jiggawo - 19/2/2008 6:18 PMnew launch facility, new test facilities, plus an autonomous cargo spacecraft, for $170M and <3 years
jiggawo - 19/2/2008 9:18 PMabehnam:: "Orbital really took a brilliant approach, showing that they both have the technical know-how but also the business know-how. Their proposal was strong on all fronts and was coupled with a history of delivering on both their cost and time estimates (unlike LM or Boeing or other titans in the industry).""delivering on both their cost and time estimates"??Orbital blew threw $200+ million and 4+ years on X-34, and never flew a thing. Now they want to make an all-new DeltaII-class launcher, new launch facility, new test facilities, plus an autonomous cargo spacecraft, for $170M and <3 years. And they want to do this all while subcontracting with "porky" suppliers like ATK, Aerojet and Alenia?I'm not holding my breath.
abehnam::
"Orbital really took a brilliant approach, showing that they both have the technical know-how but also the business know-how. Their proposal was strong on all fronts and was coupled with a history of delivering on both their cost and time estimates (unlike LM or Boeing or other titans in the industry).""delivering on both their cost and time estimates"??Orbital blew threw $200+ million and 4+ years on X-34, and never flew a thing. Now they want to make an all-new DeltaII-class launcher, new launch facility, new test facilities, plus an autonomous cargo spacecraft, for $170M and <3 years. And they want to do this all while subcontracting with "porky" suppliers like ATK, Aerojet and Alenia?I'm not holding my breath.
Mobius Stripper - 19/2/2008 8:36 PM are you guys going to use the cargo return module as the basis for the capability D vehicle?
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...
antonioe - 19/2/2008 8:02 PMWe've borrowed a lot of the basic design, trajectory analysis, etc. from our 2004 STAS work, where we - horror of horrors! - proposed an Apollo-type capsule for CEV.
GncDude - 19/2/2008 9:03 PM Anyway. I like the unpressurized cargo versions in the pic. Didn't notice them first. Where do the ranging sensors go in the front? (if you have any, that is).
Not my area of expertise, but I understand that one of the advantages of "berthing" over "docking" is that with the former you do not need to "boresight" the prox sensors, so they can be very comfortably located in the SM, thank you very much, as long as they have the right FOV w.r.t. the main ISS body.
The UCM's are simply an ECL with the side structures (where it interfaces with the STS longeron trunnions) and keel fitting "chopped off" - same pallet area, but only 10 ft (vs. 15 ft) wide. And lighter. Otehrwise, same PCAS, ECBS and, if needed, ECA (gee, only a few months ago I didn't know what all those acronyms meant, and today I is an expert... :laugh: )
GncDude - 19/2/2008 9:58 PMQuotejiggawo - 19/2/2008 9:18 PMabehnam:: "Orbital really took a brilliant approach, showing that they both have the technical know-how but also the business know-how. Their proposal was strong on all fronts and was coupled with a history of delivering on both their cost and time estimates (unlike LM or Boeing or other titans in the industry).""delivering on both their cost and time estimates"??Orbital blew threw $200+ million and 4+ years on X-34, and never flew a thing. Now they want to make an all-new DeltaII-class launcher, new launch facility, new test facilities, plus an autonomous cargo spacecraft, for $170M and <3 years. And they want to do this all while subcontracting with "porky" suppliers like ATK, Aerojet and Alenia?I'm not holding my breath.Nice trolling. Thanks. I don't think that's what they said.
landofgrey - 19/2/2008 5:38 PMAnd an unsfe rotting gantry at LC-46 and the hangar for X-33/VentureStar/RLV's that will need to be demolished soon.
vt_hokie - 20/2/2008 9:26 AMQuotelandofgrey - 19/2/2008 5:38 PMAnd an unsfe rotting gantry at LC-46 and the hangar for X-33/VentureStar/RLV's that will need to be demolished soon. 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.
antonioe - 19/2/2008 9:02 PMWe've borrowed a lot of the basic design, trajectory analysis, etc. from our 2004 STAS work, where we - horror of horrors! - proposed an Apollo-type capsule for CEV.
antonioe - 20/2/2008 12:33 AMQuotemeiza - 19/2/2008 5:27 PM Isn't ATV:s pressure shell Alenia MPLM derived too?You may be correct, but I'm not sure; anybody from Alenia in this thread?
meiza - 19/2/2008 5:27 PM Isn't ATV:s pressure shell Alenia MPLM derived too?
vt_hokie - 20/2/2008 8:31 AM Hehe...whatever works! Practicality aside, though, I was always partial to this Orbital design! Congrats on the COTS award!
OSP Trivia question #17: what is the "tail number" in the picture, and what is its meaning? If the number ends up being unreadable, I can post a picture from a different angle.
Note: aero313, you are not allowed to participate in this contest.
