Author Topic: CCiCAP bid: Space Operations, Inc. (SpaceOps) aka Gemini on steroids  (Read 25785 times)

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22574
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 355
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: 1421
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 1509
It was really hard to take that seriously.

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 803
  • 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: 32651
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11555
  • Likes Given: 344
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: 376
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: 32651
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11555
  • Likes Given: 344
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: 7444
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 4554
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: 32651
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11555
  • Likes Given: 344

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: 32651
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11555
  • Likes Given: 344

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: 32651
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11555
  • Likes Given: 344
 

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: 32651
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11555
  • Likes Given: 344

using a pure digital model for design,

Everybody does that

Offline Prober

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

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

-10  LMAO    Jim you sure gave me a good laugh.
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 pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Liked: 293
  • Likes Given: 39
So they took an old design that wasn't found to be worthwhile back then and believe to gain something from that 45 years later. Now THAT sounds like a plan....

If any of that holds true it pretty much means we are working hard to get to a technological level of 40 years ago now. However, somehow I really don't believe that.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2012 03:34 am by pippin »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28859
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9054
  • Likes Given: 5799

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

-10  LMAO    Jim you sure gave me a good laugh.
Every time somebody laughs in a mocking manner on the Internet as if it is some kind of reasonable response, I lose faith in humanity.
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 Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
So they took an old design that wasn't found to be worthwhile back then and believe to gain something from that 45 years later. Now THAT sounds like a plan....

If any of that holds true it pretty much means we are working hard to get to a technological level of 40 years ago now. However, somehow I really don't believe that.

can you say soyuz?   sides why reinvent the wheel ;D
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

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

-10  LMAO    Jim you sure gave me a good laugh.
Every time somebody laughs in a mocking manner on the Internet as if it is some kind of reasonable response, I lose faith in humanity.

can't help it ....was pure Jim I'm close to tears been laughing so much   ;D ;D
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 pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1931
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 0
[quote ]
can you say soyuz?   sides why reinvent the wheel ;D
[/quote]

The difference is that Soyuz remained in production and got upgrades (plus even the Russians are running into obsolesce issues).

What you are thinking about is more akin to trying to put the model T back in production.  A real model T uses materials that are hard to find or have since been replaced with cheaper or more appropriate materials (i.e. plastic dash boards)

 Is missing very useful features (i.e. Radial tires had not been invented yet…., had no battery, no auto starter, no key, no heat, and no radio).

Would not meet any current auto safety rules ect.

Basically sometimes it truly is better to let the past stay in the past. The most they could have used was maybe the shape of Gemini everything else would have to be redone.  The model T is a great museum piece, it is not a good family car. Likewise the idea of using Gemini again for a spacecraft.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2012 04:03 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1764
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 8815

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

-10  LMAO    Jim you sure gave me a good laugh.
Every time somebody laughs in a mocking manner on the Internet as if it is some kind of reasonable response, I lose faith in humanity.

Why all of humanity -- why not just the alleged-human that laughed?

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Liked: 293
  • Likes Given: 39
So they took an old design that wasn't found to be worthwhile back then and believe to gain something from that 45 years later. Now THAT sounds like a plan....

If any of that holds true it pretty much means we are working hard to get to a technological level of 40 years ago now. However, somehow I really don't believe that.

can you say soyuz?   sides why reinvent the wheel ;D
Oh. Soyuz has never flown and was found to be not practical and discontinued before it's first flight and has only remained around as an idea for 45 years? Interesting. I didn't know that.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2012 01:42 pm by pippin »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Guess my points are going mostly over most reader’s heads.

I’m trying to convey that a 1950’s-1960’s design of “something” is extremely easy to duplicate at a much lower cost per item vs their design years.  The basic tools that once were the owned by the top aerospace companies have become available to the “mass manufacturing market”.

2nd major point: Many of these tools for the “mass manufacturing market” are coming in spurts to the individual, for home use.   

Regarding SpaceX this sums up the points very well: “Although some of the companies building the next generation of crew vehicles are experiencing difficulty obtaining components from a dwindling aerospace supply base in the small lots they require (see p. 44), Musk says his company's philosophy of building as much as possible in-house mitigates the problem.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_01_2012_p47-498016.xml&p=1
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 douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 105

Guess my points are going mostly over most reader’s heads.

The point which you have not answered, which both Jorge and Jim made, was irrespective of how you reverse engineer Gemini, or how cheap that process may be, the design will not work at ISS pressure.

Even if you kept the Gemini mold line, you would have to essentially redesign the shell, the systems, just about everything. You would have to do what SNC are doing in converting HL-20 into Dream Chaser. It will not be cheap.

The claim in the video that they could launch an Eclipse spacecraft in Q4 2013 is just not credible.
Douglas Clark

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28859
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9054
  • Likes Given: 5799
Extremely easy to duplicate at a much lower cost?

I'm not sure I believe that. In the 50s and 60s, you had a lot more apprenticeship and basic machining... Nowadays, it's all computer-controlled, you say... But who is better able to build a rocket engine? Someone who played video games about rockets as a child or someone who builds model rockets as a child? We've probably lost some of the latter due to kids staying indoors more and over-protective parents (although we're making a comeback with the whole maker movement).

Nowadays, your machinists are likely to be older and command a higher wage. In the 1960s, we had an influx of a whole bunch of baby boomer youngsters doing cheaper work plus a slightly older generation who had spent the years from 1940 to 1945 building weapons (including rockets) like crazy, plus an enormous build-up of rockets and jets and other aerospace related equipment in the early part of the Cold War. The Aerospace industry was a much larger portion of the economy at that time than now, and a lot more new development programs had been completed recently.

If there's an advantage now, it is in avionics. I think digital design and manufacture is a little over-rated, though still helpful.
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 Prober

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

Guess my points are going mostly over most reader’s heads.

The point which you have not answered, which both Jorge and Jim made, was irrespective of how you reverse engineer Gemini, or how cheap that process may be, the design will not work at ISS pressure.

Even if you kept the Gemini mold line, you would have to essentially redesign the shell, the systems, just about everything. You would have to do what SNC are doing in converting HL-20 into Dream Chaser. It will not be cheap.

The claim in the video that they could launch an Eclipse spacecraft in Q4 2013 is just not credible.

My only interest was that the MOL version was an interesting design.  Just downloaded their Business Plan you might find your answers there.


« Last Edit: 10/05/2012 11:05 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 pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Liked: 293
  • Likes Given: 39
Guess my points are going mostly over most reader’s heads.

No, your points stem from hearsay and are not founded in reality.

Manufacturing has come a long way since the 60s, but part of the story is that you design for these manufacturing technologies. You may be able to build a car in 1/4 of the time but it's DESIGNED for that, you don't build 1960's cars on modern tooling.
For example, you won't be able to use CNC equipment with titanium, it just doesn't work.

Then it's not like that tooling was cheap. We are not talking about 3D printers for design molds here, we talk about manufacturing for a real-lift system with extreme quality requirements.

Your Musk quote if one about a typical make-or-buy decision like you will see them everywhere in any industry. Go interview Orbital and you will get the exactly opposite position. Funny thing is: both probably work.
SpaceX has invested heavily into vertical integration and if that should ever pay off, they will need high-volume business, not just a few flights to ISS on duplicated heritage equipment.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7940
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 8996
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
Part of why SpaceOps failed to get an award was that this is a *vehicle* not a transportation *system*, which (ironically) seems to be the same mistake ATK made with Liberty but backwards (reasonable LV, very vague capsule).

IOW they failed to answer the question NASA asked. Not a good start.

As for how cheap it would be 1960's hardware tended to use humans *riveting* things together. This is likely to be a *very* expensive process by modern mfg methods. By the time you've re-designed it for production you could have just designed something from scratch (look at how the Orion and Dragon capsules are built).

And the result has *less* capability than a Soyuz. You might have noticed that all successful competitors could carry *more* than a Soyuz.

People point to the tremendous increases in computer power since the 1960's and extrapolate that to space technology and conclude it *must* be so much easier now than then.

In truth the processor power on a vehicle is a *very* small part of its costs *or* its capabilities. In some ways the industry had *regressed* as certain materials there less exotic ones as well) are either unavailable (Boron reinforced aluminum ) or banned outright (anything with Thorium and Beryllium machining is *very* specialized due to dust toxicity, despite both have very good properties).

As for the *only* issues being NASA 2012 safety standards that's a pretty damm *big* issue. Starting with the atmosphere you breath and continuing into on orbit lifetime (those fuel cells don't have the capacity for 200+days. They were never *designed* to need it) and docking processes as top line items.

It's a design from a time when compatibility with the ISS was not a requirement because ISS did not exist.

The concept (like the video) appeals to a certain audience. If you want to invest in it good luck. I would not and I'm fairly sure most people here would not either.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
A very nicely thought out post John Smith 19.
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 Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9657
  • Liked: 385
  • Likes Given: 468
If you want a "knock-off" of Gemini, there is one flying today, called "Yantar" or also "Kobalt".

I have always felt that there was an application for this to fly small crews into space. The "nose" of the spacecraft currently holds a camera, but I believe that this camera could be replaced with a docking adapter. If you want a cheap 2 person spacecraft, this is probably a good model.



Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
If you want a "knock-off" of Gemini, there is one flying today, called "Yantar" or also "Kobalt".

I have always felt that there was an application for this to fly small crews into space. The "nose" of the spacecraft currently holds a camera, but I believe that this camera could be replaced with a docking adapter. If you want a cheap 2 person spacecraft, this is probably a good model.




your right, its not a bad "knock-off" of Gemini.  I pulled up a quick google and found one was a design from the Ukraine bureau, and one from OK1 is that your understanding?
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 Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9657
  • Liked: 385
  • Likes Given: 468
Yantar/Kobalt is a product of the Samara facility. I am not aware of any comparable development from Yushnoye in Dneprpetrovsk in the Ukraine.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Yantar/Kobalt is a product of the Samara facility. I am not aware of any comparable development from Yushnoye in Dneprpetrovsk in the Ukraine.


The Yushnoye design was rejected and the Samara design oked.

Yantar/Kobalt is mfg in St Petersburg.

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 zaitcev

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
    • mee.nu:zaitcev:space
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
I may be wrong, but I think only the recon payload is made in Spb. The biggest part of Kobalt is actually the instrument module, not the return capsule. That one is defeinitely made in Samara and also serves as basis of Volga upper stage now under development.

However, licensing Kobalt (assuming Russian Government let it happen) would not in any way play on patriotic feelings the way Gemini does, even though it's a more complete system that's flying today.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
I may be wrong, but I think only the recon payload is made in Spb. The biggest part of Kobalt is actually the instrument module, not the return capsule. That one is defeinitely made in Samara and also serves as basis of Volga upper stage now under development.

However, licensing Kobalt (assuming Russian Government let it happen) would not in any way play on patriotic feelings the way Gemini does, even though it's a more complete system that's flying today.

You saying some roubles might make a difference? 
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
Is the discussion going to return to SpaceOps' CCiCAP bid or is it time for the mods to split this thread?

It's a slow day....let it ride a bit yes?

Have anyone looked at this firms board of directors?   Some very interesting people there.



« Last Edit: 10/22/2012 08:38 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

Tags: