Author Topic: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion  (Read 171194 times)

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #320 on: 12/30/2008 01:41 am »
So, Antonio, do you have any comment on Elon's interview:

Like Elon, I am very grateful to NASA.

Quote
Specifically his question about flight rate and SpaceX carrying more cargo?

I'm not sufficiently familiar with SpaceX's proposed system or its capabilities to be able to comment about his statement.
« Last Edit: 12/30/2008 01:43 am by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #321 on: 12/30/2008 07:22 am »
I have a little trouble myself believing that getting an engine flight ready after sitting in salt water for six hours is as easy as some think.

SSME already did it, maybe not 6 hours.  They dunked one in the Gulf with a helicopter then flew it to Stennis and fired it.  This was in the mid-90s when SSME was a candidate for Delta IV first stage.  The press release is out there somewhere.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Online HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1589
  • Liked: 1572
  • Likes Given: 417
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #322 on: 12/30/2008 03:33 pm »
I have a little trouble myself believing that getting an engine flight ready after sitting in salt water for six hours is as easy as some think.

SSME already did it, maybe not 6 hours.  They dunked one in the Gulf with a helicopter then flew it to Stennis and fired it.  This was in the mid-90s when SSME was a candidate for Delta IV first stage.  The press release is out there somewhere.

I don't think they got the engine wet, but I am happy to know differently if I'm not correct.

I do know there was an H-1 subjected to water immersion for 24 hours, and then fired, sometime in the 1960s.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #323 on: 12/30/2008 03:51 pm »
What was the success rate of the V-2?

I was suprised to see you, of ALL people, try to stand on that sort of number.  They were getting pretty good at launching those things.  Methinks V-2 success rate is a poor comparison point for anything in today's aerospace.  Unskilled workforce + bleeding edge tech + primitive (by todays standards) technology = bad odds for flight, and it still ended up doing pretty well (ignoring guidance issues which were technology limited, not vehicle limited).

One of the guidance anecdotes (I think this is from Dornberger's book, which I don't think I have anymore) was the allies thinking it was radio controlled after one test launch from Peenemunde went off course and came down in Sweden. But that was experimental and the deployed weapon had a clockwork guidance system. In some thread here, we toted up how many of each engine had actually flown, and it turned out the V-2 engine was up near the top of the list. Amazing, when you think about it.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22560
  • Liked: 911
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #324 on: 12/31/2008 02:25 am »
In this BBC article, the reentry variant of Cygnus was mentioned.  Has this concept been developed more and/or funded?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7800721.stm

Also, looking for upperstage liquid engines, the RD-8 and RD-120 caught my eye.  Is CRS still dependent on the percentage of the vehicle being domestically made, and how would a foreign engine have on Taurus' percentage?  I am assuming that any eventual upgrade would be after COTS is over, so that is why I did not ask about it.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2008 02:27 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #325 on: 01/03/2009 04:03 pm »
What was the success rate of the V-2?

I was suprised to see you, of ALL people, try to stand on that sort of number.  They were getting pretty good at launching those things.  Methinks V-2 success rate is a poor comparison point for anything in today's aerospace.  Unskilled workforce + bleeding edge tech + primitive (by todays standards) technology = bad odds for flight, and it still ended up doing pretty well (ignoring guidance issues which were technology limited, not vehicle limited).

One of the guidance anecdotes (I think this is from Dornberger's book, which I don't think I have anymore) was the allies thinking it was radio controlled after one test launch from Peenemunde went off course and came down in Sweden. But that was experimental and the deployed weapon had a clockwork guidance system. In some thread here, we toted up how many of each engine had actually flown, and it turned out the V-2 engine was up near the top of the list. Amazing, when you think about it.

wasn't the head of the V-2 engine used in clusters for one or more of the early soviet engines as well?
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline simpl simon

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #326 on: 01/12/2009 05:21 pm »
<p>Hey, I just realized that the TV table we've been putting together is missing the pressurized cargo volume data.  Here's yet one more version with that data added.  Please post any additions/corrections/comment, please:</p>
Hi antonioe, belated congratulations on your CRS contract award.
Have you in the meantime been able to further refine the table of logistics spacecraft performance we were discussing earlier this year, and if so, could you share any new information with us?

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #327 on: 01/12/2009 05:51 pm »
Thanks.  Well, things are a bit busy now, and it appears that the Dragon numbers may have gone up.  Maybe we should wait until the manifest for the first SpaceX and Orbital CRS missions is announced by NASA to see what really fits inside these vehicles, including the volumetric limitation issues, once you manifest an actual flight.
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline NUAETIUS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #328 on: 02/07/2009 02:49 pm »
Has anyone seen any news on how Orbital sciences is doing on COTS milestone 4 and 8 due this month?  I got 1k dollars riding on them at Hubdub.

Milestone 4: COTS System PDR
February 09 / 20 million

Orbital shall conduct a COTS system preliminary design Review (PDR) (including the demonstration mission configuration) in accordance with the PDR definition in Appendix 3.

Success Criteria:
-Successful completion of the PDR

Milestone 8. Complete Development of Intrumentation Program and Command List (IP&CL)
Febuary 09 / 10 million

The CVV Instrumentation Program and Command List (IP&CL) will be prepared and released for use shortly before the Demo Mission CDR. The mission database release is required to support development of the CVV Dynamic Spacecraft Simulator (DSS) and to commence integrated avionics hardware/software testing (Milestone 10). For the initial database release, the CVV ground commands and telemetry, as well as CVV stored command sequences (RTS and TMON) will be defined to the extent possible

Success Criteria:
Delivery of IP&CL to NASA
« Last Edit: 02/07/2009 02:50 pm by NUAETIUS »
“It has long been recognized that the formation of a committee is a powerful technique for avoiding responsibility, deferring difficult decisions and averting blame….while at the same time maintaining a semblance of action.” Augustine's Law - Norm Augustine

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22560
  • Liked: 911
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #329 on: 02/19/2009 07:47 pm »
Hmm, it seems quite.  The overlords must be cracking the whip.  How is everything going in Cygnus/Taurus II world? 

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #330 on: 02/20/2009 12:51 am »
Hmm, it seems quite.  The overlords must be cracking the whip.  How is everything going in Cygnus/Taurus II world? 

(assuming you mean "quiet")  Well, the CRS situation has made all of us rather quiet.  I expect NASA to issue an update on COTS in the next few weeks, though...

In the meanwhile, Thales Alenia Space-Italy (TAS-I) has announced that we are going to sign a purchase order for nine PCM's with them.  Their newly appointed Program Manager for the PCM was their PM on ISS nodes 2 and 3.  Good guys, easy to work with, really know their stuff.

Longest lead parts for Cygnus (tanks and computer card EDUs) on order.

Yuzhnoye just told us we cannot use any color darker than blue on any signage or decals on Stage 1 because black paint can increase the temperature of the metal directly under it in bright sunlight more than they want to accept (I was told that is why Sea Launch and Zenith decals are blue... haven't checked that for accuracy... those Yuzhnoye guys are SO conservative they make Lockheed and Boeing look like wild and crazy guys...)  :D
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4426
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #331 on: 02/20/2009 01:03 am »
What was the success rate of the V-2?

I was suprised to see you, of ALL people, try to stand on that sort of number.  They were getting pretty good at launching those things.  Methinks V-2 success rate is a poor comparison point for anything in today's aerospace.  Unskilled workforce + bleeding edge tech + primitive (by todays standards) technology = bad odds for flight, and it still ended up doing pretty well (ignoring guidance issues which were technology limited, not vehicle limited).

Also add a workforce that tended to sabotage the end product whenever they could because Germany loosing the war was in their best interests.

I bet a lot of those V2s that went down in within site of the launch crew probably had some bolts stuffed into the turbo pump intakes.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8657
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1125
  • Likes Given: 245
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #332 on: 02/20/2009 12:50 pm »

Yuzhnoye just told us we cannot use any color darker than blue on any signage or decals on Stage 1 because black paint can increase the temperature of the metal directly under it in bright sunlight more than they want to accept (I was told that is why Sea Launch and Zenith decals are blue... haven't checked that for accuracy... those Yuzhnoye guys are SO conservative they make Lockheed and Boeing look like wild and crazy guys...)  :D

What about a foamy sticker, that way you have some insulation between your sticker and that black logo ;) Wait, black logo, I thought this was for COTS, not a black ops cover story. See what you started :)

Can't wait to watch the sticker ride the pencil of flame into the sky.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline simpl simon

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #333 on: 02/20/2009 03:51 pm »
In the meanwhile, Thales Alenia Space-Italy (TAS-I) has announced that we are going to sign a purchase order for nine PCM's with them.  Their newly appointed Program Manager for the PCM was their PM on ISS nodes 2 and 3.  Good guys, easy to work with, really know their stuff.
[/quote]

I get the impression that statement by TAS-I was a surprise to you.....(because it is usually the prime contractor who announces prcurement decisions)
Are they jumping the gun?

« Last Edit: 02/20/2009 03:54 pm by simpl simon »

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #334 on: 02/21/2009 12:20 pm »
Nope.  No surprises.  Orbital's policy is to defer to NASA any public announcements on COTS/CRS.  Being a policy and not a contract requirement, our subs are under no such constraint.

Notice, though, the number NINE  ::)
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline simpl simon

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #335 on: 02/21/2009 06:17 pm »
Nope.  No surprises.  Orbital's policy is to defer to NASA any public announcements on COTS/CRS.  Being a policy and not a contract requirement, our subs are under no such constraint.

Notice, though, the number NINE  ::)
Well, if you are intending to deliver only pressurized cargo, I might guess 1 qual unit and 8 flight units........hm?

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #336 on: 02/21/2009 10:32 pm »
It's a protoflight qualification approach.  No need for a (dedicated) qual unit.
« Last Edit: 02/21/2009 10:33 pm by antonioe »
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #337 on: 02/21/2009 10:45 pm »
That's interesting...  Doesn't adding the additonal cost of proto-flight on top of typical acceptance test add significantly to the recurring costs?  And my experience has been that the govm't team doesn't like to proto-flight if possible.  As it does demonstrate as much hardware margins.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32552
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11357
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #338 on: 02/21/2009 11:01 pm »
That's interesting...  Doesn't adding the additonal cost of proto-flight on top of typical acceptance test add significantly to the recurring costs?  And my experience has been that the govm't team doesn't like to proto-flight if possible.  As it does demonstrate as much hardware margins.

Most spacecraft follow the  proto-flight paradigm.   Why would it be more expensive?  The proto-flight tests are only done to one flight unit, not all
« Last Edit: 02/21/2009 11:03 pm by Jim »

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3022
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 793
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #339 on: 02/21/2009 11:12 pm »
It's a protoflight qualification approach.  No need for a (dedicated) qual unit.

Is this similar to the approach taken with ATV?

Tags: