Not MLD, you, or I.

It would be great if true. But... There is always a but.

[neilh]

In the case of commercial Shuttle, what we see is billions committed with no NASA skin in the game, no requirement for NASA as a customer, and full reimbursement for the use of NASA infrastructure.  The vehicle itself has a broad range of capabilities, so that the range of potential applications is much wider than for the capsules.  Not only that, but they're still going ahead with it even though they can't use Shuttle itself - they apparently want the capability so bad they're willing to try to replicate it.  I will admit it is a surprise that someone thinks the business case is that good, but you must admit the signs point to either a very good business case or a very misinformed rich guy.

Indeed, the possibility of the former is what excites me most about all of this.

Ever heard the saying "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"? It applies here. A shuttle-like successor, with no funding from NASA? Does everyone get ponies too?

Honestly, step back and look at this again.

Sure, I wouldn't invest in it myself based on the limited information available so far, but I still find the possibility exciting. Maybe I just tend to be overly optimistic....

[Rocket Science]

I am looking forward to see the X-37 data of the TPS perfomance on orbit for the prolonged periods. Would provide valuable insight for a Next Gen Shuttle... When declassified of course...

The one that landed didn't have any noticeable issues.  Also, given the right circumstances I find it hard to believe that the USAF would classify any TPS damage related to long-duration flight. 

Yes, it looked clean to me. I only mention classified in terms of China wanting its own space plane equivalent to X-37. They would probably love to get their hands on advanced TPS technology. Now the successful performance on long orbital stay may be a step in the right direction for the Dream Chaser being used as a lifeboat onboard ISS, with other mods of course.

Just a note of caution, I'm not sure I would characterize the TPS technology as "advanced" but perhaps just more "evolved" based on lessons learned and past experience. 

Done!

[Chris Bergin]

Ever heard the saying "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"? It applies here. A shuttle-like successor, with no funding from NASA? Does everyone get ponies too?

Honestly, step back and look at this again.

The information is all to hand, if you want to use actual information, and not baseless, and pointless, assumptions.

http://www.marylynnedittmar.com/

"“The guy”, whose name is Kevin Holleran, turned out to be brilliant, gifted investor and entrepreneur, a genuinely original thinker, a man possessed of great wit, and a natural leader despite his being an English bloke (joke!)"

"Kevin’s leadership was extraordinary on all fronts."

Remember MLD's calibre, then re-read the above.

I have read it and I wouldn't rephrase what I wrote. Using "appeal to authority" doesnt change how unlikely it sounds.

Noone is immune to wishful thinking, nor confirmation bias. Not MLD, you, or I.

It would be great if true. But... There is always a but.

That's fair enough. I suppose I'm thinking I know much less than someone like MLD, so I'll tend to go with that.

I still hate Space Shuttles, however

[93143]

...you must admit the signs point to either a very good business case or a very misinformed rich guy.

http://www.marylynnedittmar.com/

"“The guy”, whose name is Kevin Holleran, turned out to be brilliant, gifted investor and entrepreneur, a genuinely original thinker, a man possessed of great wit, and a natural leader despite his being an English bloke (joke!)"

"Kevin’s leadership was extraordinary on all fronts."

Remember MLD's calibre, then re-read the above.

Heh...  I guess I wasn't holding that part in front of my mind when I was writing.  I would rephrase, but it's been quoted enough that there's not much point...

Yes, as I said elsewhere, not only is there this level of commitment, but a skeptic like Dittmar was converted.  It does sound promising.

I wonder (like everyone else not privy to the details) what exactly is meant by "Shuttle-capable"...

[Chris Bergin]

That's probably the best way to put it. Promising.

Proof is in the pudding, as we say over here

[93143]

I'm kind of shocked at the many STS supporters who have doubted the business case for commercial crew (less capable overall but certainly cheaper) - yet now they cling their hopes to this venture with a yet-to-be-revealed business case.

Also, I think I should point out that as far as I can tell, very few on here are actually not fans of commercial crew; we all want it to succeed, and the complaints seem mostly to be centred on how it has been handled.  Comparing that with enthusiasm over this newly-revealed effort, which comes as a surprise to many and which we still know much less about, is somewhat apples-to-oranges IMO.

[Rob in KC]

Excellent article Chris.

But the news wasn't well received around the world.

[Chris Bergin]

That's a bit like me on a morning when I realize I don't have a flow report to write about, difference being I don't get an extra bowl of rice for sobbing on camera.

Moving swiftly on!

So this is going to get bumped down off top position soon (it's really got a ton of reads - six figures) - as we have four more articles to go before Christmas, a ton of stuff next week - such as the mega long year in reviews (x3), then a really meaty exclusive for SLS (via a top level interview) that'll kick off the new year.

This article will be followed up on the 2012 next gen effort.

[Robotbeat]

One really big difference between this and other commercial ventures is that this is keeping the business plan secret, while the basic idea for most of the commercial ventures is obvious (i.e. cheaper launch for commercial satellites, DoD payloads... space tourism or orbital research, etc).

With a secret business plan and something that sounds like it's likely to be very, very expensive, you'd have to be an insider who knows what the business plan is NOT to be skeptical.

I give a lot more credit to those who aren't afraid to share their business plan, to let it be discussed and ripped apart by critics. Saying "it's proprietary" is one good way to shield yourself from a critical look at your business plan.

All IMHO, of course. I'm sure the people involved are quite intelligent and capable of getting the project accomplished from a technical perspective. They have a heck of a lot to prove from a financial perspective, though.

[Namechange User]

Just an item of note:

In a truly commercial venture one is not required to disclose their business plans. 

For example if one went to Apple Headquarters and asked for their product plans for the next five years and exactly what their intent was, what market they would like to capture and/or maintain and how they were going to do that, I highly doubt Apple would feel it necessary to provide that person with anything. 

For those who are skeptical, fine, be skeptical.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that and I honestly believe everyone is to some extent, even those involved.  It's healthy and makes for ultimately a better product if it does become reality.

But, in my opinion, it seems somewhat small to try to place a not-so-cloaked insult at those who are actually trying something.  Something that is truly commercial and something that some claim to be in so much support of. 

And that is all I have to say on the subject. 

[rcoppola]

...... then a really meaty exclusive for SLS (via a top level interview) that'll kick off the new year.

This article will be followed up on the 2012 next gen effort.

Very excited about that. Can you give any hints as to what to expect? I would enjoy an early Christmas Present.

[yg1968]

In the case of commercial Shuttle, what we see is billions committed with no NASA skin in the game, no requirement for NASA as a customer, and full reimbursement for the use of NASA infrastructure.  The vehicle itself has a broad range of capabilities, so that the range of potential applications is much wider than for the capsules.  Not only that, but they're still going ahead with it even though they can't use Shuttle itself - they apparently want the capability so bad they're willing to try to replicate it.  I will admit it is a surprise that someone thinks the business case is that good, but you must admit the signs point to either a very good business case or a very misinformed rich guy.

Indeed, the possibility of the former is what excites me most about all of this.

Ever heard the saying "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is"? It applies here. A shuttle-like successor, with no funding from NASA? Does everyone get ponies too?

Honestly, step back and look at this again.

The information is all to hand, if you want to use actual information, and not baseless, and pointless, assumptions.

http://www.marylynnedittmar.com/

"“The guy”, whose name is Kevin Holleran, turned out to be brilliant, gifted investor and entrepreneur, a genuinely original thinker, a man possessed of great wit, and a natural leader despite his being an English bloke (joke!)"

"Kevin’s leadership was extraordinary on all fronts."

Remember MLD's calibre, then re-read the above.

Her blog is interesting. But the most surprising part of it is here:

2) The entity had to generate a business case that could close without NASA as a customer;

Many on this forum have trouble believing that Stratolaunch has a business case. But it seems to me that a commercial Shuttle has even less of a business case. But It would be interesting to know who their non-NASA customers would be. DOD?

[Robotbeat]

...
DOD?

Good point.

I posted this in another thread, but it's more on-topic here:

I do seem to notice that the next-gen Shuttle proposal says no NASA money is needed to close their business case. It's notable that they didn't say no government money. After all, the defense space budget is much bigger than NASA's, and defense payloads were one of the original justifications for Shuttle*. I'm betting that their business case rests rather heavily on defense as a customer. That's definitely still government money.

*_{The defense justification/partnership drove many of Shuttle's most expensive-to-achieve requirements, such as a theoretical capability for once-around which drove the cross-range capability and thus wing size, a huge, long payload bay, and minimum payload to polar orbit...If some of these requirements (several of which were never fully used as originally planned) were relaxed, Shuttle could've been cheaper and possibly safer, thus the next-gen Shuttle may have a technical ability to be cheaper operationally, even when not taking new technology into account.}

[notsorandom]

Many on this forum have trouble believing that Stratolaunch has a business case. But it seems to me that a commercial Shuttle has even less of a business case. But It would be interesting to know who their non-NASA customers would be. DOD?

The business cases, at least what we know of both, seem to be different. Stratolaunch is attempting to provide an existing capability for less money. This next generation shuttle initiative is attempting to provide a capability which doesn't exist. The question is what is this capability? Are there enough customers willing/able to pay for this capability? To me at least, Stratolaunch is doing something that has been tried many times before, in a market which doesn't have much room for newcomers. This new shuttle initiative looks like it is trying to open up a new and novel market.

[Namechange User]

In my personal opinion, I think some are trying to look for very specific words, or lack of them, and try to derive some sort of cosmic meaning with the assumption that the business plan is spelled out in some sort of hidden code here. 

Quite honestly I am also not privy to the specific details of the business plan.  *If* and when that time is right, well, then we will see if that changes.  *If* and when that does ever happen, it does NOT mean me or anyone else will spell them out here.  My only comment that I can fairly easily speak to relative to the larger conversation is there is a major difference in a government "being just another customer too" and "government must fund me so they can be the customer". 

In one case, they see a capability and have the choice to use it if it fits their needs and desires.  In the other one, it places the government "in the loop" from the beginning and therefore they then have the right to drive requirements, etc in exchange for their funding to build it.  It is a major difference. 

FWIW.....

[Robotbeat]

...To me at least, Stratolaunch is doing something that has been tried many times before, in a market which doesn't have much room for newcomers. ...

Disagree. Stratolaunch's approach allows relatively easy opportunities for first-orbit rendezvous which is a capability which hasn't existed before (though first-orbit rendezvous under careful circumstances has been done before during Gemini). Stratolaunch is justifying their existence by targeting a new market (private human spaceflight).

(Pegasus could do this, but it's too small to really provide services for human spaceflight... Though some smaller newspace companies will try to use rockets in that payload range or less for that purpose.)

[yg1968]

In my personal opinion, I think some are trying to look for very specific words, or lack of them, and try to derive some sort of cosmic meaning with the assumption that the business plan is spelled out in some sort of hidden code here. 

Quite honestly I am also not privy to the specific details of the business plan.  *If* and when that time is right, well, then we will see if that changes.  *If* and when that does ever happen, it does NOT mean me or anyone else will spell them out here.  My only comment that I can fairly easily speak to relative to the larger conversation is there is a major difference in a government "being just another customer too" and "government must fund me so they can be the customer". 

In one case, they see a capability and have the choice to use it if it fits their needs and desires.  In the other one, it places the government "in the loop" from the beginning and therefore they then have the right to drive requirements, etc in exchange for their funding to build it.  It is a major difference. 

FWIW.....

As Robotbeat indicated in another post, Shuttle has benefited from government money in the past. So I am not sure that you can call this an entirely private venture either.