Author Topic: CCiCAP bid: Space Operations, Inc. (SpaceOps) aka Gemini on steroids  (Read 25775 times)

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Quote
This team will utilize heritage flight rated and proven technologies to form the basis for manufacturing the spacecraft. The ECLIPSE will carry two crew members and approximately 10,000lb. of cargo in the payload module. The configuration of the payload module will depend on the mission of the customer. It will carry whatever is required, eg. satellite, food, ect. The ECLIPSE will be recovered on land using the Rogallo wing. SpaceOps proposes to utilize the SpaceX F9 to launch the ECLIPSE into orbit.

http://www.spaceoperationsinc.com/index.html

« Last Edit: 09/18/2012 03:10 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 1506
It was really hard to take that seriously.

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3029
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 800
  • Likes Given: 25
Space Operations CCiCap proposal did not get very far, being eliminated at the beginning of the screening process.  This is from the CCiCap Selection Statement:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=645

Acceptability Screening: Upon proposal receipt, the Agreements Officer reviewed all proposals to determine whether each proposal was consistent with the Announcement’s proposal instructions.

Additionally, the voting members of the PEP read the executive summary of each proposal to determine whether the proposal satisfied the following fundamental criteria:

1. Proposes an integrated CTS;
2. Demonstrates significant risk reduction test activities in the base period; and
3. Culminates with an orbital crewed demonstration flight.

If after reading the executive summary, it was determined that the proposal failed to meet the fundamental criteria, it was considered an unacceptable proposal. Proposals that received an unacceptable proposal rating were eliminated from further evaluation.

[…]
 
Space Operations, Inc.’s proposal did not meet the fundamental criteria because the executive summary did not demonstrate significant risk reduction test activities and did not propose an integrated CTS. Therefore, the proposal was considered unacceptable and eliminated from further evaluation.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Interesting concept....

Know how cheap it would be to manufacture this!   Only issue might be the 2012 NASA standards?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26262.15

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Space Operations CCiCap proposal did not get very far, being eliminated at the beginning of the screening process.  This is from the CCiCap Selection Statement:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=645


Has anyone looked into the other proposals that got screened out?

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338
Interesting concept....

Know how cheap it would be to manufacture this!   Only issue might be the 2012 NASA standards?


That is MOL Gemini.  Not NASA Gemini

Offline e of pi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 375
Interesting concept....

Know how cheap it would be to manufacture this!   Only issue might be the 2012 NASA standards?
Well, the electronics would be obsolete, the docking systems are completely incompatible, the capsule's been out of production for over 45 years and the original team is mostly long since retired, not to mention the production lines are decades gone. So it's probably a lot more expensive than you'd think if they were to actually study it. And what do you get? It seats two, as opposed to the seven of most of the other proposals, it would have little space for cargo, and more critically they didn't propose a complete crew transportation system--what would launch it? How would they test systems to prove it, what's their schedule? That appears to be totally lacking--and based on the rejection comments, NASA saw roughly the same issues.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Interesting concept....

Know how cheap it would be to manufacture this!   Only issue might be the 2012 NASA standards?
Well, the electronics would be obsolete, the docking systems are completely incompatible, the capsule's been out of production for over 45 years and the original team is mostly long since retired, not to mention the production lines are decades gone. So it's probably a lot more expensive than you'd think if they were to actually study it.

ok, maybe you misunderstood me on the manufacturing.   

My general comment about manufacturing is regarding the major changes that have taken place in “manufacturing” in general applied to this general design.

An upgraded knock off would be cheap to do.  Why do I say this? 
1)   Look to China for the answers on how they do cheap knock offs.
2)   Making a copy of a design via the power of new cad programs is so impressive now.
3)   You can scan an old part, import it make a few changes or use a cheap CNC (you can buy super expensive machine tools now, for pennies on the dollar) to duplicate the design.
4)   You can use a 3D Printer print a copy then use the “investment casting method” to make a high quality cast part.
Side note here: #2 & #4 are so powerful now and cheap it’s being done at home; so called “homebrew”.     Some people are keeping their old aluminum cans melting them down into parts, right out of their back yard.

To sum up a 1950’s-60’s design might be very cheap to manufacture in 2012.



« Last Edit: 10/03/2012 06:37 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338
Quote from: Prober link=topic=29926.msg960504#msg960504

An upgraded knock off would be cheap to do.  Why do I say this? 
1)   Look to China for the answers on how they do cheap knock offs.
2)   Making a copy of a design via the power of new cad programs is so impressive now.
3)   You can scan an old part, import it make a few changes or use a cheap CNC (you can buy super expensive machine tools now, for pennies on the dollar) to duplicate the design.
4)   You can use a 3D Printer print a copy then use the “investment casting method” to make a high quality cast part.
Side note here: #2 & #4 are so powerful now and cheap it’s being done at home; so called “homebrew”.     Some people are keeping their old aluminum cans melting them down into parts, right out of their back yard.

To sum up a 1950’s-60’s design might be very cheap to manufacture in 2012.


Not true. None of those are valid.
1.  They are not aerospace knockoffs
2. Still need the original drawings which need to be translation into CNC inputs.
3. What old parts to be scan?
4.  Still doesn't mean it is good for aerospace applications. 
« Last Edit: 10/03/2012 06:44 pm by Jim »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7439
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 4525
Let me add two points:
1) What if the original materials are not available.
2) You think that when the hourly rate of aerospace was $10/hr and they didn't had almost any CNC machine they could be as efficient in today's $100/hr time? The productivity of Americans has increased at least an order of magnitude. So did the cost of labor. And modern manufacturing techniques are made to make things cheaper to build, too. Those things were not cheap by their time, nowaday they would be prohibitive.
Not to mention the complete obsolescence of their qualifications and capabilities.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Quote from: Prober link=topic=29926.msg960504#msg960504

An upgraded knock off would be cheap to do.  Why do I say this? 
1)   Look to China for the answers on how they do cheap knock offs.
2)   Making a copy of a design via the power of new cad programs is so impressive now.
3)   You can scan an old part, import it make a few changes or use a cheap CNC (you can buy super expensive machine tools now, for pennies on the dollar) to duplicate the design.
4)   You can use a 3D Printer print a copy then use the “investment casting method” to make a high quality cast part.
Side note here: #2 & #4 are so powerful now and cheap it’s being done at home; so called “homebrew”.     Some people are keeping their old aluminum cans melting them down into parts, right out of their back yard.

To sum up a 1950’s-60’s design might be very cheap to manufacture in 2012.


Not true. None of those are valid.
1.  They are not aerospace knockoffs
2. Still need the original drawings which need to be translation into CNC inputs.
3. What old parts to be scan?
4.  Still doesn't mean it is good for aerospace applications. 

Not going to get into a discussion on "reverse engineering".   It works and the power is coming into the home user.

1) aerospace knockoffs (jets) are wide in the news..its being done
2) no (you need to watch the movie)
4) PWR and most quick designs use 3D printing.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Let me add two points:
1) What if the original materials are not available.
2) You think that when the hourly rate of aerospace was $10/hr and they didn't had almost any CNC machine they could be as efficient in today's $100/hr time? The productivity of Americans has increased at least an order of magnitude. So did the cost of labor. And modern manufacturing techniques are made to make things cheaper to build, too. Those things were not cheap by their time, nowaday they would be prohibitive.
Not to mention the complete obsolescence of their qualifications and capabilities.

1) if the original materials you mean the designs?    Drawings, pics, sometimes just the specifications can be a start.

If you talking about materials as in metals or something.  Take the example above it lists "Corrugated Titanium".  In this case we wouldn't want or need to use "Corrugated Titanium".   The general design works, a new material would be replaced.

2) Let me change this around a bit.  A very good example of how this works is SpaceX.   They took NASA techchnology along with various manufacturing tech and brought the cost down.


Edit: side point  been trying to get users who live near space exhibits to try this new software.  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29206.0   

This shows the power coming into the hands of the general public.  Using an iphone or digital cameria you just walk around in 360, and take pics top and bottom and send to a cloud and it makes a digital model for you.

« Last Edit: 10/03/2012 09:41 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Interesting concept....

Know how cheap it would be to manufacture this!   Only issue might be the 2012 NASA standards?


That is MOL Gemini.  Not NASA Gemini

and thx Jim MOL Gemini is amazing
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728

2) Let me change this around a bit.  A very good example of how this works is SpaceX.   They took NASA techchnology along with various manufacturing tech and brought the cost down.


No, SpaceX did their own designs based on the technology. They didn't just reverse-engineer old hardware.

hope my meaning wasn't taken wrong:  SpaceX did their own designs based on the technology
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
And:

2) The original drawings (assuming you could get them all) are probably only on microfilm or microfiche. The scans will need a lot of manual cleanup before they are usable.

3) Many of the flight-qual'ed parts for Gemini are only available on the museum units. The museums are not going to let you tear them apart to scan them.

And all this to bring back a design that carried only two and would require the crew to transfer to ISS via EVA (Gemini was designed for 5.5 psi O2 and the cabin had a burst pressure of 12 psig; trying to equalize with ISS at 14.7 psi of air would pop it like a balloon).

2) More reference material than anything else Jorge.   

3) No EVA, I like the general idea of the Gemini MOL.   Would make a transfer via tube (MOL) Similar to the way the DC is doing it.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728

2) Let me change this around a bit.  A very good example of how this works is SpaceX.   They took NASA techchnology along with various manufacturing tech and brought the cost down.


No, SpaceX did their own designs based on the technology. They didn't just reverse-engineer old hardware.

hope my meaning wasn't taken wrong:  SpaceX did their own designs based on the technology

Then you're admitting that they're not a good example of what you're suggesting.

using a pure digital model for design, and making as many of the parts "Internally" as possible does work.  It does help keep costs down.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2012 09:55 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338

1) aerospace knockoffs (jets) are wide in the news..its being done
2) no (you need to watch the movie)
4) PWR and most quick designs use 3D printing.


Wrong again.

1.  They are not knockoffs. Just as Buran is not knockoff of the shuttle. 
2.  Doesn't matter, you are still wrong
3.  Not applicable here

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338

1) if the original materials you mean the designs?    Drawings, pics, sometimes just the specifications can be a start.

If you talking about materials as in metals or something.  Take the example above it lists "Corrugated Titanium".  In this case we wouldn't want or need to use "Corrugated Titanium".   The general design works, a new material would be replaced.

2) Let me change this around a bit.  A very good example of how this works is SpaceX.   They took NASA techchnology along with various manufacturing tech and brought the cost down.


Edit: side point  been trying to get users who live near space exhibits to try this new software.  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29206.0   

This shows the power coming into the hands of the general public.  Using an iphone or digital cameria you just walk around in 360, and take pics top and bottom and send to a cloud and it makes a digital model for you.



1.  Different material will require a different design since they can not handle the same loads

2.  No, Spacex did not duplicate any existing design

3.  Not good enough for intricate designs.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338
 

3) No EVA, I like the general idea of the Gemini MOL.   Would make a transfer via tube (MOL) Similar to the way the DC is doing it.


No,
a.  The MOL Gemini structure can't take ISS pressure
b.  MOL Gemini was launched on the MOL, it can not dock, especially from behind

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32614
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11450
  • Likes Given: 338

using a pure digital model for design,

Everybody does that

Tags: