NASA Selects Commercial Firms to Begin Development of Crew Transportation

[Lee Jay]

That was cargo into the ISS and not to orbit.  Completely different thing.  The whole spacecraft weight needs to be included.

Careful here.  One of the main reasons I do not buy the many smaller launchers are cheaper argument is that such launchers inherently require more spacecraft if a larger total spacecraft is to be created.  Whether they are providing pressurized cargo to ISS, modules to a MTV, or propellant to a propellant depot, they each require a spacecraft to deliver that item from orbital insertion to final destination, and that spacecraft has cost and mass overhead that do no increase linearly with the size and mass of the item to be delivered.

[tamarack]

I'd propose another possibility...

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/091022-x37b-testlaunch.html
"...the U.S. Air Force has the X-37B manifested for an April 2010 liftoff. ...
'NASA has a long history of involvement with the X-37 program. We continue to monitor and share information on technology developments,' said Gary Wentz, chief engineer Science and Missions Systems Office at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. 'We are looking forward to a successful first flight and to receiving data from some advanced technologies of interest to us, such as thermal protection systems, guidance, navigation and control, and materials for autonomous re-entry and landing.' ...

Not a possibility.  No one has proposed it.

No argument there. Just saying that funding yet another capsule development that the US could use when both Orion and Dragon are very far along (but this one seats seven!) smells like black funding. And considering the DreamChaser announcement (desire for winged desent and possible technological trickle-down from the X-37B designed by Boeing), I only ment what Boeing's award could actually be for.

[major_tom]

there is some images for Boeing capsule or its just a plan for now?
its for leo only I suppose.There is a prediction about when will be ready?

Here they are:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/pictures-boeingbigelow-aerospa.html

[agman25]

Any realistic chance any of the commercial providers will use LC 39. This story indicates they are chances...

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/02cabana/

[Downix]

Any realistic chance any of the commercial providers will use LC 39. This story indicates they are chances...

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/02cabana/

Quite possible.  LC-39, if outfitted, refurbished, and cleaned up, would be a viable launch site.  And there is money in there for just such a process and is mentioned in multiple places of the budget. 

[Jim]

Quite possible.  LC-39, if outfitted, refurbished, and cleaned up, would be a viable launch site.  And there is money in there for just such a process and is mentioned in multiple places of the budget. 

And it is only viable (cost effective) if the user is responsible for outfitting and maintenance of it.

[Downix]

Quite possible.  LC-39, if outfitted, refurbished, and cleaned up, would be a viable launch site.  And there is money in there for just such a process and is mentioned in multiple places of the budget. 

And it is only viable (cost effective) if the user is responsible for outfitting and maintenance of it.

That goes without saying. 
I could see each of the 4 VAB bays being outfitted for a different launcher, from different companies, each one with a MLP designed for their product, and a flat-pad waiting for them at LC-39.  So, one bay you'd see a Delta IV Phase II, the next you'd see an Atlas V SuperHeavy.  And all NASA would be in charge of is mowing the grass and maintaining the roads.

[cro-magnon gramps]

Quite possible.  LC-39, if outfitted, refurbished, and cleaned up, would be a viable launch site.  And there is money in there for just such a process and is mentioned in multiple places of the budget. 

And it is only viable (cost effective) if the user is responsible for outfitting and maintenance of it.

That goes without saying. 
I could see each of the 4 VAB bays being outfitted for a different launcher, from different companies, each one with a MLP designed for their product, and a flat-pad waiting for them at LC-39.  So, one bay you'd see a Delta IV Phase II, the next you'd see an Atlas V SuperHeavy.  And all NASA would be in charge of is mowing the grass and maintaining the roads.

and collecting the fees for this super garage; the garage mechanics won't even be KSC or Cape employees, most likely they will be contractors employees, with a smattering of FAA space equivalents;

[FinalFrontier]

"That goes without saying. 
I could see each of the 4 VAB bays being outfitted for a different launcher, from different companies, each one with a MLP designed for their product, and a flat-pad waiting for them at LC-39.  So, one bay you'd see a Delta IV Phase II, the next you'd see an Atlas V SuperHeavy.  And all NASA would be in charge of is mowing the grass and maintaining the roads."

I dont agree. This whole "new direction" is smoke+mirrors. The reality is that KSC will be mothballed for the next 5 years along with the other centers. JSC may fare better since its HQ. Atlas, Delta, Falcon will all launch from their own pads. They will each be processed at their own facilities since that is much more economical for the companies then leasing the VAB or something. Now if one of these companies needed to stack an HLV... But that wont happen for at least 10 years.

[mmeijeri]

Why are people so keen to preserve LC-39? If there isn't going to be an SDLV (and that's not yet a given), what's the point? I've heard it's a money pit. Would it be any different once the shuttle stack is gone?

[agman25]

Why are people so keen to preserve LC-39? If there isn't going to be an SDLV (and that's not yet a given), what's the point? I've heard it's a money pit. Would it be any different once the shuttle stack is gone?

It's pretty awesome.  I am not saying that this is a good reason...

[mmeijeri]

Well, I suppose it's a good reason to want it, though not necessarily good enough to get other people to pay for it. Applies to all of manned spaceflight I suppose, but more to some things than to others.

[agman25]

Well, I suppose it's a good reason to want it, though not necessarily good enough to get other people to pay for it. Applies to all of manned spaceflight I suppose, but more to some things than to others.

Have you ever been to KSC. You won't understand the HLV philia unless you do.

[FinalFrontier]

Well, I suppose it's a good reason to want it, though not necessarily good enough to get other people to pay for it. Applies to all of manned spaceflight I suppose, but more to some things than to others.

Have you ever been to KSC. You won't understand the HLV philia unless you do.

I have been there. Matter a fact, I watched STS 125 launch from there. And guess what? No HLV no need to use it. It should be preserved though, to a certain degree, and kept in at least fair shape so that refurbishment wouldn't cost a gazillion dollars. But used? unless someone wants to use an HLV or they are going to do all Commercial Crew launch from LC 39  then no, save it for later.

[cro-magnon gramps]

Well, I suppose it's a good reason to want it, though not necessarily good enough to get other people to pay for it. Applies to all of manned spaceflight I suppose, but more to some things than to others.

Have you ever been to KSC. You won't understand the HLV philia unless you do.

I have been there. Matter a fact, I watched STS 125 launch from there. And guess what? No HLV no need to use it. It should be preserved though, to a certain degree, and kept in at least fair shape so that refurbishment wouldn't cost a gazillion dollars. But used? unless someone wants to use an HLV or they are going to do all Commercial Crew launch from LC 39  then no, save it for later.

Perhaps preservation as a Historical, National Monument, like any old building that has served significantly in the history of the nation; or perhaps the UN could declare it a World Historical Site, like the Pyramids and the Eifel Tower; that might force the Gov't to maintain it as a tourist site; get minitures to bring home, with a small Saturn 5 model for the kids to play with; hey could even install a mockup of the Saturn 5, and have rides up in the elevator, like at the Eifel tower, or that Arch in St. Louis; that would be awesome; and have a place with a IMAX video screening of the Apollo 11 Launch and the landing, like they have the Louis and Clarke movie at St Louis; now there are some concrete ideas for the future;

edit, btw I am not being sarcastic here, with HLV off the baseline, this may be the only way of preserving the infrastructure for future generations to see;

[mmeijeri]

If maintenance isn't insanely expensive they could indeed turn it into a museum. They could even put a Shuttle in the VAB, stacked and all, though obviously without the propellant.

[zaitcev]

If you listen to Elon, HLV is all but inevitable... some time in the far future, when the traffic grows enough to make it economical. So, IMHO, mothballing LC-39 and VAB would be quite reasonable. However, I expect NASA gradually convert VAB into an office building.

[cro-magnon gramps]

If maintenance isn't insanely expensive they could indeed turn it into a museum. They could even put a Shuttle in the VAB, stacked and all, though obviously without the propellant.

HEY!! WERE YOU READING MY MIND!! FREAKY!!

[mmeijeri]

Heheh, and once it's a historical national treasure they should make it against the law to make any changes to it. It absolutely has to be preserved the way it was when the last Shuttle flew. And maybe they could put one of the old Saturn Vs in the VAB too. Maybe the one in Huntsville.

[cro-magnon gramps]

Heheh, and once it's a historical national treasure they should make it against the law to make any changes to it. It absolutely has to be preserved the way it was when the last Shuttle flew. And maybe they could put one of the old Saturn Vs in the VAB too. Maybe the one in Huntsville.

in all seriousness, I think that any commercial venture that exists in 10 years will want to build it's own VAB rather than refit something that is going to be 50+ years old; Musk will put his as near to the MLP to facilitate the lifting to a Launch Position, he seems to favour Horisontal Assembly like the Germans did in the 40's and 50's. does anyone know why they switched to Vertical,