COTS Award Announcement Thread

[Jim]

marsavian - 20/2/2008  2:59 PM

Falcon 9 is EELV size but currently sub Delta II price. You may consider that Taurus II gives it competition at Delta II size and price but the result looks pretty certain from the start.

What result?

[marsavian]

Jim - 20/2/2008  2:08 PM

marsavian - 20/2/2008  2:59 PM

Falcon 9 is EELV size but currently sub Delta II price. You may consider that Taurus II gives it competition at Delta II size and price but the result looks pretty certain from the start.

What result?

That the Falcon 9 would get picked everytime in competitive evaluations.

[Jim]

marsavian - 20/2/2008  1:44 PM

A Falcon 9 (5m fairing) mission to LEO is $35M.

That is bare bones, no additional services and give us your spacecraft but don't watch what we do and how we ensure that you have a good flight.  Just believe us.

[Jim]

marsavian - 20/2/2008  3:10 PM

Jim - 20/2/2008  2:08 PM

marsavian - 20/2/2008  2:59 PM

Falcon 9 is EELV size but currently sub Delta II price. You may consider that Taurus II gives it competition at Delta II size and price but the result looks pretty certain from the start.

What result?

That the Falcon 9 would get picked everytime in competitive evaluations.

You can't say that..  See above

[iamlucky13]

abehnam - 20/2/2008 10:36 AM  
 
According to this, in 1999 Delta II was costing $60 Million.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela7000.htm

Also, if I remember right from Dr. Squyres' book Roving Mars, the Delta-II 7925 (9 SRM's and a third stage) for the rovers were about $80 million each.

We'll see how well SpaceX actually does on keeping their costs down, but as low as they're quoted prices are, they can suffer quite a substantial overrun and still have the cheapest vehicle out there. As far as they've gotten primarily on Musk's money, I'd say they're doing pretty well.

[dmc6960]

It shouldn't be forgotten as well that Antonio has been hinting of high-energy upper stage to be developed later in the game for T-II that would increase its payload a decent amount.

[landofgrey]

Ok, I really apologize for going off-topic, so I won't followup after this. I am happy for Orbital, btw. They've come a long way since the early days of Pegasus development when a lot of people didn't think they'd make it.

I suspect at some point Taurus II might fly from the Cape. The advantage for equatorial orbit is that significant. Of course, if it's never marketed for those moderately heavier payloads (which there is no significant market for right now anyway), then the financial case might not ever be there. I can hope though. I want to see as many rockets and kinds of rockets launched from here as possible.

Anyway yes, the hangar was to be used for X-34, but not just for X-34. Some people had the "vision" of using it for X-33 early on, in the planning stages, before it was decided X-33 would fly from Nevada (not that the vision ever went anywhere in terms of program policy). That's one reason the hangar is sized to fit something much bigger than X-34. (and X-34 would never have really needed that hangar anyway as it could be towed anywhere else in less than an hour (theoretically). There was also thought that VentureStar would need a landing facility and hangar at KSC.

FSA was offering it to private companies in their long-term Cape Canaveral "Vision Spaceport" plan. It was supposed to be a facility that could be rented or leased by private companies to support their HTOL vehicles. LC-46 was supposed to be leased/rented by private ELV companies to launch from. Regardless, neither vision came to fruition and the hangar is near the point of having to be condemned and LC-46 is in the same situation although it's going to be repaired/refurbished (if the $ come through).

Space Florida's main problem is the state legislature and their lack of support (money) for state space efforts.

Jim - 20/2/2008  9:27 AM

vt_hokie - 20/2/2008  9:26 AM

Pardon the off topic diversion, but if I may, why on Earth did they build that in Florida?  X-33 was never to have gone anywhere near Florida, and of course any follow-on RLV was pure fantasy even before X-33 was killed.

It was for X-34

[landofgrey]

Don't forget, the baseline price for Falcons has already gone up a bit. It may go up or down over time, as with any vehicle. Taurus II will experience the same kind of fluctuations I'm sure.

abehnam - 20/2/2008 10:36 AM  


We'll see how well SpaceX actually does on keeping their costs down, but as low as they're quoted prices are, they can suffer quite a substantial overrun and still have the cheapest vehicle out there. As far as they've gotten primarily on Musk's money, I'd say they're doing pretty well.

[edkyle99]

marsavian - 20/2/2008  1:59 PM

Falcon 9 is EELV size but currently sub Delta II price. You may consider that Taurus II gives it competition at Delta II size and price but the result looks pretty certain from the start.

I've watched new and proposed aerospace projects come and go for a long time now - for longer than I would care to admit.  The only constant among the efforts I've witnessed is that the initial optimistic claims of performance or cost were *always* modified, nearly always in the "wrong" direction, once the hard reality of actually flying, or trying to fly, the hardware began.  

Falcon 9 may be an EELV-Medium on paper, but I've expressed here a number of times my skepticism about the GTO capabilities claimed for it.  The planned "reusability" that Elon continues to mention makes me wonder if his costs aren't tied to that assumption.  Reusable rocket stage hardware obviously has a very long way to go to be proven.  

This uncertainty cuts both ways, of course.  OSC and its suppliers have a lot of work to do to pull off a big new kerosene stage.

Still, here is hoping that both companies succeed and prosper.

 - Ed Kyle

[CFE]

I never put too much faith in the cost estimates for a vehicle that has never flown.  While I have great hope for SpaceX, I don't believe that their rockets will be significantly cheaper than those from the "Big Space" vendors in the end.  The industry has been building rockets long enough to learn what design practices result in cost savings.  The real areas where costs can be cut are management and mission assurance.

I applaud OSC for choosing Wallops as a launch site, for the sole reason that there is less red tape involved with Wallops than with any other US launch site.  As long as Antonio & co. steer clear of the Nor'easters, they should do well.  Is it confirmed that T-II will use the MARS launchpad that's currently used for Minotaur I?  While I have it on good authority that the MARS pad can handle a Minotaur IV, a T-II puts out roughly twice the thrust of an M-IV.

[edkyle99]

A few thoughts after looking at Orbital's Taurus II press release image again.

1.  No launch umbilical tower or mast is shown in the image.  Most launch vehicles use an umbilical tower/mast.  Proton is the only one that immediately comes to mind that does not.  Soyuz has one that pulls away a minute or so before liftoff.  

2.  The launch mount reminds me of the Zenit and Proton mounts.  I wonder if Taurus II will be designed with the same "autocoupler" idea.  Of course, this press release image could be using some poetic license, since it appears to be a doctored version of a Minotaur I prelaunch image!

3.  I'm wondering if the Cygnus launches will require the third trim stage that Antonio mentioned, or if Cygnus will boost itself right off of the Castor 30.

 - Ed Kyle

[abehnam]

landofgrey - 20/2/2008  1:09 PM

Don't forget, the baseline price for Falcons has already gone up a bit. It may go up or down over time, as with any vehicle. Taurus II will experience the same kind of fluctuations I'm sure.

abehnam - 20/2/2008 10:36 AM  


We'll see how well SpaceX actually does on keeping their costs down, but as low as they're quoted prices are, they can suffer quite a substantial overrun and still have the cheapest vehicle out there. As far as they've gotten primarily on Musk's money, I'd say they're doing pretty well.

Just for clarification, that wasn't my quote, I think you accidentely messed up the quote structure and deleted the real author.

[simonbp]

edkyle99 - 20/2/2008  4:51 PM

Falcon 9 may be an EELV-Medium on paper, but I've expressed here a number of times my skepticism about the GTO capabilities claimed for it.  The planned "reusability" that Elon continues to mention makes me wonder if his costs aren't tied to that assumption.  Reusable rocket stage hardware obviously has a very long way to go to be proven.  

I asked a guy at SpaceX last summer, and he said the prices weren't based on reuse. Indeed, he said they weren't really sure about how much (if any) they would reuse of the F9, and were treating it as post-flight engineering evaluation tool. I don't know if that's changed since then...

Simon

[antonioe]

edkyle99 - 20/2/2008 6:28 PM A few thoughts after looking at Orbital's Taurus II press release image again. 1. No launch umbilical tower or mast is shown in the image. Most launch vehicles use an umbilical tower/mast.

Guilty as charged - that image was produced by our @#%^&! esteemed Marketing Department (they used to work for the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation until the Revolution came).  The two enclosed pictures show how a simple umbi mast works: the Minotaur picture shows it in position, the Taurus picture shows it being "swallowed" by the plume during liftoff.  Those are real pictures.

2. The launch mount reminds me of the Zenit and Proton mounts. I wonder if Taurus II will be designed with the same "autocoupler" idea.

Well, true autocouplers are expensive, but you only really need them if you want to do a 3-hour "Zenit" trick.  We'd be happy to do the erection in 24 hours, so we'll use "manucouplers" (the "manual" version of the autocouplers   )

 Of course, this press release image could be using some poetic license, since it appears to be a doctored version of a Minotaur I prelaunch image!

See comment, above.

 3. I'm wondering if the Cygnus launches will require the third trim stage that Antonio mentioned, or if Cygnus will boost itself right off of the Castor 30. - Ed Kyle

You are quite correct: no "Orbit Raising Kit" (ORK) in a COTS Mission!  The Cygnus propulsion system is actually a "one-thruster" version of the ORK with different tank sizes.  Both are derived from the StarBus APS (Apogee Propulsion System)

Share and enjoy.

[Antares]

marsavian - 20/2/2008  1:09 PM
I know NASA likes acquiring new Rockets like a kid in a candy store

That's an irresponsible comment.  It is not supported by history.

[yinzer]

Also, isn't the diameter of the MPLM noticeably bigger at about 4.5m than the 3.9m diameter proposed for the Taurus II?  Is there going to be a hammerhead fairing?

[aero313]

antonioe - 20/2/2008  12:55 PM

gvo1000 - 20/2/2008 11:53 AM 02139 - your alma mater's zip code?

Bingo!  Of course, the non-MIT-ers in the team retaliated by changing it to "20166" on the next round of graphics.

Since I couldn't read it in the original picture, I had assumed it was 4590 (yes, that's another trivia question...).

[marsavian]

Antares - 20/2/2008  12:00 AM

marsavian - 20/2/2008  1:09 PM
I know NASA likes acquiring new Rockets like a kid in a candy store

That's an irresponsible comment.  It is not supported by history.

Let's see, it's got 2 EELVs it barely uses, it's now building an unnecessary EELV clone in Ares I and it's got a cheaper private EELV clone in Falcon 9 coming online and is now adding another private one which doesn't promise cheaper cost upfront to the first one although granted their record is much better than anyone else on keeping to cost once given. Comment certainly is supported by current history.

[Lampyridae]

antonioe - 20/2/2008  12:19 PM

No; we looked at crew - again, thanks NASA for the $6M or so they spent with us on the STAS studies -  and the requirements are sooo different that we have a totally different approach to "medium-class LV crew transportation"

Unfortunately, the Cygnus SM+Specialized Cargo Module paradigm breaks down for crew transportation, especially if you want to stay close to the historical Mercury/Vostok/Gemini/Soyuz/Apollo 3,000 kg per live human rule of thumb including the LES (we did a little better with Celestis on the Minisat 01 Pegasus launch)

In any case, the best we could probably offer is two people for about $200M a shot (and that's an uneducated guess).  Not very good for space tourism, I'm afraid...

It sounds like you're saying you have something up your sleeve, but then you state you don't. I reckon some people are thinking you have a Capability D proposal. However, you can't do that with the Taurus II anyway unless you somehow split functionality a la Kliper / Parom. And seriously pack the crew like sardines like in Gemini. Even then...

[marsavian]

James (Lockheed) - 19/2/2008  7:12 PM

Well done Antonio.

SPACEHAB really were a shoe in at one point. Wonder where it all went wrong for them.

Can you say what grounds led you to believe that ? Also can you say whether Lockheed entered its own bid and in what form ?