Quote from: Comga on 09/11/2012 04:10 amCue the Monty Python dead parrot sketch. IMOOh no, we're back to electric spacecraft again
Cue the Monty Python dead parrot sketch. IMO
Quote from: Comga on 09/11/2012 04:10 amCue the Monty Python dead parrot sketch. IMO Oh no, we're back to electric spacecraft again
“We are very seriously looking at proposing on the certification phase,” Rominger says, referring to NASA's plan to run a parallel human-rating process as the CCiCap vehicles are developed
"What we hear from these commercial companies is they believe that there's a market for their spacecraft that's beyond the government's need,” says Gerstenmaier. “They believe there's a commercial sector market for that, so even though one of these companies may provide services only to NASA for their ISS activities, the others may have another market to go to. Then I have the advantage on the government side [of] another contractor that I can go back and pick up to go provide services later for some future activity, if we decided to extend, for example, space station beyond 2020.”
Update on Liberty:http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_01_2012_p48-498330.xml&p=1Quote“We are very seriously looking at proposing on the certification phase,” Rominger says, referring to NASA's plan to run a parallel human-rating process as the CCiCap vehicles are developed
ATK needs to build cheap rockets to steal the payloads SpaceX can't launch in a reasonable time frame.To me that seems to be where the money is.If they can't do it I would consider that a failure. They want to be a real launch company they need to step up to the plate and compete.
Quote from: spectre9 on 10/06/2012 03:47 amATK needs to build cheap rockets to steal the payloads SpaceX can't launch in a reasonable time frame.To me that seems to be where the money is.If they can't do it I would consider that a failure. They want to be a real launch company they need to step up to the plate and compete.Given the cost of stacking the SRBs and the massive GSE needed to process them, there is no prospect of their being cost-competitive unless all the GSE is provided "free" by the government.
So ends the stick.
Seems Liberty is dead.No surprise there. It would have been cost prohibitive without the CCDEV2 contract. So ends the stick.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 10/10/2012 06:52 amSeems Liberty is dead.No surprise there. It would have been cost prohibitive without the CCDEV2 contract. So ends the stick. Let's hope so, but it may be a little too early to definitively pull that conclusion.
Didn't say the rocket had to be Liberty.Orbital, Boeing, LM all have their own launcher. They are gaining real experience.ATK wants to invest. This is how they do it. Not by talking about how much they would have put into Commercial Crew.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 10/10/2012 06:52 amSo ends the stick.Are you really sure you want to say that? It's come back from the dead before....
Company: Alliant Techsystems, Incorporated (ATK)Launch vehicle to be certified: Liberty IIStatement of Intent to certify submitted: Expected March 2013Certification plan: TBDPlanned certification date: Late 2016
It appears that a "Liberty II" is now being pursued by ATK and they intend to have it certified for DOD launches:QuoteCompany: Alliant Techsystems, Incorporated (ATK)Launch vehicle to be certified: Liberty IIStatement of Intent to certify submitted: Expected March 2013Certification plan: TBDPlanned certification date: Late 2016See page 17 (slide 13) of this document:http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652037.pdfP.S. Credit to "Costal Ron" for finding this. See the comments section of this article:http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/gao-releases-report-on-usaf039s-certification-of-new-launch-providers.html#comment
