Author Topic: Next Gen Shuttle-Capable vehicle interest as secret effort to save orbiters ends (Read 168596 times)

Lars_J · « **Reply #220 on:** 12/21/2011 05:01 pm »

Quote from: notsorandom on 12/21/2011 04:42 pm

To me at least, Stratolaunch is doing something that has been tried many times before, in a market which doesn't have much room for newcomers. This new shuttle initiative looks like it is trying to open up a new and novel market.

How is it a new and novel market? They want to recreate the Shuttle - Yet its capability was there for 30 years.

Unless this business case suddenly materialized, where were these investors the last couple of years, when a smooth transition from Gov't to commercial shuttle ops could have been possible? (If there really was interest)

If you want to keep believing, don't say you weren't warned...

Namechange User · « **Reply #221 on:** 12/21/2011 05:09 pm »

Quote from: yg1968 on 12/21/2011 04:58 pm

As Robotbeat indicated in another post, Shuttle has benefited from government money in the past. So I am not sure that you can call this an entirely private venture either.

Along those lines it was very much known and discussed the current orbiter and STS elements would require major refit. This is to include components, entire systems and elements and would not be provided or funded by NASA (do not look to much into that word please).

I don't recall ever saying taking advantage of past investments was a bad thing. SpaceX certainly did that early on and Boeing too, in addition to the funds now being appropriated now, if you would like a point of reference.

Thanks for the conversation but I'm done now as I can see certain posters starting to circle and wanting to turn this into something unhealthy. I hope these and the last few comments help.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #222 on:** 12/21/2011 06:19 pm »

...
FWIW, I have no problem with this new effort possibly using government (DoD or NASA) funding or possibly having the government as a customer needed to make the business plan work.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #223 on:** 12/21/2011 06:32 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/21/2011 06:19 pm

...
FWIW, I have no problem with this new effort possibly using government (DoD or NASA) funding or possibly having the government as a customer needed to make the business plan work.

Well that's a load off, thanks Chris!

I think this covers about three members. No one is in any position to discuss the business case on this thread, as they are doing in blind and showing only themselves up in the process.

It doesn't, however, take many brain cells to work out that this group would have been laughed out of NASA HQ within the first day if they didn't have a solid and expansive proposal.

The fact they met lots of times, to the point I was sure the story would leak given the amount of people involved (but that's a reflection on other media), even into the Senate arena. While I was sat on the story, I was hearing of a meeting a day at one point and I'm probably not allowed to name names, but you'd know them instantly. These aren't people who waste time on such things. Should be a clue folks!

Of course, to expect to see the buisiness case on here, don't be silly. But I hope you apply similar "my calculator says no" approach with all other bodies.

If that still leaves some of you with thought process of "Oh, I bet they drew it up on a back of a cig packet" then you need to stand up, walk to the door, open the door, go out, take a deep breath, slap yourself across the face and return to the keyboard before posting anything else

yg1968 · « **Reply #224 on:** 12/21/2011 07:04 pm »

In any event, the fact that more and more people (Stratolaunch and commercial Shuttle being the latest ones) see a business case for spacecrafts carrying both crew and cargo to space is good news. I think that people on this forum tend to understimate the potential of that market.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #225 on:** 12/21/2011 07:14 pm »

Quote from: yg1968 on 12/21/2011 07:04 pm

In any event, the fact that more and more people (Stratolaunch and commercial Shuttle being the latest ones) see a business case for spacecrafts carrying both crew and cargo to space is good news. I think that people on this forum tend to understimate the potential of that market.

I hope it's underestimation, not realism! Starry-eyed space fans like all of us on NASASpaceflight.com would like nothing more than a big market for human spaceflight.

Healthy skepticism is healthy. If there's a market for private human spaceflight, it's not going to be limited to just the early New Space folk (SpaceX, etc... yes, yes, Orbital, but they haven't targeted this decade's new market). If we're skeptical of SpaceX or Bigelow because their big new market doesn't exist yet, then we should be skeptical of others, too, who may be pushing for serving similar markets. (Though the possibility of DoD as a customer separate from the private spaceflight market greatly improves my opinion of the possibility of success for this venture.)

I have all the best hopes for this new company and wish them the best of luck. See ya later in 2012!

EDIT: Why are we attacked for having skepticism? The smartest people in the world can make mistakes. OpsAnalyst was skeptical before learning the details, and I see no reason why I shouldn't be skeptical before I learn the details! That's all I have to say.

MP99 · « **Reply #226 on:** 12/21/2011 08:49 pm »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12/21/2011 06:32 pm

Of course, to expect to see the buisiness case on here, don't be silly. But I hope you apply similar "my calculator says no" approach with all other bodies.

If that still leaves some of you with thought process of "Oh, I bet they drew it up on a back of a cig packet" then you need to stand up, walk to the door, open the door, go out, take a deep breath, slap yourself across the face and return to the keyboard before posting anything else

Commercial capsules need somewhere to go to (other than for short tourist jaunts).

It always seemed to me that Shuttle was somewhat of a self-contained space station before the days where it had to rendezvous with ISS for a safe haven.

ISTM Shuttle II, especially with longer on-orbit time, could take on the role that Bigelow wants to fill - take a group of people into space, allow them to do some stuff in space (using facilities carried up, rather than rendezvous with a Bigelow), then come back down when they're done.

Spacelab type arrangement / built-for-passengers variant / built-in Bigelow inflatable avoids needs for a cramped commercial capsule whilst waiting for rendezvous / after departure (and avoids risk of a failed rendezvous). Experiments can be prepared on the ground, and don't have to fit through an airlock.

All speculation, of course.

cheers, Martin

notsorandom · « **Reply #227 on:** 12/21/2011 09:04 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 12/21/2011 05:01 pm

Quote from: notsorandom on 12/21/2011 04:42 pm
To me at least, Stratolaunch is doing something that has been tried many times before, in a market which doesn't have much room for newcomers. This new shuttle initiative looks like it is trying to open up a new and novel market.

How is it a new and novel market? They want to recreate the Shuttle - Yet its capability was there for 30 years.

Unless this business case suddenly materialized, where were these investors the last couple of years, when a smooth transition from Gov't to commercial shuttle ops could have been possible? (If there really was interest)

If you want to keep believing, don't say you weren't warned...

All I am believing is that some very knowledgeable and intelligent people have been convinced that what is being proposed could work. Without knowing the business plan I can't say if this would have worked 30 years ago or not. But the fact that this plan was not done in the past isn't an indicator of the validity of the plan. Let me pose this, was there a time in the last 30 year when the politics would have aligned to support a commercial Space Shuttle?

Here is what we know, this initiative is not for ISS crew or cargo. It requires some of the Space Shuttle's unique capabilities. NASA is not needed to close the business case or fund development. We don't know much about their plan but since it couldn't be done with current or developing spacecraft and rockets I think its logical to assume that it is a new market.

baldusi · « **Reply #228 on:** 12/21/2011 09:11 pm »

I've been thinking a bit. And since I ignore how heavy are the operating cost of the ISS, I would like to postulate a question.
Say that you make a self contained lab for standardized experiments (say, nanoracks plus some sort of standard shuttle rack). And say that you have a 30 day autonomy (in LEO) on this theoretical ship. Being able to send everything at once and get it back, would make operations cheaper? Specially if handled as a commercial enterprise?
Could you get the whole mission cost down to (just to put an example) 300M? Say that you can take 1.000 experiment "slots". That would be 300.000usd per "slot". The slot could be a nanorack equivalency. Would there be a market for that?
I have another business/government procurement question. If there was an US commercial lab for nanoracks and such, but with a time limitation of 30 to 60 days in space. Would the government be forced to send the experiments that was going to send to ISS and where supposed to last less than 30/60 days to this "commercial" lab? If so, how much could this lab charge before the government can get back to the ISS because of the extra cost"?

pathfinder_01 · « **Reply #229 on:** 12/21/2011 09:50 pm »

Quote from: baldusi on 12/21/2011 09:11 pm

I've been thinking a bit. And since I ignore how heavy are the operating cost of the ISS, I would like to postulate a question.
Say that you make a self contained lab for standardized experiments (say, nanoracks plus some sort of standard shuttle rack). And say that you have a 30 day autonomy (in LEO) on this theoretical ship. Being able to send everything at once and get it back, would make operations cheaper? Specially if handled as a commercial enterprise?

In order to even justify this it would need to be something that HAD to be return and had to be returned with a low g reentry. If you just needed 30-60 days you could possibly book a flight on Progress, ATV, HTV and depending on the size return on Dragon or Soyuz. ISS get a resupply flight about every other month or so.

It could be cheaper to fit an service module to a dreamchaser than to build this.

There is also the upcoming dragon lab.

Gary NASA · « **Reply #230 on:** 12/21/2011 10:20 pm »

I don't know what magical world Pathfinder lives in, but basic facts, at least get those right! Really would be a good idea to educate yourself a bit before posting on here.

pathfinder_01 · « **Reply #231 on:** 12/21/2011 10:44 pm »

Quote from: Gary NASA on 12/21/2011 10:20 pm

I don't know what magical world Pathfinder lives in, but basic facts, at least get those right! Really would be a good idea to educate yourself a bit before posting on here.

In terms of what? NASA did buy 2 extra progress flights this year I think but if you look at ISS resupply flights this year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_spaceflights_to_the_ISS
With the longest gap June-November caused by the Progress crash in August.
ISS got a flight about every month/other month. VIA ATV, HTV or Progress.
Shuttle sized racks won’t fit but ISS Nanoracks would easily fit in a Progress:

http://nanoracks.com/

Not to down everything I like spaceflight like everyone else and wouldn’t mind this idea but I don’t see the market or better yet they do not describe what abilities that they want to replicate. A lot of the shuttles abilities can be replicated without it so it is hard to see just which ones. The only one I can think of is large cargo return.

Soyuz has very limited return abilitlity(about 100 pounds) but Dragon and the CCDEV craft could provide some return capability. It would have to be something very specific to need what the abilities he specified.

As for magical, well the people who are designing dreamchaser are thinking of adding some ability to do some of the shuttle's tasks like servicing and spacewalks. I can easily see a disposable service module type thing being added or prepositioned in orbit.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #232 on:** 12/21/2011 11:34 pm »

Are there any multi-billion dollar satellites in LEO for which a little servicing could extend their lives for most of a decade?

That may be a market. Just putting stuff out there. (Only thing like that in LEO are spy sats, I think.)

pathfinder_01 · « **Reply #233 on:** 12/21/2011 11:42 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/21/2011 11:34 pm

Are there any multi-billion dollar satellites in LEO for which a little servicing could extend their lives for most of a decade?

That may be a market. Just putting stuff out there. (Only thing like that in LEO are spy sats, I think.)

Yeah that could be a market but what prevents the servicing from being done via automation(i.e. robonaut) launched on say an smaller rocket?

Robotbeat · « **Reply #234 on:** 12/22/2011 12:28 am »

Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 12/21/2011 11:42 pm

Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/21/2011 11:34 pm
Are there any multi-billion dollar satellites in LEO for which a little servicing could extend their lives for most of a decade?

That may be a market. Just putting stuff out there. (Only thing like that in LEO are spy sats, I think.)

Yeah that could be a market but what prevents the servicing from being done via automation(i.e. robonaut) launched on say an smaller rocket?

I'm just throwing it out there.

flymetothemoon · « **Reply #235 on:** 12/22/2011 01:11 am »

I am a relative newcomer to following these subjects in a bit more detail, but I am surprised no one has made more of these facts that jumped into my head when i first read about Kevin Holleran yesterday:

- Reaction Engines have a contract to meet for ESA in April 2012 (i.e. the end of the first quarter of 2012) for the pre-cooler heat exchanger test programme:
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/news_sep11.html

- “This space interested investment group has now switched its focus to a next generation Space transportation vehicle with Shuttle capabilities,” added Mr. Holleran. “The group HOPES to make announcements as to its intentions end of the first quarter of 2012.”.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/next-gen-shuttle-vehicle-secret-effort-save-orbiters-ends/

- "[if the] test programme does indeed achieve its goals, Reaction Engines says private investors will release £220m ($350m) of funds to take Skylon into the next phase of its development."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13506289

- Despite the fact that the Shuttle was tremendously expensive and manpower intensive to turn around and maintain the Richard Holleran study could still make a business case for it

- Skylon should be very much more affordable ("Skylon should slash the price of space flight by one or two orders of magnitude") compared to running the Shuttle, making the aforementioned business case light up like, um, a christmas tree.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/03/uk-rejoins-space-race-skylon

If they were able to make a case and could afford to consider running the Shuttle they can sure afford to build Skylon.

Just connecting a few thoughts together. I will be interested to know what others think.

robertross · « **Reply #236 on:** 12/22/2011 01:11 am »

Quote from: baldusi on 12/21/2011 09:11 pm

I've been thinking a bit. And since I ignore how heavy are the operating cost of the ISS, I would like to postulate a question.
Say that you make a self contained lab for standardized experiments (say, nanoracks plus some sort of standard shuttle rack). And say that you have a 30 day autonomy (in LEO) on this theoretical ship. Being able to send everything at once and get it back, would make operations cheaper? Specially if handled as a commercial enterprise?
Could you get the whole mission cost down to (just to put an example) 300M? Say that you can take 1.000 experiment "slots". That would be 300.000usd per "slot". The slot could be a nanorack equivalency. Would there be a market for that?
I have another business/government procurement question. If there was an US commercial lab for nanoracks and such, but with a time limitation of 30 to 60 days in space. Would the government be forced to send the experiments that was going to send to ISS and where supposed to last less than 30/60 days to this "commercial" lab? If so, how much could this lab charge before the government can get back to the ISS because of the extra cost"?

Just look at SpaceHabs launched on board the STS shuttles, and you will find many of your anwers.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #237 on:** 12/22/2011 01:45 am »

Quote from: flymetothemoon on 12/22/2011 01:11 am

Just connecting a few thoughts together. I will be interested to know what others think.

I would say that is fine work for a newcomer!

yg1968 · « **Reply #238 on:** 12/22/2011 01:50 am »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/21/2011 07:14 pm

EDIT: Why are we attacked for having skepticism? The smartest people in the world can make mistakes. OpsAnalyst was skeptical before learning the details, and I see no reason why I shouldn't be skeptical before I learn the details! That's all I have to say.

I didn't attack you for being skeptical. I am not sure why you feel targeted. I am just saying that we may be under estimating the market for commercial crew and cargo. But I would love to know the details too!

Robotbeat · « **Reply #239 on:** 12/22/2011 02:25 am »

Quote from: yg1968 on 12/22/2011 01:50 am

Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/21/2011 07:14 pm
EDIT: Why are we attacked for having skepticism? The smartest people in the world can make mistakes. OpsAnalyst was skeptical before learning the details, and I see no reason why I shouldn't be skeptical before I learn the details! That's all I have to say.

I didn't attack you for being skeptical. I am not sure why you feel targeted. I am just saying that we may be under estimating the market for commercial crew and cargo. But I would love to know the details too!

Sorry, wasn't aimed at you.