Claim: Commercial Crew is going to be a train-wreck in slow motion...

[john smith 19]

I've come late to this discussion but I have been following the behavior of Spacex and OSC.

Spacex. Stated they wanted to do a crew rated capsule from day 1 and designed crew rating in to the launcher also from day 1. Dragon had most of the facilities to support humans designed into it (including a heat shield ready for a trip to the Moon), with the result that upgrading it to carry crew is straight forward.

They are at a fairly early stage in a relationship with NASA.

OSC has a long term relationship with NASA and picked up the remaining funds when Rocketplane Kistler failed to raise their part of the COTS funding. Despite getting c$100m *less* than Spacex and with *no*  launch vehicle design experience in liquid fueled engines they propose a mixed liquid/solid design whose nearest counterpart seems to be the Indian GSLV, with a  capsule cobbled together from various sources which almost looks designed *not* to ever be capable of carrying crew.

They have now got NASA to pay for a "Risk reduction" flight as all this new hardware is untested (which they presumably knew when they bid for the money but do no seem to have taken account of) , which (hopefully) will not discover the sort of "Resonant burning" that Ares 1X found in its solid stage.

Spacex looks like a company with a plan. They act like they want ISS business but their product will be available to non NASA users before and after ISS work. They look like they have already shaken out the bugs through the 3 launch failures of Dragon1.

OSC look like an outfit that saw a bag of cash going spare, knocked up a proposal and now have to make it work. They have *never* flown a launcher with close to the layout of Taurus 2 and yet expect it to start deliveries sometime in 2012?

I get a sense of them making it up as they go along. CCDev was designed to *free* the US from dependence on major outside suppliers. OSC's use of foreign contractors presumably did not break the letter of the contract with NASA, but I think it breaks the spirit of the programme.

I hope they can deliver and make it fly.





 

[hop]

OSC look like an outfit that saw a bag of cash going spare, knocked up a proposal and now have to make it work. They have *never* flown a launcher with close to the layout of Taurus 2 and yet expect it to start deliveries sometime in 2012?

Your history is off, you should read the Q&A with Dr. Antonio Elias thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3911.0

In particular, Taurus 2 was under under consideration well before COTS, because Orbital needed an LV to fly their Delta II class payloads after Delta II goes away.

Regarding experience, your selective focus on liquid first stages appears misplaced.  Orbital does not have past experience in this area, but they have launched more rockets in a larger range of configurations than SpaceX have. They have also built a whole lot of successful spacecraft. One is orbiting Vesta right now...

SpaceX had zero spacecraft experience before Dragon. I don't see any reason to believe this is less significant than experience with liquid first stages.

CCDev was designed to *free* the US from dependence on major outside suppliers.

Citation ? Both Atlas and Delta rely on foreign suppliers...

[Danderman]

OSC look like an outfit that saw a bag of cash going spare, knocked up a proposal and now have to make it work.

I saw Taurus II as a finished design in 2005, so it had to have been in work long before COTS.

Please do not pollute this forum with unfounded assertions.

 

[NotGncDude]

OSC look like an outfit that saw a bag of cash going spare, knocked up a proposal and now have to make it work. They have *never* flown a launcher with close to the layout of Taurus 2 and yet expect it to start deliveries sometime in 2012?

Whoa, way to go w that comment.

[strangequark]

Mr. Smith:

I respectively suggest you go here and start at page 1.

...whose nearest counterpart seems to be the Indian GSLV...

The Taurus II resembles the GSLV as closely as I resemble Cee Lo Green. You will find my picture to your left.

[john smith 19]

I saw Taurus II as a finished design in 2005, so it had to have been in work long before COTS.

Please do not pollute this forum with unfounded assertions.

 

I will note Ed Kyles page on Taurus

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/taurus2.html

Lists the original COTS award as February 19th 2008, but that versions of T2 dated from as far back as the early 90's.

Would you have a reference for this?

[Downix]

Mr. Smith:

I respectively suggest you go here and start at page 1.

...whose nearest counterpart seems to be the Indian GSLV...

The Taurus II resembles the GSLV as closely as I resemble Cee Lo Green. You will find my picture to your left.

But how is your rendition of "Crazy"?