t/Space CCDEV2 Concept

[HMXHMX]

Since I was asked if I'd provide any information on the t/Space CCDEV2 concept on another now-locked thread, I am starting this thread to provide a brief I presented at the Space Access 2011 conference.

I'll be happy to answer reasonable questions as time permits.

[sdsds]

Great concept!

Did you get any feedback on placing the OM behind the XV?  Does forward-first re-entry mean there's no issue with access to the OM through the rear of the XV?  Also, does this mean the OM could be stretched to fit a mission-specific need, without interfering with XV abort or re-qualifying the XV in any way?  (Obviously Soyuz can't do that....)

[Lars_J]

Very interesting, thanks for posting that!

I'm curious about the reentry orientation - it is relatively stable due to mass distribution (?) or would it need constant thruster firing to maintain? A complex shape like that would appear to favor going in head-first since it appears to be shaped like a truncated shuttlecock with the fuel tanks in front - at least that is what it looks like to this amateur observer.

[HMXHMX]

Great concept!

Did you get any feedback on placing the OM behind the XV?  Does forward-first re-entry mean there's no issue with access to the OM through the rear of the XV?  Also, does this mean the OM could be stretched to fit a mission-specific need, without interfering with XV abort or re-qualifying the XV in any way?  (Obviously Soyuz can't do that....)

No feedback what so ever.  Rather obviously, I disagree with the selection authority on the subject of technical maturity.  But that is water over the dam.

I'm not sure I understand the access question, but there is a hatch at the rear of the XV crew module.

The OM could be stretched as necessary for mission specific requirements, and subject to LV lift capability.  The OM doesn't participate in the abort, so stretching it (or eliminating it, in the "solo" option) has no effect.

[HMXHMX]

Very interesting, thanks for posting that!

I'm curious about the reentry orientation - it is relatively stable due to mass distribution (?) or would it need constant thruster firing to maintain? A complex shape like that would appear to favor going in head-first since it appears to be shaped like a truncated shuttlecock with the fuel tanks in front - at least that is what it looks like to this amateur observer.

Yes, it trims naturally at about 12 degrees AoA.  We also used a trick of mounting batteries and certain other heavy items on a track that could be adjusted fore and aft, allowing on-the-fly trimming of Cg.  Entry control is via roll-to-bank, so only roll thrusters are fired, as necessary.

[synchrotron]

Interesting material. Thank you for sharing this. The OV bears a strong outward similarity to the Kistler K-1 OV. A result of similar trades?

[baldusi]

What were the perceived weaknesses of the design? Isn't it a cylinder kind of "weak" structurally for reentry? I mean, with my absolute lack of aerodynamics.

[HMXHMX]

Interesting material. Thank you for sharing this. The OV bears a strong outward similarity to the Kistler K-1 OV. A result of similar trades?

It wasn't a complete coincidence. 

The basic moldline actually derived from the HMX Alt-Access ISS contingency resupply vehicle proposed to NASA in 2000.  In turn, that derived from a Lockheed crew rescue concept from the late 1980s.

[HMXHMX]

What were the perceived weaknesses of the design? Isn't it a cylinder kind of "weak" structurally for reentry? I mean, with my absolute lack of aerodynamics.

You'd have to ask NASA. 

As for structure, pretty much any object can be made to re-enter safely.  Loads are much greater on ascent than entry.

[Downix]

Whenever tSpace shows up, you know the concept will be wild. Thanks for not disappointing.

[HMXHMX]

Whenever tSpace shows up, you know the concept will be wild. Thanks for not disappointing.

And here I thought I was being rather conventional.  I'm fairly sure Sergei Pavlovich would agree.

You want wild, I've done wild.

[synchrotron]

In slide 5, the XV is shown in comparison to other proposed CCDEV silhouettes. What is this slide trying to sell? The Cygnus and Dragon vehicles have the service modules. But the XV lacks its OV. Is the slide showing that the XV is generally more compact than the others, or just that it's in the same class? Sorry if I'm reading into this more than was intended.

[baldusi]

Your grouping is similar to the other capsules, namely an capsule with an integrated LAS, with a service module behind it. Where you propose a different solution, is in the layout of the pressure vessel (rather like a cylinder), the concept of a heat shield that can take multiple internal pressure vessels (if I'm not reading it wrong), and putting an integrated pusher liquid LAS on the tip. I'm assuming this is made so the system can be reused, and it simplifies the connection to the service module and is sort of autostabilizing.
On the other hand, if it was a true pusher system, it wouldn't have cosine losses and it could be optionally disposed if it was used as a booster stage.
BTW, on the fifth page ("Comparison to Other CCDEV Crewed Spacecraft") the passengers seem to be pointing downwards like in the escape capsule, but are only eight, like in the proposed transport.

[Space Pete]

Nice concept!

Launching cargo with crew kinda makes sense - if the Atlas V/Falcon 9 has the up-mass to do it, then why not? I mean, why do in two launches what could be done in one? Shame it didn't get funded, but I hope work continues on it.

[Robotbeat]

There's always the possibility of private investment. If your concept really is cheaper and better, it may be possible to partner with someone, especially if a market is demonstrated.

[clongton]

I like what you have done and I have 3 questions.

1. I noticed that during launch the crew is forward facing, and during descent the crew is rearward facing. Is there no pilot station? I ask because I question the need for reorientation. The presentation says the re-entry loading is < 2g's and I don't understand why the seats need to be rotated in that benign environment.

2. Was any design consideration given to the OM actually being a Bigelow inflatable? It looks to be a perfect match.

3. What is the contingency landing mode if the helecopter misses the grab?

Thanks for sharing this.

[jongoff]

Chuck,
I think Gary was saying at Space Access that the landing point would be picked near a body of water so that if the helicopter snatch failed, it could still safely do a water landing.

~Jon

[zaitcev]

The joke "The Chief Designer Got It Right" was factually incorrect. Soyuz was principially a 3-section craft with Living Module (despite Zond), with docking adapter facing up. The configuration presented be Mr. Hudson features a crawl-through Equipment Module, which is reminiscent of TKS, developed by S.P. Korolev's rival, Ac. Chelomei.

[HMXHMX]

I like what you have done and I have 3 questions.

1. I noticed that during launch the crew is forward facing, and during descent the crew is rearward facing. Is there no pilot station? I ask because I question the need for reorientation. The presentation says the re-entry loading is < 2g's and I don't understand why the seats need to be rotated in that benign environment.

2. Was any design consideration given to the OM actually being a Bigelow inflatable? It looks to be a perfect match.

3. What is the contingency landing mode if the helecopter misses the grab?

Thanks for sharing this.

1) I incorporated our 2005 rotating fabric seat into this design for a couple of reasons.  One, it is very lightweight, 10% of an Orbiter middeck seat.  Two, it can be stowed while on orbit. Finally, it is very G tolerant in the event of high flight path angle aborts.  In such an abort, it can rotate to allow crew to take loads on their backs rather than eyeballs out, such the trajectory demand such a capability.

There is no pilot station.  Pilots use handheld multi-function device similar to but more capable than the Soyuz handheld to provide abort commands during ascent, on-orbit docking control and similar functions.  They can occupy any seat and also float about the cabin (including into the OM) with the device.

2) It is certainly possible the OM could be replaced by an inflatable for specific missions (say, tourism), but I didn't see any reason to do so at this point, and it would have added another uncertainty to the evaluation.

3) The nominal ISS mission re-entry landing point is set as US West Coast, about 20 KM offshore.  This eases FAA permitting.  Helos stage from California, and perform the recovery.  If they miss, the spacecraft lands in the water, which requires it be rebuilt at the factory.  If the capture is successful, it is air-towed (stably, I might add, with high ride comfort unlike capsules) to shore where it is deposited in a cradle for easy crew egress.  If it overshoots and comes down on land, the airframe is scrapped, but the crew survives due to the fabric seats.  Finally, there is a crew bailout option that extracts the crew on a "stick" with survival gear should the mains become fouled or failed.

[HMXHMX]

The joke "The Chief Designer Got It Right" was factually incorrect. Soyuz was principially a 3-section craft with Living Module (despite Zond), with docking adapter facing up. The configuration presented be Mr. Hudson features a crawl-through Equipment Module, which is reminiscent of TKS, developed by S.P. Korolev's rival, Ac. Chelomei.

Fair enough, if one is being pedantic (which I too have been from time to time, I'll accept).  But the main message in both of those Chief Designer's designs is the separation of crew recovery element from that needed on-orbit, without the capability of return.  That was my primary point: separation of functions, not numbers of modules.

[HMXHMX]

There's always the possibility of private investment. If your concept really is cheaper and better, it may be possible to partner with someone, especially if a market is demonstrated.

I've been trying to find commercial space funding for 43 years, now.  Absent NASA's endorsement of one's design, there is basically no chance that private investment will emerge.

[HMXHMX]

Your grouping is similar to the other capsules, namely an capsule with an integrated LAS, with a service module behind it. Where you propose a different solution, is in the layout of the pressure vessel (rather like a cylinder), the concept of a heat shield that can take multiple internal pressure vessels (if I'm not reading it wrong), and putting an integrated pusher liquid LAS on the tip. I'm assuming this is made so the system can be reused, and it simplifies the connection to the service module and is sort of autostabilizing.
On the other hand, if it was a true pusher system, it wouldn't have cosine losses and it could be optionally disposed if it was used as a booster stage.
BTW, on the fifth page ("Comparison to Other CCDEV Crewed Spacecraft") the passengers seem to be pointing downwards like in the escape capsule, but are only eight, like in the proposed transport.

There is only one pressure vessel in the XV itself, that which protects the crew.  (Unless your are referring to the propellant tanks?)  The patented integrated LAS/OMS/RCS system is not liquid, by the way, it is gas-gas.  The tractor arrangement of the LAS engines is designed to eliminate the need for abort steering control.  Once abort begins, power, computers, everything on the spacecraft can fail and the crew survives.  Even main parachutes are hand triggered by the crew (optionally).

Cosine losses don't matter in abort; the use (and disposal) of the OMS/RCS propellant does, and there is more than is needed for nominal aborts in all circumstances, so in fact, we purposely "waste propellant".

Seats rotate and can be arranged in many different layouts.  We used a number of layouts in the proposal to show flexibility.  In lifeboat mode, seats would be aft facing for ease of ingress from ISS.

[HMXHMX]

In slide 5, the XV is shown in comparison to other proposed CCDEV silhouettes. What is this slide trying to sell? The Cygnus and Dragon vehicles have the service modules. But the XV lacks its OV. Is the slide showing that the XV is generally more compact than the others, or just that it's in the same class? Sorry if I'm reading into this more than was intended.

It was just a comparison of the relative sizes, that accompanied a written discussion of empty mass. OM, by the way, not OV...but that is being pedantic. 

[Zed_Noir]

How long can the XV in the lifeboat/CRV role stay in LEO? Does the gas-gas propellants have a shelf life limit?

[HMXHMX]

How long can the XV in the lifeboat/CRV role stay in LEO? Does the gas-gas propellants have a shelf life limit?

I really don't know.  My hope would be to make the "shelf life" years, but the main limiting factors are not the XV spacecraft systems, but rather orbital debris.  If the lifeboat is protected with a cocoon of some sort, then years might be a reasonable goal.  Ultimately, parachutes will be the issue, usually having a five year storage limit.

Gas-gas systems should be able to be stored for years if properly sealed.  If the deorbit propellant tanks are segregated from the ascent and docking propellant, they could be sealed with welded burst discs, and that could provide storage life measured in decades.  Other factors will limit life before propulsion becomes a problem, unlike Soyuz, for example.

[sdsds]

I'm not sure I understand the access question, but there is a hatch at the rear of the XV crew module.

Sorry if the original question was confusing!  That concept of a hatch at the rear of the crew vehicle for access to an orbital module seems like it's a key element making this design more flexible than others.  The lurking fear is that it is somehow too good to be true; that others would have adopted this approach if it were practicable.

Isn't it a cylinder kind of "weak" structurally for reentry? I mean, with my absolute lack of aerodynamics.

pretty much any object can be made to re-enter safely.

This seems like another area where there could be "lurking fears" about the design.  Not looking at it technically, but only historically.  It seems like, both on the civilian space side and the military ICBM side, considerable effort was put into re-entry vehicle design.  At the time it was strongly implied if not explicitly stated that this was a difficult problem.

Is the confidence you feel now based on improvements in computational fluid dynamics?  You say safe re-entry is not dependent on any sort of active control?  (Tangentially, but as an example, do you feel SpaceX will by able to easily solve their first stage re-entry difficulties?)

[HMXHMX]

I'm not sure I understand the access question, but there is a hatch at the rear of the XV crew module.

Sorry if the original question was confusing!  That concept of a hatch at the rear of the crew vehicle for access to an orbital module seems like it's a key element making this design more flexible than others.  The lurking fear is that it is somehow too good to be true; that others would have adopted this approach if it were practicable.

Isn't it a cylinder kind of "weak" structurally for reentry? I mean, with my absolute lack of aerodynamics.

pretty much any object can be made to re-enter safely.

This seems like another area where there could be "lurking fears" about the design.  Not looking at it technically, but only historically.  It seems like, both on the civilian space side and the military ICBM side, considerable effort was put into re-entry vehicle design.  At the time it was strongly implied if not explicitly stated that this was a difficult problem.

Is the confidence you feel now based on improvements in computational fluid dynamics?  You say safe re-entry is not dependent on any sort of active control?  (Tangentially, but as an example, do you feel SpaceX will by able to easily solve their first stage re-entry difficulties?)

Ah, I understand your concern now.  That hatch is not in the heat shield, like the Gemini MOL, Merkur-Almaz, or other such proposals.  It's in the boat-tail, which in turn is in the flow wake.  Temperatures there would be comparable to or less than at the top of the Apollo CM, which also had a hatch.

XV is a bit like Soyuz.  If loaded and trimmed properly it should always enter with the proper AoA.  Absent roll control it may miss the landing point but the roll system is redundant.  The pickup helicopter can also compensate for slightly off-nominal CEP errors, of course.  But if for some reason it enters at a zero angle of attack condition (pure ballistic and similar to Soyuz's attitude control failure type entries) then the rotating seats will show their value.  A safe ballistic entry is assured, but you want crew on their backs.

In fact, my baseline was to conduct all entries with the seats rotated. Safer that way for a number of reasons.

(Finally, I'll avoid commenting on SpaceX's recovery issues.)

[RanulfC]

Can you hang it below a 747 with a tripple-barrel, 3STO pressure feed VPAC booster though? :::::grin:::::

Randy

[HMXHMX]

Can you hang it below a 747 with a tripple-barrel, 3STO pressure feed VPAC booster though? :::::grin:::::

Randy

I could try...

Seriously, a key element of the concept is so-called "launch vehicle agnosticism."  I wanted to keep the options open for the future.  Our early evaluations suggested the ability to fly on a number of vehicles, from Atlas 401, F9, T-II (enhanced version), Soyuz and even (with human-rating the LV plus variable length OM) Cyclone-4, Zenit 2 stage, or Angara.

[notherspacexfan]

I am curious how well the XV could scale up.

It seems like unpressurized Downmass is the biggest un-replaced capability of the shuttle. Could the XV be scaled to contain a cylinder the size of the shuttle PLB?

[HMXHMX]

I am curious how well the XV could scale up.

It seems like unpressurized Downmass is the biggest un-replaced capability of the shuttle. Could the XV be scaled to contain a cylinder the size of the shuttle PLB?

Anything is possible.  But the XV was sized to be the most efficient vehicle able carry the maximum number of souls on existing LVs with the OM attached.  If a much larger LV (both diameter and mass) was available, one might up-scale it, but I question if the market would justify the added cost.

[HIP2BSQRE]

in the evaluation T/Space was rated Red/Red-business and techicnical.  How do you overcome that?  In space you have to get finance--how do you get money without being a billionaire and starting up your own business?  I think alot of people were suprised what T/Space did with $6 million, if NASA had been given an additional $50 million do you think that they should have given you a chance with maybe $10 million or do you think it would have been better spent on the 4 winners plus maybe 1 additional company?

[HIP2BSQRE]

Have you tried talking with Spacex about co-developing?

[HIP2BSQRE]

If you had to select the companies that got the money ie you are NASA what changes would you have made???

[HMXHMX]

in the evaluation T/Space was rated Red/Red-business and techicnical.  How do you overcome that?  In space you have to get finance--how do you get money without being a billionaire and starting up your own business?  I think alot of people were suprised what T/Space did with $6 million, if NASA had been given an additional $50 million do you think that they should have given you a chance with maybe $10 million or do you think it would have been better spent on the 4 winners plus maybe 1 additional company?

Well, you might say I disagree with the assessment.



I wonder if they read the same proposal we wrote, frankly.  For example, they speak about lack of off-nominal landing calculations and other FAA license related analyses.  Our proposal explained very clearly that we targeted open ocean off the California coast to reduce FAA license risks.  Our off-nominal strategy is a "normal" water landing, or a hard land landing (both similar to Apollo), with the former case requiring refurbishment and the latter necessitating scraping the vehicle but with crew survival due to our unique fabric seats.

In another place they say we have unrestrained crew during entry and landing.  WTF?  The crew would be fully restrained.  Then they complain that we provided insufficient detail to evaluate launch vehicle integration.  Eh?  We explained carefully that there was only a bolted joint between LV and spacecraft, no other interface (fluid, electrical, etc.). 

They state that we failed to provide sufficient detail on the technical risks of launch-escape-integral-abort recovery system.  Pardon moi?  Our partner HMX holds the patent.  Their previous CCDEV1 proposal was highly detailed, and was referenced. 

I have argued the issue of skin in the game in other forums here, and won't repeat myself, except to note that our reading of the RFP (and responses to questions from contractors answered by NASA) was that skin was not required if the amount requested for CCDEV2 was low enough, though they didn't give a figure of what was "low."  We asked for thirty million dollars to perform more work that any of the of the contractors who won space Act agreements will do with both NASA and their own funds.  Our past performance on CE&R shows we could have met our milestones...which were mostly hardware based, and not design reviews as other contractors proposed.

[HMXHMX]

Have you tried talking with Spacex about co-developing?

No offense, but are you serious? 

[HMXHMX]

If you had to select the companies that got the money ie you are NASA what changes would you have made???

I would have picked five or six firms and given them each ~$30-40M, and funded another five or six tech firms (Orbital Outfitters, Andrews, etc.) at about $5-10M.  Companies like SNC, SpaceX and Boeing, not to mention Blue Origin, can spend nearly unlimited amounts on their systems.  NASA should be leveling the playing field and increasing competition, not picking winners and losers.

[MATTBLAK]

I've always liked T-Space's concepts, including the air-launched spacecraft to the ISS that I've seen an animation of somewhere.

[kkattula]

I can understand why Boeing & SpaceX got funded, they look to be the obvious, lower risk, higher cost, options. And DreamChaser is in a different solution space, with added sentimental value. (i.e. It's both cool and we all wish we'd finished just one of the earlier lifting-body spaceplanes)

But it seems odd to me that Blue Origin got $20m, yet t/Space couldn't get $30m. BO don't really seem to need the money, an unfunded or minimally funded SAA should have sufficed. Given what you achieved with $6m back when, I would have thought $30m now would have been seen as a huge opportunity.

I give t/Space, and Gary personally, a lot of the credit for the COTS / CCDEV model of funding, and the propensity of all the applicants to include a lot of prototype hardware in the first two rounds. So much better than just doing a lot paper studies.

It's just a crying shame t/Space missed out, again.

[Downix]

Pity t/Space isn't in the SLS development group of companies.  I'd be most curious what would come out of that.

[clongton]

Pity t/Space isn't in the SLS development group of companies.  I'd be most curious what would come out of that.

It could be scaled up to provide full Shuttle capacity downmass returned to earth.

[bad_astra]

THIS is what a spaceship should look like. I cannot help but think that, from a standpoint of a private station operator like Bigelow, it would seem this would be the route to take. Crew and cargo on the same flight.

With the CST-100 route they end up doubling their flight rate when they don't have to.

[HMXHMX]

Pity t/Space isn't in the SLS development group of companies.  I'd be most curious what would come out of that.

Indigestion.  On my end at least.

FYI, HMX bid the HLV BAA from NASA, but lost.  At some point, I may excerpt the strategy and concept from that bid and post it.  It's based around my Hyperion LV core module.

[HMXHMX]

I've always liked T-Space's concepts, including the air-launched spacecraft to the ISS that I've seen an animation of somewhere.

Attached for your viewing pleasure.

[HMXHMX]

By the way, rather than respond to each comment, I'd like to thank all posters who have offered kind words about our work.  (And by extension, I'm thanks all who worked at or with t/Space during the past ten years.  As with most things aerospace, it was a team effort.)

[Jose]

I've always liked T-Space's concepts, including the air-launched spacecraft to the ISS that I've seen an animation of somewhere.

Same here. I'd never heard of them until I came to these forums, and they've been a real find.

Designs are always creative, and they stoke the imagination.  It's a shame we can't find a way of funding this kind of innovation. (Yeah, I hate the way the "i" word is abused nowadays, but it really applies here.)

[Downix]

Pity t/Space isn't in the SLS development group of companies.  I'd be most curious what would come out of that.

Indigestion.  On my end at least.

FYI, HMX bid the HLV BAA from NASA, but lost.  At some point, I may excerpt the strategy and concept from that bid and post it.  It's based around my Hyperion LV core module.

I am curious if you ever looked at my AJAX concept.  I'd like input from people that do work on real launch vehicles.

[HMXHMX]

Pity t/Space isn't in the SLS development group of companies.  I'd be most curious what would come out of that.

Indigestion.  On my end at least.

FYI, HMX bid the HLV BAA from NASA, but lost.  At some point, I may excerpt the strategy and concept from that bid and post it.  It's based around my Hyperion LV core module.

I am curious if you ever looked at my AJAX concept.  I'd like input from people that do work on real launch vehicles.

Send it to me via PM and I'll comment if I can.

[yg1968]

I've always liked T-Space's concepts, including the air-launched spacecraft to the ISS that I've seen an animation of somewhere.

Attached for your viewing pleasure.

I have an error on this file. 89k seems a bit small for a video file.

[RanulfC]

Can you hang it below a 747 with a tripple-barrel, 3STO pressure feed VPAC booster though? :::::grin:::::

I could try...

Ok... I'll just hang around here till you get back then.... ::::grin:::

I was curious because IIRC the last Air-Launch concept could fit a maximum diameter of around 8 feet and it looks bigger than that.

Seriously, a key element of the concept is so-called "launch vehicle agnosticism."  I wanted to keep the options open for the future.  Our early evaluations suggested the ability to fly on a number of vehicles, from Atlas 401, F9, T-II (enhanced version), Soyuz and even (with human-rating the LV plus variable length OM) Cyclone-4, Zenit 2 stage, or Angara.

Good solid concept and thinking.... NOT "politically-correct" though as you'd have gotten a HUGE amount of "support" from Congress if you'd simply stated that it could ONLY be flown on a newly-designed 130-ton payload HLV....

But I'm sure we're ALL aware of the general psychological damage that kind of thinking develops and we wouldn't want you all to fall into THAT trap now would we

Randy

[ugordan]

Attached for your viewing pleasure.

I have an error on this file. 89k seems a bit small for a video file.

Same here. If the original file was above 20 MB, it can't be uploaded directly to a post IIRC.

[HMXHMX]

I've always liked T-Space's concepts, including the air-launched spacecraft to the ISS that I've seen an animation of somewhere.

Attached for your viewing pleasure.

I have an error on this file. 89k seems a bit small for a video file.

Apologies.  It's a mov file and I can't seem to find the whole movie on my machine.  Plays fine for me when I click it, but the source file is missing.  I'll root around to see if I can find it, but it'll be later today.

[HMXHMX]

Can you hang it below a 747 with a tripple-barrel, 3STO pressure feed VPAC booster though? :::::grin:::::

I could try...

Ok... I'll just hang around here till you get back then.... ::::grin:::

I was curious because IIRC the last Air-Launch concept could fit a maximum diameter of around 8 feet and it looks bigger than that.

It's ten feet, plus or minus.

[RanulfC]

I wonder if they (NASA) read the same proposal we wrote, frankly.

Hey, "we" can start some cool conspiricy rumors going around about intercepted emails and stuff! I'm getting WAY out of practice in tweaking conspiricy theory's (and their supporters )

For example, they speak about lack of off-nominal landing calculations and other FAA license related analyses.  Our proposal explained very clearly that we targeted open ocean off the California coast to reduce FAA license risks.  Our off-nominal strategy is a "normal" water landing, or a hard land landing (both similar to Apollo), with the former case requiring refurbishment and the latter necessitating scraping the vehicle but with crew survival due to our unique fabric seats.

Ok that's probably directly related TO the "seats" after all these are pretty much the same folks who keep insisting that "Mechanical Counter-Pressure" is an unworkable idea for space suits and then have to hand out cash awards to people who actually show it DOES work and work well...
(And then they turn around and put out CONTRACTS for "advanced" work that keep going back towards full-pressure suits... THAT was a "kick-in-the-pants" news item for me )

Maybe you need to convince NASCAR to put in a version of your seat, THAT might turn some heads

In another place they say we have unrestrained crew during entry and landing.  WTF?  The crew would be fully restrained.

I don't see that anywhere in your proposal really... The crew seems fully "unrestrained" and could have all sorts of things happening during entry and landing. Wild parties, free-internet, cabin drinks, heck I don't see any imposed "restraint" listed at all! Where's the Sky-Marshall sit?
(Running and Ducking now... )

Then they complain that we provided insufficient detail to evaluate launch vehicle integration.  Eh?  We explained carefully that there was only a bolted joint between LV and spacecraft, no other interface (fluid, electrical, etc.).

Well OBVIOUSLY if you don't need support from the LV then you don't need support from NASA so there ;P

(Actually, now that I read that it actually makes a sort of "bureaucratic-think" kind of sense... But I REALLY don't want to think that through too much... Refer back to other statement about mental damage involved )

They state that we failed to provide sufficient detail on the technical risks of launch-escape-integral-abort recovery system.  Pardon moi?  Our partner HMX holds the patent.  Their previous CCDEV1 proposal was highly detailed, and was referenced.

All true of course and while not "defending" the question I WILL point out that there is a patent out there for a "Mobile Defense System" or some such that is a monsterous "vehicle" powered by half a dozen PBR-nuclear reactors, hovers on plasma jets and sprouts dozens of "plasma" cannon with about a paragrah of "jargon" and about 70 pages of "pictures" of the inner workings of the various weapons systems. (NICE art but totally un-realistic in any sense)

NOT saying that the proposed ARS is ANYTHING like such but my point is having a "patent" doesn't neccesarily mean it will actually work....

On the "gripping" hand however I'd have to call BS-check on this objection as the proposed system is fairly "conventional" overall and the ONLY major "difference" is you're not base-lining solid rockets for the system which is NOT sufficiently "different" from other proposals to require a highly detailed technical risk assesment.

I have argued the issue of skin in the game in other forums here, and won't repeat myself, except to note that our reading of the RFP (and responses to questions from contractors answered by NASA) was that skin was not required if the amount requested for CCDEV2 was low enough, though they didn't give a figure of what was "low."  We asked for thirty million dollars to perform more work that any of the of the contractors who won space Act agreements will do with both NASA and their own funds.  Our past performance on CE&R shows we could have met our milestones...which were mostly hardware based, and not design reviews as other contractors proposed.

Well THAT along with boldly pointing out in slide-2 of the presentation that NASA would NOT be your "primary" customer was probably some-what related to the reasons for not being among the chosen few

I'm a HUGE agree though that CCDev should not EVER have been or be about "winning-or-losing" but encouraging the maximum amount of competition and inovation as possible.

NOW of course all you or I have to do is manage to get appointed as Director of NASA....  :::GRIN:::

Randy

[billh]

Our past performance on CE&R shows we could have met our milestones...which were mostly hardware based, and not design reviews as other contractors proposed.

Maybe your approach is just too far removed from the sort of process-heavy approach NASA is accustomed to. That's a pity. I agree with the other comments here about how groups that show such creativity also deserve support. Clearly you need to start making friends with some billionaires.

[JimP]

I wonder if they read the same proposal we wrote, frankly.  <snip>

Then they complain that we provided insufficient detail to evaluate launch vehicle integration.  Eh?  We explained carefully that there was only a bolted joint between LV and spacecraft, no other interface (fluid, electrical, etc.). 

They state that we failed to provide sufficient detail on the technical risks of launch-escape-integral-abort recovery system.  Pardon moi?  Our partner HMX holds the patent.  Their previous CCDEV1 proposal was highly detailed, and was referenced. 

If there is no electrical interface between the LV and spacecraft, then how can the LV's EDS signal the spacecraft's LAS to activate?  Does the above referenced patented system not require any kind of connection other than the above mentioned bolted joints?

Clearly I am missing something here, or I have been thrown by the "only a bolted joint" comment.  Could the examiner have stopped reading there?

[MATTBLAK]

I've always liked T-Space's concepts, including the air-launched CXV spacecraft to the ISS that I've seen an animation of somewhere.

Attached for your viewing pleasure.

I have an error on this file. 89k seems a bit small for a video file.

Apologies.  It's a mov file and I can't seem to find the whole movie on my machine.  Plays fine for me when I click it, but the source file is missing.  I'll root around to see if I can find it, but it'll be later today.

I've found a YouTube link! Hope you don't mind

[HMXHMX]

I've always liked T-Space's concepts, including the air-launched CXV spacecraft to the ISS that I've seen an animation of somewhere.

Attached for your viewing pleasure.

I have an error on this file. 89k seems a bit small for a video file.

Apologies.  It's a mov file and I can't seem to find the whole movie on my machine.  Plays fine for me when I click it, but the source file is missing.  I'll root around to see if I can find it, but it'll be later today.

I've found a YouTube link! Hope you don't mind

That's great, thanks.  Saves me trying to figure out how to make mine work.

[HMXHMX]

Our past performance on CE&R shows we could have met our milestones...which were mostly hardware based, and not design reviews as other contractors proposed.

Maybe your approach is just too far removed from the sort of process-heavy approach NASA is accustomed to. That's a pity. I agree with the other comments here about how groups that show such creativity also deserve support. Clearly you need to start making friends with some billionaires.

Been there, done that.  I don't wish to name names, but I have had discussions ranging from casual to detailed with a number of folks whose net worth is measured in billions.  My recent Space Access presentation noted that rich guys – at least a significant fraction – often take the view that they are rocket designers.  My counter has been "If you had a brain tumor, would you get out a neurology text, a drill and a mirror?"

[MATTBLAK]

That IS funny!!

[HMXHMX]

I wonder if they read the same proposal we wrote, frankly.  <snip>

Then they complain that we provided insufficient detail to evaluate launch vehicle integration.  Eh?  We explained carefully that there was only a bolted joint between LV and spacecraft, no other interface (fluid, electrical, etc.). 

They state that we failed to provide sufficient detail on the technical risks of launch-escape-integral-abort recovery system.  Pardon moi?  Our partner HMX holds the patent.  Their previous CCDEV1 proposal was highly detailed, and was referenced. 

If there is no electrical interface between the LV and spacecraft, then how can the LV's EDS signal the spacecraft's LAS to activate?  Does the above referenced patented system not require any kind of connection other than the above mentioned bolted joints?

Clearly I am missing something here, or I have been thrown by the "only a bolted joint" comment.  Could the examiner have stopped reading there?

I should have said bolted separation joint, of course. 

The XV avionics is our EDS.  I don't want nor need an EDS on the LV.  The XV has a telemetry receiver tuned to the LV's transmit frequency and thus hears every bit of data transmitted to the ground.  The XV then makes it own determination of the need for abort.  If the ground sends a command destruct signal to the LV, it is received by the XV as well and it automatically separates.  The only modification to the booster is a several second delay line that blocks the flight termination command from actually triggering the explosive charges to give XV a few seconds to clear.

[M_Puckett]

The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. 

A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle.  Function distilled down to its most basic form.

[baldusi]

Have you considered putting a second company, making the exact same proposal but only asking money for reviews and trades studies and more paperwork? I'm sure it would have made to second round.

[HMXHMX]

The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. 

A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle.  Function distilled down to its most basic form.

Kind of you to say so.  I once had Burt refer to a bit of my work as "slick" and that was high praise, too.  But I've done some stinkers, too, in the full glare of the public eye.

[HMXHMX]

Have you considered putting a second company, making the exact same proposal but only asking money for reviews and trades studies and more paperwork? I'm sure it would have made to second round.

I am done with NASA.  Six bids since 2004, one win (2004) and that only because Craig Stiedle was a visionary who selected our proposal after others at a lower level had rejected it.

[Downix]

The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. 

A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle.  Function distilled down to its most basic form.

Kind of you to say so.  I once had Burt refer to a bit of my work as "slick" and that was high praise, too.  But I've done some stinkers, too, in the full glare of the public eye.

Everybody has.  I just feel grateful nobody on this forum is aware of my history in the computer industry. *shudders at the memory of the day we discovered our 4 year in development flagship product's main chipset[purchased from another firm] was bugged to the point of broken*

[Downix]

Have you considered putting a second company, making the exact same proposal but only asking money for reviews and trades studies and more paperwork? I'm sure it would have made to second round.

I am done with NASA.  Six bids since 2004, one win (2004) and that only because Craig Stiedle was a visionary who selected our proposal after others at a lower level had rejected it.

Well, I, for one, still root for you.  If you ever need help, you know where we all are.

[JimP]

I should have said bolted separation joint, of course. 

The XV avionics is our EDS.  I don't want nor need an EDS on the LV.  The XV has a telemetry receiver tuned to the LV's transmit frequency and thus hears every bit of data transmitted to the ground.  The XV then makes it own determination of the need for abort.  If the ground sends a command destruct signal to the LV, it is received by the XV as well and it automatically separates.  The only modification to the booster is a several second delay line that blocks the flight termination command from actually triggering the explosive charges to give XV a few seconds to clear.

Of course it is a separation joint!  That goes so without saying that I didn't miss the qualifier.

Having the spacecraft avionics monitor the LV health & command destruct is an interesting approach and I have no problem with that.

The only thing I would add is a sense line that would be blown open by the separation charges so the LV has positive confirmation that the spacecraft has departed.  For all I know, that could be standard practice in the industry.

[HMXHMX]

I should have said bolted separation joint, of course. 

The XV avionics is our EDS.  I don't want nor need an EDS on the LV.  The XV has a telemetry receiver tuned to the LV's transmit frequency and thus hears every bit of data transmitted to the ground.  The XV then makes it own determination of the need for abort.  If the ground sends a command destruct signal to the LV, it is received by the XV as well and it automatically separates.  The only modification to the booster is a several second delay line that blocks the flight termination command from actually triggering the explosive charges to give XV a few seconds to clear.

Of course it is a separation joint!  That goes so without saying that I didn't miss the qualifier.

Having the spacecraft avionics monitor the LV health & command destruct is an interesting approach and I have no problem with that.

The only thing I would add is a sense line that would be blown open by the separation charges so the LV has positive confirmation that the spacecraft has departed.  For all I know, that could be standard practice in the industry.

Yes, it is a standard breakwire.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Have you considered putting a second company, making the exact same proposal but only asking money for reviews and trades studies and more paperwork? I'm sure it would have made to second round.

I am done with NASA.  Six bids since 2004, one win (2004) and that only because Craig Stiedle was a visionary who selected our proposal after others at a lower level had rejected it.

I can only hope that you dont give up....$6million and you had hardware and a drop test...while the others had paper studies...I can only wish that you had $10-30 million.  Do you feel that you were rated Red on business due to your lack of money???  Do you feel NASA should have given more companies $10-20 million to see what they could do?

[JimP]

The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. 

A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle.  Function distilled down to its most basic form.

I Have to second that opinion.

What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit.  I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?

Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.

Yeah, just call me a dreamer!

[HMXHMX]

Have you considered putting a second company, making the exact same proposal but only asking money for reviews and trades studies and more paperwork? I'm sure it would have made to second round.

I am done with NASA.  Six bids since 2004, one win (2004) and that only because Craig Stiedle was a visionary who selected our proposal after others at a lower level had rejected it.

I can only hope that you dont give up....$6million and you had hardware and a drop test...while the others had paper studies...I can only wish that you had $10-30 million.  Do you feel that you were rated Red on business due to your lack of money???  Do you feel NASA should have given more companies $10-20 million to see what they could do?

Yes.  And yes.

[HMXHMX]

The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. 

A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle.  Function distilled down to its most basic form.

I Have to second that opinion.

What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit.  I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?

Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.

Yeah, just call me a dreamer!

During the 1960s, single astronauts trained to conduct docks alone.  So I don't see any reason why a single CXV crewman could not do the same.

[clongton]

The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. 

A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle.  Function distilled down to its most basic form.

I Have to second that opinion.

What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit.  I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?

Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.

Yeah, just call me a dreamer!

During the 1960s, single astronauts trained to conduct docks alone.  So I don't see any reason why a single CXV crewman could not do the same.

What are your plans now?

[spacenut]

Have you tried the Air Force?  With the air launch capability, it would give the Air Force ability to quickly get men into space if necessary.  This seems to be one of the best ideas brought forth. 

[Jim]

Have you tried the Air Force?  With the air launch capability, it would give the Air Force ability to quickly get men into space if necessary. 

What requirement do they have for it?

[clongton]

Have you tried the Air Force?  With the air launch capability, it would give the Air Force ability to quickly get men into space if necessary.  This seems to be one of the best ideas brought forth. 

Especially with the ability to launch to *any* orbit without regard to launch point inclination.

[spacenut]

Well, with a lot of other nations getting the ability to launch humans into space, and with a lot of private companies getting the ability, the Air Force might want a way up also.  There might be a strategic or rescue need in the near future.  With air launch capability and like clonton said to launch into any orbit might be a move they might need.  I think it would make an ideal lifeboat or rescue boat, especially if the booster rocket is hypergolic, hybrid, or kerolox with in flight lox preparation and fueling. 

[Ronsmytheiii]

Well, with a lot of other nations getting the ability to launch humans into space, and with a lot of private companies getting the ability, the Air Force might want a way up also. 

The AF has no need to send humans to orbit, if they did they would have set up their own program by now, and did with MOL but eventually discovered that unmanned satellites could meet all of their needs.

[robertross]

Attached for your viewing pleasure.

I've found a YouTube link! Hope you don't mind



[/quote]

Very cool concept.

[HMXHMX]

Have you tried the Air Force?  With the air launch capability, it would give the Air Force ability to quickly get men into space if necessary. 

What requirement do they have for it?

Jim is right.  No requirement means no program, and thus no money.

There is another factor.  USAF can't successfully manage new space launch vehicle development, in my view.  Too many cooks.

[HMXHMX]

The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. 

A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle.  Function distilled down to its most basic form.

I Have to second that opinion.

What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit.  I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?

Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.

Yeah, just call me a dreamer!

During the 1960s, single astronauts trained to conduct docks alone.  So I don't see any reason why a single CXV crewman could not do the same.

What are your plans now?

Anything that doesn't involve submission of a proposal for NASA or USAF.

[HMXHMX]

Attached for your viewing pleasure.

I've found a YouTube link! Hope you don't mind

:video:

Very cool concept.
[/quote]

Just an observation, though.  I hope people are not conflating what we proposed for COTS1.0 (shown above) with what was proposed for COTS2.0 (post-Kistler) and also for CCDEV2.  The COTS2.0 proposal was for a CXV spacecraft only, launched on Atlas, with a future option for an air-launch using a custom LV and custom launch aircraft.  (The latter was a big beast, with >500K lbm payload weight.  You might be able to guess who would have built it for us.)

The CCDEV2 proposal was for the XV/OM (derived from HMX's earlier AltAccess work in 2000-2002).  It would launch from a number of LVs, as described earlier.  No new LV development is expected.

I don't mind talking about the other proposals on this thread if the moderators don't.

[kevin-rf]

Anything that doesn't involve submission of a proposal for NASA or USAF.

Aaah!!! the matching 7 lucky numbers strategy

[RanulfC]

I don't mind talking about the other proposals on this thread if the moderators don't.

I'm hoping they don't... I have been looking for a chance to picks-yer-brains on some of the various stuff you folks have worked on....
(Insert "generic" evil-laugh here, as my voice coach says mine still needs work... )

Randy

[Downix]

If you guys ever need a draftsman, let me know.

[Patchouli]

The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. 

A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle.  Function distilled down to its most basic form.

I agree it really is an elegant concept it is a real shame it did not get chosen.

Oh knows maybe they can partner with Blue Origin or SNC to improve their vehicles.

[Cherokee43v6]

An interesting idea, based on something someone up above mentioned.

Could your orbital module be designed with multiple docking ports using different standards.

Purpose being as a 'ready to go' emergency first responder vehicle.  With the OM having different ports available, there would be no need to wait for a particular configuration to be assembled in the event of an emergency need.  Stack and launch.

As an example, the fire on Mir nearly cut off the crew from being able to access their Soyuz.  If some similar disaster struck the ISS, multi-docking capability would be very very handy.

[HMXHMX]

An interesting idea, based on something someone up above mentioned.

Could your orbital module be designed with multiple docking ports using different standards.

Purpose being as a 'ready to go' emergency first responder vehicle.  With the OM having different ports available, there would be no need to wait for a particular configuration to be assembled in the event of an emergency need.  Stack and launch.

As an example, the fire on Mir nearly cut off the crew from being able to access their Soyuz.  If some similar disaster struck the ISS, multi-docking capability would be very very handy.

Indeed, the OM could be so configured.  In fact, I have a sketch of just such a configuration, but it wasn't turned into a quality rendering for the proposal, since we had too many technical details to fill up the limited page count.  Another factor was we didn't want to show any Russian hardware in this proposal, since it would be misinterpreted by certain elements at NASA.

[Cherokee43v6]

An interesting idea, based on something someone up above mentioned.

Could your orbital module be designed with multiple docking ports using different standards.

Purpose being as a 'ready to go' emergency first responder vehicle.  With the OM having different ports available, there would be no need to wait for a particular configuration to be assembled in the event of an emergency need.  Stack and launch.

As an example, the fire on Mir nearly cut off the crew from being able to access their Soyuz.  If some similar disaster struck the ISS, multi-docking capability would be very very handy.

Indeed, the OM could be so configured.  In fact, I have a sketch of just such a configuration, but it wasn't turned into a quality rendering for the proposal, since we had too many technical details to fill up the limited page count.  Another factor was we didn't want to show any Russian hardware in this proposal, since it would be misinterpreted by certain elements at NASA.

Keep that concept handy and updated.  Eventually, NASA or someone will discover that there is a need for a 'Space Guard' rescue capacity.  Your design appears to be the most compatible as a 'rescue cutter'.

[NotGncDude]

Found this thread. So, going back to the question to bottom first vs nose first. This CCDev proposal is for a nose first capsule. Why not a bottom first capsule with hatch trough the TPS into the orbital module like the Chelomei's TKS?

[HMXHMX]

Found this thread. So, going back to the question to bottom first vs nose first. This CCDev proposal is for a nose first capsule. Why not a bottom first capsule with hatch trough the TPS into the orbital module like the Chelomei's TKS?

Primarily, I didn't want to have to defend heat shield penetrations, even though I think they are not a big deal.  Sometimes one has to do things in one's public (i.e., proposal) capacity that one would not do in a privately-funded enterprise, to coin a phrase.

I selected nose-first to be able to argue that we had an entry-G profile as low as Dreamchaser, and to provide slightly more entry maneuverability to be able to easily hit my aim point for air-capture by recovery helicopters, as well.  And in the nose-first atitude, once captured, the spacecraft is stable under tow; this is important for ride comfort for the crew, especially for "non-astronaut" passengers.

[NotGncDude]

Very well thought out. Thanks.

[RocketmanUS]

1) Shuttle like without the upmass.
2) The outside shell looks like the Rocketplane Kistler K-1 upper stage.
3) The inside looks as if the crew module can be taken out between   flights or replace with cargo?
4) Could it work with the Stratolaunch?
5) What is the XV's mass fuely loaded?
6) What is the XV's dry mass and dimensions inside and out?
7) Similar without the wings to Lockheeds 2005 CEV.
8 ) What happened to the CXV design with Quick Reach II? It seemed to be cheap and safe for crew.

[RocketmanUS]

I like what you have done and I have 3 questions.

1. I noticed that during launch the crew is forward facing, and during descent the crew is rearward facing. Is there no pilot station? I ask because I question the need for reorientation. The presentation says the re-entry loading is < 2g's and I don't understand why the seats need to be rotated in that benign environment.

2. Was any design consideration given to the OM actually being a Bigelow inflatable? It looks to be a perfect match.

3. What is the contingency landing mode if the helecopter misses the grab?

Thanks for sharing this.

1) I incorporated our 2005 rotating fabric seat into this design for a couple of reasons.  One, it is very lightweight, 10% of an Orbiter middeck seat.  Two, it can be stowed while on orbit. Finally, it is very G tolerant in the event of high flight path angle aborts.  In such an abort, it can rotate to allow crew to take loads on their backs rather than eyeballs out, such the trajectory demand such a capability.

There is no pilot station.  Pilots use handheld multi-function device similar to but more capable than the Soyuz handheld to provide abort commands during ascent, on-orbit docking control and similar functions.  They can occupy any seat and also float about the cabin (including into the OM) with the device.

2) It is certainly possible the OM could be replaced by an inflatable for specific missions (say, tourism), but I didn't see any reason to do so at this point, and it would have added another uncertainty to the evaluation.

3) The nominal ISS mission re-entry landing point is set as US West Coast, about 20 KM offshore.  This eases FAA permitting.  Helos stage from California, and perform the recovery.  If they miss, the spacecraft lands in the water, which requires it be rebuilt at the factory.  If the capture is successful, it is air-towed (stably, I might add, with high ride comfort unlike capsules) to shore where it is deposited in a cradle for easy crew egress.  If it overshoots and comes down on land, the airframe is scrapped, but the crew survives due to the fabric seats.  Finally, there is a crew bailout option that extracts the crew on a "stick" with survival gear should the mains become fouled or failed.

CXV was it not water landing?
Was it reusable after water landing?

[Robotbeat]

Air-capture nominally, splashdown if they miss. Reusable either way (has to be rebuilt if splashed). It says right in your quote!

[HIP2BSQRE]

I wonder if they (NASA) read the same proposal we wrote, frankly.

Hey, "we" can start some cool conspiricy rumors going around about intercepted emails and stuff! I'm getting WAY out of practice in tweaking conspiricy theory's (and their supporters )

For example, they speak about lack of off-nominal landing calculations and other FAA license related analyses.  Our proposal explained very clearly that we targeted open ocean off the California coast to reduce FAA license risks.  Our off-nominal strategy is a "normal" water landing, or a hard land landing (both similar to Apollo), with the former case requiring refurbishment and the latter necessitating scraping the vehicle but with crew survival due to our unique fabric seats.

Ok that's probably directly related TO the "seats" after all these are pretty much the same folks who keep insisting that "Mechanical Counter-Pressure" is an unworkable idea for space suits and then have to hand out cash awards to people who actually show it DOES work and work well...
(And then they turn around and put out CONTRACTS for "advanced" work that keep going back towards full-pressure suits... THAT was a "kick-in-the-pants" news item for me )

Maybe you need to convince NASCAR to put in a version of your seat, THAT might turn some heads

In another place they say we have unrestrained crew during entry and landing.  WTF?  The crew would be fully restrained.

I don't see that anywhere in your proposal really... The crew seems fully "unrestrained" and could have all sorts of things happening during entry and landing. Wild parties, free-internet, cabin drinks, heck I don't see any imposed "restraint" listed at all! Where's the Sky-Marshall sit?
(Running and Ducking now... )

Then they complain that we provided insufficient detail to evaluate launch vehicle integration.  Eh?  We explained carefully that there was only a bolted joint between LV and spacecraft, no other interface (fluid, electrical, etc.).

Well OBVIOUSLY if you don't need support from the LV then you don't need support from NASA so there ;P

(Actually, now that I read that it actually makes a sort of "bureaucratic-think" kind of sense... But I REALLY don't want to think that through too much... Refer back to other statement about mental damage involved )

They state that we failed to provide sufficient detail on the technical risks of launch-escape-integral-abort recovery system.  Pardon moi?  Our partner HMX holds the patent.  Their previous CCDEV1 proposal was highly detailed, and was referenced.

All true of course and while not "defending" the question I WILL point out that there is a patent out there for a "Mobile Defense System" or some such that is a monsterous "vehicle" powered by half a dozen PBR-nuclear reactors, hovers on plasma jets and sprouts dozens of "plasma" cannon with about a paragrah of "jargon" and about 70 pages of "pictures" of the inner workings of the various weapons systems. (NICE art but totally un-realistic in any sense)

NOT saying that the proposed ARS is ANYTHING like such but my point is having a "patent" doesn't neccesarily mean it will actually work....

On the "gripping" hand however I'd have to call incorrect-check on this objection as the proposed system is fairly "conventional" overall and the ONLY major "difference" is you're not base-lining solid rockets for the system which is NOT sufficiently "different" from other proposals to require a highly detailed technical risk assesment.

I have argued the issue of skin in the game in other forums here, and won't repeat myself, except to note that our reading of the RFP (and responses to questions from contractors answered by NASA) was that skin was not required if the amount requested for CCDEV2 was low enough, though they didn't give a figure of what was "low."  We asked for thirty million dollars to perform more work that any of the of the contractors who won space Act agreements will do with both NASA and their own funds.  Our past performance on CE&R shows we could have met our milestones...which were mostly hardware based, and not design reviews as other contractors proposed.

Well THAT along with boldly pointing out in slide-2 of the presentation that NASA would NOT be your "primary" customer was probably some-what related to the reasons for not being among the chosen few

I'm a HUGE agree though that CCDev should not EVER have been or be about "winning-or-losing" but encouraging the maximum amount of competition and inovation as possible.

NOW of course all you or I have to do is manage to get appointed as Director of NASA....  :::GRIN:::

Randy

Round 3 is about to start..will you put in another proposal??? 

[HIP2BSQRE]

The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. 

A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle.  Function distilled down to its most basic form.

I Have to second that opinion.

What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit.  I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?

Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.

Yeah, just call me a dreamer!

During the 1960s, single astronauts trained to conduct docks alone.  So I don't see any reason why a single CXV crewman could not do the same.

What are your plans now?

Anything that doesn't involve submission of a proposal for NASA or USAF.

Your proposal would have had the ability to launch up to 8 crew at once.  Do you see a market for up to 8 crew being launches at one time--govt. or civilian?

[krytek]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

[HMXHMX]

I wonder if they (NASA) read the same proposal we wrote, frankly.

Hey, "we" can start some cool conspiricy rumors going around about intercepted emails and stuff! I'm getting WAY out of practice in tweaking conspiricy theory's (and their supporters )

For example, they speak about lack of off-nominal landing calculations and other FAA license related analyses.  Our proposal explained very clearly that we targeted open ocean off the California coast to reduce FAA license risks.  Our off-nominal strategy is a "normal" water landing, or a hard land landing (both similar to Apollo), with the former case requiring refurbishment and the latter necessitating scraping the vehicle but with crew survival due to our unique fabric seats.

Ok that's probably directly related TO the "seats" after all these are pretty much the same folks who keep insisting that "Mechanical Counter-Pressure" is an unworkable idea for space suits and then have to hand out cash awards to people who actually show it DOES work and work well...
(And then they turn around and put out CONTRACTS for "advanced" work that keep going back towards full-pressure suits... THAT was a "kick-in-the-pants" news item for me )

Maybe you need to convince NASCAR to put in a version of your seat, THAT might turn some heads

In another place they say we have unrestrained crew during entry and landing.  WTF?  The crew would be fully restrained.

I don't see that anywhere in your proposal really... The crew seems fully "unrestrained" and could have all sorts of things happening during entry and landing. Wild parties, free-internet, cabin drinks, heck I don't see any imposed "restraint" listed at all! Where's the Sky-Marshall sit?
(Running and Ducking now... )

Then they complain that we provided insufficient detail to evaluate launch vehicle integration.  Eh?  We explained carefully that there was only a bolted joint between LV and spacecraft, no other interface (fluid, electrical, etc.).

Well OBVIOUSLY if you don't need support from the LV then you don't need support from NASA so there ;P

(Actually, now that I read that it actually makes a sort of "bureaucratic-think" kind of sense... But I REALLY don't want to think that through too much... Refer back to other statement about mental damage involved )

They state that we failed to provide sufficient detail on the technical risks of launch-escape-integral-abort recovery system.  Pardon moi?  Our partner HMX holds the patent.  Their previous CCDEV1 proposal was highly detailed, and was referenced.

All true of course and while not "defending" the question I WILL point out that there is a patent out there for a "Mobile Defense System" or some such that is a monsterous "vehicle" powered by half a dozen PBR-nuclear reactors, hovers on plasma jets and sprouts dozens of "plasma" cannon with about a paragrah of "jargon" and about 70 pages of "pictures" of the inner workings of the various weapons systems. (NICE art but totally un-realistic in any sense)

NOT saying that the proposed ARS is ANYTHING like such but my point is having a "patent" doesn't neccesarily mean it will actually work....

On the "gripping" hand however I'd have to call incorrect-check on this objection as the proposed system is fairly "conventional" overall and the ONLY major "difference" is you're not base-lining solid rockets for the system which is NOT sufficiently "different" from other proposals to require a highly detailed technical risk assesment.

I have argued the issue of skin in the game in other forums here, and won't repeat myself, except to note that our reading of the RFP (and responses to questions from contractors answered by NASA) was that skin was not required if the amount requested for CCDEV2 was low enough, though they didn't give a figure of what was "low."  We asked for thirty million dollars to perform more work that any of the of the contractors who won space Act agreements will do with both NASA and their own funds.  Our past performance on CE&R shows we could have met our milestones...which were mostly hardware based, and not design reviews as other contractors proposed.

Well THAT along with boldly pointing out in slide-2 of the presentation that NASA would NOT be your "primary" customer was probably some-what related to the reasons for not being among the chosen few

I'm a HUGE agree though that CCDev should not EVER have been or be about "winning-or-losing" but encouraging the maximum amount of competition and inovation as possible.

NOW of course all you or I have to do is manage to get appointed as Director of NASA....  :::GRIN:::

Randy

Round 3 is about to start..will you put in another proposal??? 

No.

[HMXHMX]

The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. 

A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle.  Function distilled down to its most basic form.

I Have to second that opinion.

What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit.  I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?

Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.

Yeah, just call me a dreamer!

During the 1960s, single astronauts trained to conduct docks alone.  So I don't see any reason why a single CXV crewman could not do the same.

What are your plans now?

Anything that doesn't involve submission of a proposal for NASA or USAF.

Your proposal would have had the ability to launch up to 8 crew at once.  Do you see a market for up to 8 crew being launches at one time--govt. or civilian?

Depends on the price point per seat.  I don't see the market for gov't missions, but thought there was one for private crew, provided the price was right.

[HMXHMX]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

[Robotbeat]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Or first-orbit rendezvous?

[HMXHMX]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Or first-orbit rendezvous?

Yes, that's an alternative.  But recall this topic is about the bid for CCDEV2.  NASA won't support a first orbit rendezvous for ISS.  That's why I didn't propose it.

[oiorionsbelt]

Not sure  whether to ask this here or in the stratolaunch thread, but does anyone know what happened with the t/Space t/Lanyard system?
Would it work with a booster of the size envisioned for the Stratolaunch?

[HMXHMX]

Not sure  whether to ask this here or in the stratolaunch thread, but does anyone know what happened with the t/Space t/Lanyard system?
Would it work with a booster of the size envisioned for the Stratolaunch?

It's patented.  7,458,544  Issued in 2008.

It would work well for Stratolaunch-sized loads; we have analyzed this for another program.  It avoids the need for wings that create the 2G launch vehicle pull-up sideloads, and means the carrier aircraft can carry as much as 1/4 more launch mass, since it doesn't have to perform the a/c pull up either.

[oiorionsbelt]

Thanks for the authoritative reply. It will be interesting to see if it's used by Stratolaunch.

[Downix]

Maybe you need to convince NASCAR to put in a version of your seat, THAT might turn some heads

Despite some in the US's viewpoint that racing begins and ends with NASCAR, Formula 1 is a bigger sport, and would be far more open to such a proposition.

[krytek]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Thank you for the clip.
It's kind of like a hammock. I like the concept, it looks many times lighter than anything I've seen so far.
Would they wobble when subjected to entry/ascent forces?

For reference, here's a pic of the SS2 seats.

[HMXHMX]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Thank you for the clip.
It's kind of like a hammock. I like the concept, it looks many times lighter than anything I've seen so far.
Would they wobble when subjected to entry/ascent forces?

For reference, here's a pic of the SS2 seats.

My original concept actually would have used the individual's suit as the "seat" with straps holding the person in position.  But the fabric approach was almost as light and easier to develop.  In the end, the seat weighed almost exactly 10% of the weight of a Shuttle mid-deck seat, and like the mid-deck seats, it was removable when on-orbit.  That opens up the cabin volume dramatically. 

I don't think side loads would have been a major problems; we analyzed them but didn't have the time and money to test the seat as throughly as we would have liked. 

[RocketmanUS]

For COTS the 2005 t/Sace CXV capsule
Start with as a cargo version for launch on either Atlas V or Delta IV.

If that would have been successful then make a crew version of the CXV capsule for a up to a 270 day stay at ISS as a life boat. Launch on Atlas V or Delta IV with some cargo and when it returns to Earth could bring crew and or some cargo back.

If that was successful then could possible get the Quichreach II and it's carrier plane for crew launch to LEO.

Low cost if only having to start with the development of a cargo version of the CXV. That would have been a good sales pitch for the COTS program.

What I do not get is why t/Space did not go with such a plan? There was no risk and no cost in the making of a new rocket. Only in the capsule for a cargo version to ISS. With the bigger cost and risk in developing the carrier and Quichreach II rocket later.

With the 2005 CXV capsule with a water landing, I see that it could have had air capture as an option. I do not personnaly like air capture for crew but with the capsule designed for water recovery first an air capture could have been added later.

The CXV capsule could have even been configured as a mini lab for a space station.

This new design based on what looks to be from their 2004 design with a pusher system for emergency escape and a lot like the K-1 orbital stage would seem to me to cost more per launch that the 2005 CXV version. And the lose of the XV for reuse if not air captured does not seem to me to be a better idea.

Any chance of the 2005 CXV being built?

[HMXHMX]

For COTS the 2005 t/Sace CXV capsule
Start with as a cargo version for launch on either Atlas V or Delta IV.

If that would have been successful then make a crew version of the CXV capsule for a up to a 270 day stay at ISS as a life boat. Launch on Atlas V or Delta IV with some cargo and when it returns to Earth could bring crew and or some cargo back.

If that was successful then could possible get the Quichreach II and it's carrier plane for crew launch to LEO.

Low cost if only having to start with the development of a cargo version of the CXV. That would have been a good sales pitch for the COTS program.

What I do not get is why t/Space did not go with such a plan? There was no risk and no cost in the making of a new rocket. Only in the capsule for a cargo version to ISS. With the bigger cost and risk in developing the carrier and Quichreach II rocket later.

With the 2005 CXV capsule with a water landing, I see that it could have had air capture as an option. I do not personnaly like air capture for crew but with the capsule designed for water recovery first an air capture could have been added later.

The CXV capsule could have even been configured as a mini lab for a space station.

This new design based on what looks to be from their 2004 design with a pusher system for emergency escape and a lot like the K-1 orbital stage would seem to me to cost more per launch that the 2005 CXV version. And the lose of the XV for reuse if not air captured does not seem to me to be a better idea.

Any chance of the 2005 CXV being built?

That's what we proposed in COTS 2.0.

There is no chance of CXV being built.

[RocketmanUS]

For COTS the 2005 t/Sace CXV capsule
Start with as a cargo version for launch on either Atlas V or Delta IV.

If that would have been successful then make a crew version of the CXV capsule for a up to a 270 day stay at ISS as a life boat. Launch on Atlas V or Delta IV with some cargo and when it returns to Earth could bring crew and or some cargo back.

If that was successful then could possible get the Quichreach II and it's carrier plane for crew launch to LEO.

Low cost if only having to start with the development of a cargo version of the CXV. That would have been a good sales pitch for the COTS program.

What I do not get is why t/Space did not go with such a plan? There was no risk and no cost in the making of a new rocket. Only in the capsule for a cargo version to ISS. With the bigger cost and risk in developing the carrier and Quichreach II rocket later.

With the 2005 CXV capsule with a water landing, I see that it could have had air capture as an option. I do not personnaly like air capture for crew but with the capsule designed for water recovery first an air capture could have been added later.

The CXV capsule could have even been configured as a mini lab for a space station.

This new design based on what looks to be from their 2004 design with a pusher system for emergency escape and a lot like the K-1 orbital stage would seem to me to cost more per launch that the 2005 CXV version. And the lose of the XV for reuse if not air captured does not seem to me to be a better idea.

Any chance of the 2005 CXV being built?

That's what we proposed in COTS 2.0.

There is no chance of CXV being built.

On the second picture what is that attached to the bottom of the CXV?

[krytek]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Thank you for the clip.
It's kind of like a hammock. I like the concept, it looks many times lighter than anything I've seen so far.
Would they wobble when subjected to entry/ascent forces?

For reference, here's a pic of the SS2 seats.

My original concept actually would have used the individual's suit as the "seat" with straps holding the person in position.  But the fabric approach was almost as light and easier to develop.  In the end, the seat weighed almost exactly 10% of the weight of a Shuttle mid-deck seat, and like the mid-deck seats, it was removable when on-orbit.  That opens up the cabin volume dramatically. 

I don't think side loads would have been a major problems; we analyzed them but didn't have the time and money to test the seat as throughly as we would have liked. 

Maybe you should consider trying to market the seats to some of the CCDEV contenders. I mean there's probably enough mass savings for a whole extra person (even if they're not mass limited). And as you say, it's a big plus you can store them away when on orbit.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Thank you for the clip.
It's kind of like a hammock. I like the concept, it looks many times lighter than anything I've seen so far.
Would they wobble when subjected to entry/ascent forces?

For reference, here's a pic of the SS2 seats.

My original concept actually would have used the individual's suit as the "seat" with straps holding the person in position.  But the fabric approach was almost as light and easier to develop.  In the end, the seat weighed almost exactly 10% of the weight of a Shuttle mid-deck seat, and like the mid-deck seats, it was removable when on-orbit.  That opens up the cabin volume dramatically. 

I don't think side loads would have been a major problems; we analyzed them but didn't have the time and money to test the seat as throughly as we would have liked. 

Whay have no other crewed companies gone the way of the "hammock"  If it works--it would save weight and possibly allow an another person in the capsule.

[HMXHMX]

For COTS the 2005 t/Sace CXV capsule
Start with as a cargo version for launch on either Atlas V or Delta IV.

If that would have been successful then make a crew version of the CXV capsule for a up to a 270 day stay at ISS as a life boat. Launch on Atlas V or Delta IV with some cargo and when it returns to Earth could bring crew and or some cargo back.

If that was successful then could possible get the Quichreach II and it's carrier plane for crew launch to LEO.

Low cost if only having to start with the development of a cargo version of the CXV. That would have been a good sales pitch for the COTS program.

What I do not get is why t/Space did not go with such a plan? There was no risk and no cost in the making of a new rocket. Only in the capsule for a cargo version to ISS. With the bigger cost and risk in developing the carrier and Quichreach II rocket later.

With the 2005 CXV capsule with a water landing, I see that it could have had air capture as an option. I do not personnaly like air capture for crew but with the capsule designed for water recovery first an air capture could have been added later.

The CXV capsule could have even been configured as a mini lab for a space station.

This new design based on what looks to be from their 2004 design with a pusher system for emergency escape and a lot like the K-1 orbital stage would seem to me to cost more per launch that the 2005 CXV version. And the lose of the XV for reuse if not air captured does not seem to me to be a better idea.

Any chance of the 2005 CXV being built?

That's what we proposed in COTS 2.0.

There is no chance of CXV being built.

On the second picture what is that attached to the bottom of the CXV?

Berthing/docking systems and cargo storage.

[HMXHMX]

Awesome concept, really good job there.

Can we get a few details on those fabric seats? they sound interesting.

Also,
what's with the "Chief constructor got it right" joke? sorry I didn't get it.

Thanks.  There's not too many details to share.  They are pretty simple, as you can see from the video.

Not so much a joke, as a statement of opinion.  All I was saying is that Korolev understood that the way to get the lightest spacecraft was to split the crew recovery part from the on-orbit pressure volume, a la Soyuz.

Thank you for the clip.
It's kind of like a hammock. I like the concept, it looks many times lighter than anything I've seen so far.
Would they wobble when subjected to entry/ascent forces?

For reference, here's a pic of the SS2 seats.

My original concept actually would have used the individual's suit as the "seat" with straps holding the person in position.  But the fabric approach was almost as light and easier to develop.  In the end, the seat weighed almost exactly 10% of the weight of a Shuttle mid-deck seat, and like the mid-deck seats, it was removable when on-orbit.  That opens up the cabin volume dramatically. 

I don't think side loads would have been a major problems; we analyzed them but didn't have the time and money to test the seat as throughly as we would have liked. 

Whay have no other crewed companies gone the way of the "hammock"  If it works--it would save weight and possibly allow an another person in the capsule.

Our seats were designed to solve a unique problem; other firms don't have the same issue to resolve. 

[RocketmanUS]

About the 2005 CXV second picture posted above

 Quote from HMXHMX
 a Berthing/docking systems and cargo storage.

I see how that would be good.

So could that part on it's sides had tanks and engines for a pusher escape system so not in the way of the solar panels or the access hatch for the crew on one side? If not used the fuel for on orbit use.

What was the estimated mass of that added part to the CXV?

Quote from HMXHMX
Our seats were designed to solve a unique problem; other firms don't have the same issue to resolve.

Was that to have the crew in the right direction during and part of the flight ascent or descent?

[HMXHMX]

About the 2005 CXV second picture posted above

 Quote from HMXHMX
 a Berthing/docking systems and cargo storage.

I see how that would be good.

So could that part on it's sides had tanks and engines for a pusher escape system so not in the way of the solar panels or the access hatch for the crew on one side? If not used the fuel for on orbit use.

What was the estimated mass of that added part to the CXV?

Quote from HMXHMX
Our seats were designed to solve a unique problem; other firms don't have the same issue to resolve.

Was that to have the crew in the right direction during and part of the flight ascent or descent?

Yes, regarding the seats, as it relates to abort and normal ascent.  I don't have the weight information.

[RocketmanUS]

Do you know if or when t/Space's web page will open up out of under construction?
web page: http://www.transformspace.com/Welcome.html

[Jim]

Do you know if or when t/Space's web page will open up out of under construction?
web page: http://www.transformspace.com/Welcome.html

I believe HXMHXM said that there isn't going to be anymore work under that company name.

[NotGncDude]

I don't think we have an HMXHMX Q&A thread so may as well as here.

After designing rockets and spacecraft do you have any recommendations on books or articles to read to get some a good start on the subject? I don't do vehicle design myself but I work close enough with people who do, that I would like to have knowledge and tools to provide some informed feedback when needed. Although I am somewhat interested on the high level trades, I am mainly interested on the details (mechanical, fabrication, interfaces, system packaging, operations, etc).

I am afraid I see similar mistakes done over and over again.

[HMXHMX]

Do you know if or when t/Space's web page will open up out of under construction?
web page: http://www.transformspace.com/Welcome.html

I believe HXMHXM said that there isn't going to be anymore work under that company name.

At least for NASA or other government business.  I do keep the company  in hibernation against the chance that something interesting might present itself in the future.

[HMXHMX]

I don't think we have an HMXHMX Q&A thread so may as well as here.

After designing rockets and spacecraft do you have any recommendations on books or articles to read to get some a good start on the subject? I don't do vehicle design myself but I work close enough with people who do, that I would like to have knowledge and tools to provide some informed feedback when needed. Although I am somewhat interested on the high level trades, I am mainly interested on the details (mechanical, fabrication, interfaces, system packaging, operations, etc).

I am afraid I see similar mistakes done over and over again.

I'm asked this question a fair amount, but I really don't have a comprehensive answer. 

My "smart-ass" reply is perhaps nobody should try to get into this business.  It's a bit like the now tiresome joke: "How do you make a small fortune in the rocket business?  Start with a big one..."

But if one is really determined to learn systems design, I don't think you can do it from texts.  Essentially design is the sort of skill taught via apprenticeship.  We may call them "mentors" today, but it's the same thing.  Attach yourself to someone whose work you respect and learn from them.

In my case, I couldn't find a way to work with such a person on a full time basis, so I did the next best thing.  I befriended many freethinkers in the industry – Rudi Beichel, Bob Salkeld, Phil Bono, and many others – but spent the most time with Max Hunter, who was the designer of Thor and Saturn S-IV stage and the early Starclipper.  I learned a good deal from contemporaries such as my friend and business colleague Bevin McKinney and also Burt Rutan.

Yet in the end, the only way you learn is by making mistakes (and in this business those tend to be big, expensive and in the public eye).  The downside of this process is that you are the recipient of continual, and often brutal, criticism.  You develop a tough skin to deflect those criticisms, but you'd best also learn from them. 

This reply is probably too introspective for your question, but I really don't have any better suggestions.  If others reading this want to offer alternative ideas, have at it.

[RocketmanUS]

I don't think we have an HMXHMX Q&A thread so may as well as here.

After designing rockets and spacecraft do you have any recommendations on books or articles to read to get some a good start on the subject? I don't do vehicle design myself but I work close enough with people who do, that I would like to have knowledge and tools to provide some informed feedback when needed. Although I am somewhat interested on the high level trades, I am mainly interested on the details (mechanical, fabrication, interfaces, system packaging, operations, etc).

I am afraid I see similar mistakes done over and over again.

Start with using the search engines for free books on PDF's.
See if you library has any books on rockets, college libraries might be a better choice.

Some sites have a preview of the books they are selling. Most I've seen are in the $100 range for rocket design.

See if there is a local rocket club in your area to at least talk to and maybe join. Best if they deal with liquide powered engines not just the solids.

[RocketmanUS]

For COTS the 2005 t/Sace CXV capsule
Start with as a cargo version for launch on either Atlas V or Delta IV.

If that would have been successful then make a crew version of the CXV capsule for a up to a 270 day stay at ISS as a life boat. Launch on Atlas V or Delta IV with some cargo and when it returns to Earth could bring crew and or some cargo back.

If that was successful then could possible get the Quichreach II and it's carrier plane for crew launch to LEO.

Low cost if only having to start with the development of a cargo version of the CXV. That would have been a good sales pitch for the COTS program.

What I do not get is why t/Space did not go with such a plan? There was no risk and no cost in the making of a new rocket. Only in the capsule for a cargo version to ISS. With the bigger cost and risk in developing the carrier and Quichreach II rocket later.

With the 2005 CXV capsule with a water landing, I see that it could have had air capture as an option. I do not personnaly like air capture for crew but with the capsule designed for water recovery first an air capture could have been added later.

The CXV capsule could have even been configured as a mini lab for a space station.

This new design based on what looks to be from their 2004 design with a pusher system for emergency escape and a lot like the K-1 orbital stage would seem to me to cost more per launch that the 2005 CXV version. And the lose of the XV for reuse if not air captured does not seem to me to be a better idea.

Any chance of the 2005 CXV being built?

That's what we proposed in COTS 2.0.

There is no chance of CXV being built.

Why is there no chance of the 2005 CXV being built?
A ) t/space no longer interested in it
B ) found it would not work for what price they thought the CXV would cost to build or refurbish per flight
C ) no funds to make it happen private or goverment
D ) other, if so what would that be
E ) if private funds did come about at least as a cargo version to start on a EELV would they build it then

[Jose]

It's too bad the "COTS D minus" discussions never went anywhere...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14358.msg315634#msg315634

[HIP2BSQRE]

It's too bad the "COTS D minus" discussions never went anywhere...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14358.msg315634#msg315634

How much would this capability cost???

[Robotbeat]

I don't think we have an HMXHMX Q&A thread so may as well as here.

After designing rockets and spacecraft do you have any recommendations on books or articles to read to get some a good start on the subject? I don't do vehicle design myself but I work close enough with people who do, that I would like to have knowledge and tools to provide some informed feedback when needed. Although I am somewhat interested on the high level trades, I am mainly interested on the details (mechanical, fabrication, interfaces, system packaging, operations, etc).

I am afraid I see similar mistakes done over and over again.

Start with using the search engines for free books on PDF's.
See if you library has any books on rockets, college libraries might be a better choice.

Some sites have a preview of the books they are selling. Most I've seen are in the $100 range for rocket design.

See if there is a local rocket club in your area to at least talk to and maybe join. Best if they deal with liquide powered engines not just the solids.

Get just about any edition of Rocket Propulsion Elements by Sutton (except for maybe the first version, a lot was added in the second). That teaches the very basics of rocketry. Really excellent. You can get it for pretty cheap used online, and I recommend getting a hard copy.

As far as systems engineering... The best resource I've found is this:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/video-lectures/

But this is all likely too beginner-level for you.

[RanulfC]

Maybe you need to convince NASCAR to put in a version of your seat, THAT might turn some heads

Despite some in the US's viewpoint that racing begins and ends with NASCAR, Formula 1 is a bigger sport, and would be far more open to such a proposition.

Rotating seats? In THOSE little things? Besides which we're going for a "targeted" audience here... NASA, Huntsville, Alabama... :::;grin:::

(Note that the only car racing event I ever attended was a Can-Am classic so NASCAR is NOT my idea of racing )

Randy

[RocketmanUS]

With China's Shenzhou spacecraft they had a plan on leaving the orbital section at one of their future space stations to add usable volume to the station.

The new t/Space XV "Transport Vehicle" with the OM " Orbital Module".
Would the OM have a similar roll to slowly add usable volume to a space station or even the main blocks to make a station with nodes and added solar panels?

OM looks to have ports on both ends and main engines on one end. Does it have a RCS? Is there any more public information on the OM?

[RocketmanUS]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

[HMXHMX]

With China's Shenzhou spacecraft they had a plan on leaving the orbital section at one of their future space stations to add usable volume to the station.

The new t/Space XV "Transport Vehicle" with the OM " Orbital Module".
Would the OM have a similar roll to slowly add usable volume to a space station or even the main blocks to make a station with nodes and added solar panels?

OM looks to have ports on both ends and main engines on one end. Does it have a RCS? Is there any more public information on the OM?

The intent was to use the OM to build station volume.  It would have had an RCS.  No further info is available publicly.

[HMXHMX]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

The 2005 CEV was meant to operate freely in cis-lunar space.  It would have had a hydrogen-cooled heat shield so it was meant to be able to manage an indefinite number of aerobraking maneuvers.

[Prober]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

The 2005 CEV was meant to operate freely in cis-lunar space.  It would have had a hydrogen-cooled heat shield so it was meant to be able to manage an indefinite number of aerobraking maneuvers.

impressive......know of your work with H2O2 engines in prior projects.  Did any of the H2O2 engines or RCS translatle into your future projects?

[HMXHMX]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

The 2005 CEV was meant to operate freely in cis-lunar space.  It would have had a hydrogen-cooled heat shield so it was meant to be able to manage an indefinite number of aerobraking maneuvers.

impressive......know of your work with H2O2 engines in prior projects.  Did any of the H2O2 engines or RCS translatle into your future projects?

Thanks.

About H2O2. No, not really.  While H2O2 may have its uses, I haven't found it makes sense for RCS due to storability and cat pack life issues.  I like the minimum impulse bit of cold or warm gas for prox ops, and the ultra-long term storability and simplicity of gas-gas RCS/OMS for low delta V missions (i.e., LEO ISS rendezvous).  While the mass fraction isn't good, such a gas-gas system is pretty simple, requiring no propellant management devices, is useable as a hot, warm or cold gas thruster depending on mix ratio or by switching off one propellant, and makes a very nice integral abort solution for ascent.  I favor GOX and CNG (methane) for those propellants.  (See JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS, Vol. 48, No. 4, July–August 2011 or AIAA 2010-8839.)

[RocketmanUS]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

The 2005 CEV was meant to operate freely in cis-lunar space.  It would have had a hydrogen-cooled heat shield so it was meant to be able to manage an indefinite number of aerobraking maneuvers.

Thanks for that, that answered even more on the heat shield with the hydrogen cooling.

What was the thrust and ISP of the engines? Were there to be eight of them? Did the CEV have RCS and if so what was their thrust?

Could a docking port be put on the side of the crew model were the hatch would be for crew to exit on the moon instead of the bottom of the CEV were the engines are?

[HMXHMX]

Could the lunar CEV of 2005 similar in shape to the CCDEV2 concept be made as an orbital transfer vehicle between LEO and  (EML2 or LLO ) ?

If so how many trips through LEO could the heat shield last?

Would the dry mass be lower if it did not have to land on the lunar surface?
If so how much mass might be estimated that could be saved?

For the CEV lunar tanker if it just went from lunar surface to EML2 and back what might it's estimated mass be without the heat shield?

The 2005 CEV was meant to operate freely in cis-lunar space.  It would have had a hydrogen-cooled heat shield so it was meant to be able to manage an indefinite number of aerobraking maneuvers.

Thanks for that, that answered even more on the heat shield with the hydrogen cooling.

What was the thrust and ISP of the engines? Were there to be eight of them? Did the CEV have RCS and if so what was their thrust?

Could a docking port be put on the side of the crew model were the hatch would be for crew to exit on the moon instead of the bottom of the CEV were the engines are?

I frankly don't recall the main engine thrust; I seem to remember the Isp in the 440 range.  The details are not readily available any more, stored away.  RCS was 100 lbf, based on a GOX-CNG thruster that we tested.

I don't see any reason why a docking port couldn't be side mounted, but we also didn't see much need for that.

[RocketmanUS]

What would it cost to day to develop the CXV throw 1st flight? ( not including the launch as the launch cost would be unknown till a launch vehicle was selected )

Same question for the CCDEV2 concept , however assume the use of F9 v.v as the launch vehicle?

[HMXHMX]

What would it cost to day to develop the CXV throw 1st flight? ( not including the launch as the launch cost would be unknown till a launch vehicle was selected )

Same question for the CCDEV2 concept , however assume the use of F9 v.v as the launch vehicle?

I have no idea what it would cost for the original CXV air-launch concept today.  In 2004, we thought the project was under $500M based on an estimate from Scaled for the a/c that was much lower than what the current a/c is rumored to cost (I know of no data on Stratolaunch a/c price but at the SL press conference Allen said that he was prepared to spend ten times what he spent on SS1, which was about $25M.).

I don't recall exactly what our bid for CCDEV2 was, but w/o the LV, I think we were in the $200M range for non-recurring for the spacecraft.

[Hauerg]

Still think, the t/space concept was the coolest one out there. Especially the lunar shuttle. Was thatspiral 2 back then? Liked the tandem ships plus tandem tankers a lot.

[RocketmanUS]

What would it cost to day to develop the CXV throw 1st flight? ( not including the launch as the launch cost would be unknown till a launch vehicle was selected )

Same question for the CCDEV2 concept , however assume the use of F9 v.v as the launch vehicle?

I have no idea what it would cost for the original CXV air-launch concept today.  In 2004, we thought the project was under $500M based on an estimate from Scaled for the a/c that was much lower than what the current a/c is rumored to cost (I know of no data on Stratolaunch a/c price but at the SL press conference Allen said that he was prepared to spend ten times what he spent on SS1, which was about $25M.).

I don't recall exactly what our bid for CCDEV2 was, but w/o the LV, I think we were in the $200M range for non-recurring for the spacecraft.

A/C stand for air craft?
So Stratolaunch air craft is could be estimated at about $250M? ( that sound about right based on the price for a 747 )

Did the CCDEV2 OV need to be launch with the OM or could it be launch without it to a space station for crew delivery?

[HMXHMX]

What would it cost to day to develop the CXV throw 1st flight? ( not including the launch as the launch cost would be unknown till a launch vehicle was selected )

Same question for the CCDEV2 concept , however assume the use of F9 v.v as the launch vehicle?

I have no idea what it would cost for the original CXV air-launch concept today.  In 2004, we thought the project was under $500M based on an estimate from Scaled for the a/c that was much lower than what the current a/c is rumored to cost (I know of no data on Stratolaunch a/c price but at the SL press conference Allen said that he was prepared to spend ten times what he spent on SS1, which was about $25M.).

I don't recall exactly what our bid for CCDEV2 was, but w/o the LV, I think we were in the $200M range for non-recurring for the spacecraft.

A/C stand for air craft?
So Stratolaunch air craft is could be estimated at about $250M? ( that sound about right based on the price for a 747 )

Did the CCDEV2 OV need to be launch with the OM or could it be launch without it to a space station for crew delivery?

a/c is short for aircraft.

The CCDEV2 OV could be launched without the OM (Orbital Module).  But life on orbit would be curtailed and many amenities would go away, like the toilet, galley, etc.  It would be acceptable for quick crew transfers to a station, but not much else.

[Lar]

Is there a thread for discussing the earlier proposal, mentioned here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24989.msg1050909#msg1050909

which is found here:

http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/tSpace.pdf

Is 15 Mt still considered reasonable for starting ISRU LOX/LH2 production?

[HMXHMX]

Is there a thread for discussing the earlier proposal, mentioned here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24989.msg1050909#msg1050909

which is found here:

http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/tSpace.pdf

Is 15 Mt still considered reasonable for starting ISRU LOX/LH2 production?

I don't know if there is a thread for that or not; we can discuss here if you wish, I have no objection.

I wasn't involved in the ISRU work, so I have no idea if the mass is sufficient.  It doesn't sound unreasonable.

[QuantumG]

I don't know if there is a thread for that or not; we can discuss here if you wish, I have no objection.

I asked on the other thread, but I'll repeat here: am I missing how you're handling LH2 boiloff in this presentation? What were the assumptions for that?

[HMXHMX]

I don't know if there is a thread for that or not; we can discuss here if you wish, I have no objection.

I asked on the other thread, but I'll repeat here: am I missing how you're handling LH2 boiloff in this presentation? What were the assumptions for that?

You mean for the CEV used for trans-lunar transport?  CEV would be operating with vapor-pressurized LH2 and LO2, so venting was minimized after the first burn.  Heat leak into the tank simply raised the available pressure.  We also would draw off propellant for power generation, and RSC/OMS.