Author Topic: Commercial Spaceflight Federation "Major Announcement" on Wednesday, April 13 (Read 35757 times)

2552 · « **on:** 04/12/2011 01:27 pm »

Commercial Spaceflight Federation to Make Major Announcement on Wednesday, April 13

Quote

The Commercial Spaceflight Federation, the industry association of leading businesses and organizations working to make commercial human spaceflight a reality, will be making a major announcement on Wednesday, April 13, 2011, the day after the 50th anniversary celebration of the world’s first human spaceflight in 1961. Following the announcement, a press availability will be held at 1:30 pm Mountain Time at the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Representatives of the media onsite in Colorado Springs are invited join us at Symposium Media Center Press Room #1, on the 2nd floor of the Exhibit Center.

Participants in the press availability will include:

- Mark Sirangelo, Chairman of Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Systems and Chairman Emeritus of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation

- George Whitesides, President and CEO, Virgin Galactic

- Robert Bigelow, Founder and President, Bigelow Aerospace

- Bretton Alexander, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation

docmordrid · « **Reply #1 on:** 04/12/2011 02:19 pm »

Notable is the absense of Lockheed Martin or ULA, whose Atlas V was originally to be the launcher for both Dream Chaser and Bigelow. The recent announcement of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy and its $1,000/lb price point (and the possible up-rating of F9 to 16 mT) might have a bit to do with that - option exploring & all that.

mr. mark · « **Reply #2 on:** 04/12/2011 02:24 pm »

I suspect that Bigelow and Sierra Nevada will announce a partner ship to deliver space tourists to the Bigelow space station through Virgin Galactic/Dreamchaser. This would not surprise me. That would mean that 3 carriers would then be licenced to fly to the Bigelow station, Boeing, Bigelow and Spacex. Not sure how Spacex fits into this though. I suspect Spacex's role will mainly be for cargo, supply runs.

Namechange User · « **Reply #3 on:** 04/12/2011 02:36 pm »

Quote from: docmordrid on 04/12/2011 02:19 pm

Notable is the absense of Lockheed Martin or ULA, whose Atlas V was originally to be the launcher for both Dream Chaser and Bigelow. The recent announcement of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy and its $1,000/lb price point (and the possible up-rating of F9 to 16 mT) might have a bit to do with that - option exploring & all that.

For goodness sake, is SpaceX even mentioned? Why do some think the world must revolve around them?

The "recent announcement" is just that. It is a goal and objective for SpaceX but neither performance, cost or schedule have yet validated that target price. I think people need to cool their jets and stop assuming that everyone, everywhere is dancing the maypole and droping or terminating existing relationships just because The Elon made a speech a few DAYS ago.

Besides why would ULA need to be involved? Based on the list, it would seem that Virgin Galactic will buy DreamChaser seats/vehicles for use in operations to and from Bigelow modules, which has essentially been known, or at least theorized, for some time. The method of transport to LEO is somewhat secondary in this regard.

Cog_in_the_machine · « **Reply #4 on:** 04/12/2011 02:43 pm »

I'm somewhat intrigued. Might be something to do with announcing a Bigelow station (more details about it anyway). We'll wait and see.

Danderman · « **Reply #5 on:** 04/12/2011 02:44 pm »

I have out to out-cynic OV-106 on this.

Although I support commercial space as an industry, I have no illusions about specific players in the industry, and expect most of them to fail. If there are no failures in an industry, it means that its not really a commercial industry.

Another rule of thumb is if announcements of new projects are made without specific mention of customers, then the organization(s) are basically trolling for customers (billionaires) and don't have their act together. You will find that most announcements of big new commercial projects are customer focused, not technology focused. This does not apply to consumer products, like the IPAD, that depend on zillions of small customers, but it does apply to airliners and space projects.

docmordrid · « **Reply #6 on:** 04/12/2011 02:53 pm »

Maybe I noticed LM/ULA's absence because someone has to get that stuff to orbit & they've been at least mentioned in most other pressers regarding DC & Bigelow. We'll see tomorrow if they couch their comments.

Namechange User · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/12/2011 02:55 pm »

Quote from: Danderman on 04/12/2011 02:44 pm

Another rule of thumb is if announcements of new projects are made without specific mention of customers, then the organization(s) are basically trolling for customers (billionaires) and don't have their act together. You will find that most announcements of big new commercial projects are customer focused, not technology focused. This does not apply to consumer products, like the IPAD, that depend on zillions of small customers, but it does apply to airliners and space projects.

Believe it or not, I concur. You want me to stop being a cynic, and get off the government-funded for development/government requirements/government oversight/ government-funded for ops "commercial" bandwagon? Then there need to be many more announcements like this, about the "business case" beyond NASA (assuming this is what it is really about).

I also agree that an announcement such as this is just the first step. That further steps beyond this must be realized, like real customers and exo-NASA applications, that demonstrate that indeed something can be made out of this and it will not be commercial-in-name-only.

Namechange User · « **Reply #8 on:** 04/12/2011 02:59 pm »

Quote from: docmordrid on 04/12/2011 02:53 pm

Maybe I noticed LM/ULA's absence because someone has to get that stuff to orbit & they've been at least mentioned in most other pressers regarding DC & Bigelow. We'll see tomorrow if they couch their comments.

Of course something has to get them to orbit. Yet, has it not been argued that Atlas, etc exist and could essentially be used as is? Has it not been argued that the capacity to produce the necessary launch vehicles exists?

"Commercial spaceflight" means flying in space, not just the ride up-hill. Commercial spaceflight" is about the applications that can be realized *in space* for customers outside of NASA/government. Even with die-hard "commercial spaceflight" supporters there tends to be a near-obsession with the rocket.

docmordrid · « **Reply #9 on:** 04/12/2011 03:05 pm »

SpaceX was mentioned purely based on $/kg, the 800 lb gorilla in the room after the FH announcement. Are you proposing Mr. Big would go with Atlas V based just on loyalty? He's too $$ oriented for that.

yg1968 · « **Reply #10 on:** 04/12/2011 03:06 pm »

It obviously has something to do with some kind of agreement between Virgin Galactic and Bigelow.

It is not clear if Mark Sierangelo is there as chairman emeritus of the CSF or as chairman of SNC Space systems.

Namechange User · « **Reply #11 on:** 04/12/2011 03:10 pm »

Quote from: docmordrid on 04/12/2011 03:05 pm

SpaceX was mentioned purely based on $/kg, the 800 lb gorilla in the room after the FH announcement. Are you proposing Mr. Big would go with Atlas V based just on loyalty? He's too $$ oriented for that.

I am saying, again, that $/kg is hardly a fact. That it is a target based on one speech by The Elon. That development and test will have to prove the performance, cost and schedule that is SpaceX's GOAL AND OBJECTIVE.

I am saying that people familar with this business will watch with interest to see if SpaceX accomplishes that goal and objective with respect to performance. cost and schedule. I am saying that in the "real world", if a market materializes, competition and options can be a great thing for this class launch vehicle but that does NOT mean everyone terminates relationships within DAYS of a SPEECH.

mr. mark · « **Reply #12 on:** 04/12/2011 03:15 pm »

I'll have a slight bit more faith in Virgin Galactic and Sierra Nevada when SS2 finally starts power based testing and Dreamchaser has a drop test. Right now, Spacex is the only one holding any real cards. They have actually demostrated a real vehicle under power and in flight. I know give it time. :p

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #13 on:** 04/12/2011 03:23 pm »

ULA is probably not mentioned because they are only the LV provider, I suspect this will be some agreement of a form for Dreamcatcher to go to Bigelow station and Virgina Galactic selling seats for tourists there ect. Really dont need the LV company there as they provide a servide for Sierra Nevada in such a case.

In any case, SpaceX has not been mentioned in the presser, and any more talk about that will be off topic, you have been warned

Namechange User · « **Reply #14 on:** 04/12/2011 03:23 pm »

Quote from: mr. mark on 04/12/2011 03:15 pm

I'll have a slight bit more faith in Virgin Galactic and Sierra Nevada when SS2 finally starts power based testing and Dreamchaser has a drop test. Right now, Spacex is the only one holding any real cards. They have actually demostrated a real vehicle under power and in flight. I know give it time. :p

VG, Scaled, etc is also really the only commercial company. They have not had any government dollars invested for the SS1 and SS2 effort. That should mean something for people who really want to call themselves "pro-commercial space". If it doesn't, then it is hypocrtitical.

SpaceX has been working on Dragon in some capacity or another since around the 2003/2004 time. Interesting the Boeing and the CST-100 could come online at about the same time if SpaceX is the only company "holding any real cards".

Just some observations......

John Gedmark · « **Reply #15 on:** 04/13/2011 01:01 am »

Thanks for your interest in this. A couple of additional notes:

Also participating in the press availability will be:
- Gwynne Shotwell, President of SpaceX
- A TBD senior executive of the United Launch Alliance
- Patti Grace Smith, former Associate Administrator of FAA/AST

The announcement is one of importance to the space industry as a whole, not just to one particular company or combination of companies.

John Gedmark
Executive Director
Commercial Spaceflight Federation

Jason1701 · « **Reply #16 on:** 04/13/2011 01:20 am »

Quote from: John Gedmark on 04/13/2011 01:01 am

Thanks for your interest in this. A couple of additional notes:

Also participating in the press availability will be:
- Gwynne Shotwell, President of SpaceX
- A TBD senior executive of the United Launch Alliance
- Patti Grace Smith, former Associate Administrator of FAA/AST

The announcement is one of importance to the space industry as a whole, not just to one particular company or combination of companies.

John Gedmark
Executive Director
Commercial Spaceflight Federation

I appreciate your posting that here. Should be very interesting.

Hotdog · « **Reply #17 on:** 04/13/2011 12:20 pm »

Will this be broadcast live online?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #18 on:** 04/13/2011 04:50 pm »

Quote from: OV-106 on 04/12/2011 03:10 pm

I am saying, again, that $/kg is hardly a fact. That it is a target based on one speech by The Elon. That development and test will have to prove the performance, cost and schedule that is SpaceX's GOAL AND OBJECTIVE.

"performance, cost and schedule" As someone here has pointed out "pick two". I would have to review Mr. Musk's speech to be sure but I am pretty positive that he said the performance and cost were the goal and objective. Schedule is not a part of that nor should it be. This is developmental science and engineering and should not be driven by schedules, NET is good enough.

Namechange User · « **Reply #19 on:** 04/13/2011 04:58 pm »

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 04/13/2011 04:50 pm

Quote from: OV-106 on 04/12/2011 03:10 pm
I am saying, again, that $/kg is hardly a fact. That it is a target based on one speech by The Elon. That development and test will have to prove the performance, cost and schedule that is SpaceX's GOAL AND OBJECTIVE.

"performance, cost and schedule" As someone here has pointed out "pick two". I would have to review Mr. Musk's speech to be sure but I am pretty positive that he said the performance and cost were the goal and objective. Schedule is not a part of that nor should it be. This is developmental science and engineering and should not be driven by schedules, NET is good enough.

Norm,

Schedule has an impact on cost. Cost has an impact on schedule. I appreciate what you are saying but all projects must have a schedule, as does SpaceX, by the NET date they are working toward.

Either way, my point is still very much valid.