Author Topic: Choices for COTS (Read 3952 times)

gladiator1332 · « **on:** 06/02/2006 06:23 pm »

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060531_techwed_cots.html

My personal favorite is Andrews, as it appears they are building a CEV-Lite (forget who on here came up with that term) It is exactly what NASA needs for ISS transport. You do not need the same heavy Lunar CEV for the ISS, therefore it makes sense for Andrews to build a stripped down version. There are some images on the Andrews site that show their capsule being launched on the CLV. Could be a good way for the CLV to get more flights. It could end up being the sheapest to develop, as their launch vehicle development costs are already being covered by NASA.

While Space Dev has the coolest looking design, as they are the only ones going with a winged vehicle, I don't see how they will do all of this for only $500 million. Traditionally winged vehicles do cost more, however, if anyone is going to pull off a winged vehicle it is them. To me they are a longshot.

I think if Space-X can work out the problems with Falcon and get a sucessful launch, they may also have a good shot at this. Their concept reminds me of the old AAS design that T/Space based some of their initial work off of (before the Corona style capsule). The capsule should be simple to build, they just need to get the Falcon 9 off the drawing board.

Space Hab plans to use an EELV, so tehy could be a possible choice to please the EELV crowd. We may see some deal where Boeing and Lockheed are quiet about the SDLVs for the VSE, but NASA must promise EELVs for COTS. Their spacecraft also seem to be very simple, more like spacetugs if you ask me. I believe Space Hab has a very good chance both from a political and design standpoint.

Their choice of engine may kill Kistler...made in Russia. And I do believe that those engines are not currently in production, so you have that whole problem. However, Kistler has stated that the K-1 is 75% complete. They've been working on this concept for so long now, I really just hope it works out for them in some way.

T/Space has done a lot of work in a short amount of time. And they have said all along that they can do everything for much less. However, could Rutan hurt their chances with NASA. He has been very outspoken about the VSE, and I am sure he does not have too many friends over at NASA. Rutan is also busy with Virgin Galactic and SS2. NASA could be fearful that he does not have the time to build the CXV.

Jim · « **Reply #1 on:** 06/02/2006 06:40 pm »

This is old news

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2498&posts=1&mid=35968&highlight=cots&highlightmode=1&action=search#M35968

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1949&posts=377&mid=35982&highlight=cots&highlightmode=1&action=search#M35982

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #2 on:** 06/02/2006 06:41 pm »

Very old news and moved.

Jim · « **Reply #3 on:** 06/02/2006 06:50 pm »

it is not winner take all. All six could get some money. NASA isn't paying to develop hardware, they are paying to see demonstrations of capabilities.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #4 on:** 06/02/2006 07:27 pm »

I like the SpaceHAB and KistlerRP designs with the advantage to Kistler (Because they have most of a vehicle built) Although I guess you could say SpaceX has a vehicle and a COTS pod should be pretty easy to come up.

I don't care who gets what as long as there are two viable commercial operators. I dearly hope that this works and it is the real start of commercial services to orbit.

Launching on a CLV is going to kill anything resembling a cost advantage for sure.

Jim · « **Reply #5 on:** 06/02/2006 07:35 pm »

Spacehab could use Falcon and others too.

mlorrey · « **Reply #6 on:** 06/03/2006 03:06 am »

I will be very happy if we see various companies using each others systems together to achieve viable orbital service.

bad_astra · « **Reply #7 on:** 06/03/2006 03:41 am »

Have to admit, I really like what I've seen from both SpaceHab and SpaceDev, and they both have proven track records. Spacedev has shown it can provide a motor on spec very quickly, and the HL20 design is well proven already. SpaceHab knows how to build, period.

Jim · « **Reply #8 on:** 06/03/2006 02:48 pm »

Quote

bad_astra - 2/6/2006 11:28 PM

Have to admit, I really like what I've seen from both SpaceHab and SpaceDev, and they both have proven track records. Spacedev has shown it can provide a motor on spec very quickly, and the HL20 design is well proven already. SpaceHab knows how to build, period.

Spacehab hasn't built anything.

Astrium built the ICC for them (and currently owns the rights, Spacehab only markets it for them). Alenia built the shells of the modules and MDAC/Boeing outfitted them. Spacehab has yet to fly anything on their own since letting go of Boeing.

bad_astra · « **Reply #9 on:** 06/03/2006 05:34 pm »

They are still spacehab pieces of equipment.

Jim · « **Reply #10 on:** 06/03/2006 05:41 pm »

Quote

bad_astra - 3/6/2006 1:21 PM

They are still spacehab pieces of equipment.

They have no manufacturing knowledge.

I bought a truck from Ford and operate it but I don't call it a Jim truck or vehicle.

They haven't even taken their Hab for a ride by themselves