Author Topic: COTS Cuts (Read 33733 times)

Jim · « **on:** 07/17/2006 06:00 pm »

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/07/18/Navigation/177/207853/NASA+COTS+cuts+cause+bidder+consternation.html

nacnud · « **Reply #1 on:** 07/17/2006 06:56 pm »

That's not good news, especialy from the venture capital point of view.

simonbp · « **Reply #2 on:** 07/18/2006 12:12 am »

Not really, it just says their priorities are elsewhere (namely the moon). Besides, this isn't venture capital, it's the government handing out money so that they can eventually privatise ISS resupply. As most of the "commercial space" crowd claims that they make money off of this, it would be frankly hypocritical to claim the government isn't giving you enough money, instead of going out and getting some "real" venture capital...

Simon

vt_hokie · « **Reply #3 on:** 07/18/2006 12:59 am »

Great, one of the few worthwhile endeavors NASA currently has going...

How about a 50/50 split between COTS and CEV, instead of the current 99.5% to 0.5% split or whatever it is?! Why does CEV/CLV have to cost so much, anyway?

nacnud · « **Reply #4 on:** 07/18/2006 01:02 am »

Exactly, going out and getting venture capital for one of these projects will depent alot on the market these new space companies have to operate in. NASA has jst shown how commited it is to this venture by cutting the funding.

Jim · « **Reply #5 on:** 07/18/2006 01:57 am »

I don't see the big deal. It's NASA's choice if it doesn't want to spend money on commercial ISS resupply, which is the point of COTS. Not the development of a new spacecraft and/or launch vehicle. Especially, since VSE is the future, not the ISS

hop · « **Reply #6 on:** 07/18/2006 02:55 am »

If I were a conspiracy type, I'd say that it's a great way of maintaining the idea that space transport can only be done by BoLockMart and that it must always cost billions. Make a half hearted attempt to support commercial cargo, and then when it fails to materialize, you can point to the failure and say "See, it's not possible!"

However, I think the real reason is that COTS is low hanging fruit. It isn't essential to the VSE or finishing ISS, and it is fairly high risk (in the sense that they could well dump half a billion into it an not get anything at all in return). OTOH, if COTS worked and got things to the point where NASA could simply contract payload to orbit in a real competitive market, it could obviously be a big benefit, not just to ISS but to the VSE or whatever follows it.

Avron · « **Reply #7 on:** 07/18/2006 03:02 am »

Quote

hop - 17/7/2006 10:42 PM

If I were a conspiracy type, I'd say that it's a great way of maintaining the idea that space transport can only be done by BoLockMart and that it must always cost billions. Make a half hearted attempt to support commercial cargo, and then when it fails to materialize, you can point to the failure and say "See, it's not possible!"

However, I think the real reason is that COTS is low hanging fruit. It isn't essential to the VSE or finishing ISS, and it is fairly high risk (in the sense that they could well dump half a billion into it an not get anything at all in return). OTOH, if COTS worked and got things to the point where NASA could simply contract payload to orbit in a real competitive market, it could obviously be a big benefit, not just to ISS but to the VSE or whatever follows it.

something like dropping $4 billion into MFSC?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #8 on:** 07/18/2006 06:09 pm »

I agree with Jim, the last thing the VSE needs is affordable alternate ways of getting mass into LEO.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #9 on:** 07/21/2006 05:23 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 18/7/2006 1:56 PM

I agree with Jim, the last thing the VSE needs is affordable alternate ways of getting mass into LEO.

Huh? If we are at the point where NASA wants to suppress affordable access to space because it threatens porkbarrel programs, then I can no longer support NASA in its efforts.

Propforce · « **Reply #10 on:** 07/21/2006 06:41 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 18/7/2006 10:56 AM

I agree with Jim, the last thing the VSE needs is affordable alternate ways of getting mass into LEO.

Ha ha ha .....

vt_hokie · « **Reply #11 on:** 07/21/2006 06:45 am »

Perhaps I'm a little slow to pick up on sarcasm tonight!

Ducati94 · « **Reply #12 on:** 07/21/2006 01:33 pm »

You will more than likely get what you want in 2011. I expect NASA to create with the support of the ISS partners an International Space Station Institute which will manage the ISS. CLv will carry the NASA crew members and will supply funds for cargo but not all the cargo. With ESA building the ATV and Progress in the cargo market that will be the completion for the COTS market. The hard problem to solve is the down mass which the station design requires for operation. The new ways of repairing LRUs which were which were planed to be returned to earth to be maintain may be the lesson we need for Mars missions.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #13 on:** 07/21/2006 02:51 pm »

http://space.com/news/060721_cots_csi.html

While I take this with a large grain of salt since one can not discount a sour grapes attitude, I do believe it to some extent.

Quote

Propforce - 21/7/2006 1:28 AM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 18/7/2006 10:56 AM

I agree with Jim, the last thing the VSE needs is affordable alternate ways of getting mass into LEO.

Ha ha ha .....

Quote

vt_hokie - 21/7/2006 1:32 AM

Perhaps I'm a little slow to pick up on sarcasm tonight!

I was only being half sarcastic, can you imagine a situation where NASA is spending 1 billion a pop on launches of the CEV to the ISS while a COTS provider is doing the same for 300 million? NASA certainly doesn't want that and I am pretty sure they will make sure it doesn't happen.

Jim · « **Reply #14 on:** 07/21/2006 02:58 pm »

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE

Ducati94 · « **Reply #15 on:** 07/21/2006 03:12 pm »

COTS is for cargo only. You will not be hauling 3 to 6 people to LEO and back for $300M.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #16 on:** 07/21/2006 03:32 pm »

CLV was planned to carry cargo, COTS included the option of carrying people. What is the total cost of a Soyuz mission? 12-20 million a seat for passengers but for an overall mission? Well under 300 million perhaps under 300 million for two.

Jim · « **Reply #17 on:** 07/21/2006 04:05 pm »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 21/7/2006 11:19 AM

CLV was planned to carry cargo, COTS included the option of carrying people. What is the total cost of a Soyuz mission? 12-20 million a seat for passengers but for an overall mission? Well under 300 million perhaps under 300 million for two.

The CEV is still planning on carrying cargo

COTS for people is option 4 and wasn't even considered for the first phase. The 2nd phase is the contract for cargo, which is 2009 or later

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #18 on:** 07/21/2006 04:53 pm »

Quote

Jim - 21/7/2006 10:52 AM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 21/7/2006 11:19 AM

CLV was planned to carry cargo, COTS included the option of carrying people. What is the total cost of a Soyuz mission? 12-20 million a seat for passengers but for an overall mission? Well under 300 million perhaps under 300 million for two.

The CEV is still planning on carrying cargo

COTS for people is option 4 and wasn't even considered for the first phase. The 2nd phase is the contract for cargo, which is 2009 or later

Thank you Jim, I think you have made my point for me.

To restate: "The last thing the VSE needs is affordable alternate ways of getting mass into LEO."

To make that more clear let me state it another way. The CLV/CEV is in direct competition with the COTS program, at least in the early years. One, the VSE, is a NASA designed, contractor built, NASA operated program. The other is a contractor designed, NASA approved, contractor built, contractor operated program. NASA is planning to spend billions of dollars on the CEV/CLV and if the COTS program can provide the same level of service at a substantial cost savings it will certainly call the CEV/CLV into question and that would certainly lead to questions about the entire VSE. What are the odds that the COTS program is going to see cost cuts (see link in first post) and possibly questionable decisions (see link in fourteenth post (#51163))? (Not to mention bureaucratic foot dragging, obfuscation, and over regulation)

Jim · « **Reply #19 on:** 07/21/2006 07:04 pm »

COTS doesn't go to the moon, the CEV does. COTS is for cargo demos until 2009. Then the contract for cargo would be competed. COTS for people would be later than that and Station is gone by 2016. A COTS is not "NASA approved". It maybe ok for cargo and allowed to dock to the ISS, but it will have to meet NASA requirements to carry a NASA crew member. Even if a COTS vehicle on a cargo mission requires a COTS pilot, it still may not meet NASA manrating requirements. This would be like having an experimental plane. The FAA allows you to fly it but you can't carry passengers.

hop · « **Reply #20 on:** 07/21/2006 10:59 pm »

FWIW: http://www.space.com/news/060721_cots_csi.html

Maybe just sour grapes, but the basic idea seems sound.

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE because it has been decreed so by NASA. Availability of affordable cargo transport to LEO from multiple, truly competitive vendors would make a number of alternative approaches to meeting the VSE goals available. Especially for the longer term stuff like moon bases and mars missions.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #21 on:** 07/24/2006 05:06 pm »

More on COTS, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/07/23/1384.aspx

I read somewhere that the SpaceX guys are also having problems responding to the large amount of paperwork demanded. (I am sure B&LM are finding it business as usual)

and more developments. http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/PR/NASA_COTS_072406.pdf

zinfab · « **Reply #22 on:** 07/25/2006 03:06 am »

copied over from the "stick" thread:

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 24/7/2006 8:56 PM

Does any of this sound familiar? http://space.com/news/060724_cev_needsrevision.html

That article irritates the heck out of me. I suppose 3 billion is a number "for negotiation," but that's the entire CLV development budget as it stands today.

I'm trying to figure out why NASA is supposed to spend it's CEV development money "stimulating" ISS business.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #23 on:** 07/25/2006 04:24 am »

Sorry, I posted it intending to point out the parallels to the EELV vs Stick debates here. I believe that what they are trying to accomplish is getting all the LEO missions on COTS vehicals except for high mass Calv stuff, including the CEV. I don't necessarily agree with them.

JIS · « **Reply #24 on:** 07/25/2006 10:26 am »

Quote

hop - 21/7/2006 5:46 PM

FWIW: http://www.space.com/news/060721_cots_csi.html

Maybe just sour grapes, but the basic idea seems sound.

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE because it has been decreed so by NASA. Availability of affordable cargo transport to LEO from multiple, truly competitive vendors would make a number of alternative approaches to meeting the VSE goals available. Especially for the longer term stuff like moon bases and mars missions.

Yes, COTS has absolutely nothing to do with VSE. It’s clear, that COTS winners will struggle with unmanned delivery to ISS. It will be even easier for them to go to LEO with tourists and deorbit after few hours without any randezvous or space operation.
We’ll see but it’s clear that companies will be late with their systems and struggle to find enough resources. Only one or two have a real chance to run real space business in next ten years.
Eventually some competition for CEV could arise, but it won’t be in next 20 years.
I think that COTS is meant to develop “american Sojuz and Progress”. Until then NASA can buy Russian, European or Japan ships.

zinfab · « **Reply #25 on:** 07/25/2006 02:01 pm »

If I understand the article correctly, I'm even more irritated. The title is "Vision Plans Doomed, Space Advocacy Group Reports." COTS has nothing to do with the vision, unless this article and that organization are trying to MAKE IT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THEM.

I'm amazed at the ignorance of the space-support community sometimes. They're supposed to be in the know.

bad_astra · « **Reply #26 on:** 07/25/2006 03:39 pm »

Quote

Jim - 21/7/2006 9:45 AM

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE

http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/NASA_Research_and_Utilization_Plan_for_the_ISS.pdf
"The VSE has brought a new emphasis to alternate access to space with the development. of the CEV and COTS projects"

I could site other NASA sources on this, but I won't. COTS would not exist without VSE.

Jim · « **Reply #27 on:** 07/25/2006 03:43 pm »

I meant ESAS and the lunar missions.

JIS · « **Reply #28 on:** 07/25/2006 04:10 pm »

Quote

zinfab - 25/7/2006 8:48 AM

If I understand the article correctly, I'm even more irritated. The title is "Vision Plans Doomed, Space Advocacy Group Reports." COTS has nothing to do with the vision, unless this article and that organization are trying to MAKE IT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THEM.

I'm amazed at the ignorance of the space-support community sometimes. They're supposed to be in the know.

I agree. That article is shit. COTS companies haven't demonstrated anything yet. Giving billions to them won’t have any effect.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #29 on:** 07/25/2006 04:25 pm »

Well... I could say the Falcon got a lot further off the pad than the Stick is likely to. (But then someone would probably hit me)

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #30 on:** 07/25/2006 05:00 pm »

The Space Frontier Foundation is focused on the “creation of low cost access to the space frontier for private citizens and companies, enables or accelerates our use of space resources, and/or accelerates the rate at which wealth can be generated in space.” It is their belief that the CLV does not meet that criteria because; it is in competition with the COTS program in providing lift to LEO, and it, as currently envisioned (the stick), is not viable. Note that they would not be so strident if the EELV was the proposed launcher.

Furthermore they believe that the entire VSE as described in the ESAS is not sustainable or even achievable. At 1 to 2 billion dollars a mission and based on what happened to Apollo they may have a point.

It is clear that COTS winners are not going to have enough business servicing the ISS to make a profit in competition with the CEV, HTC, ATC, and Progress. Nor is it likely that there will be enough NASA, military, scientific, or commercial LEO missions to make it profitable. Even assuming that something like Bigelow Aerospace’s Space station/Tourist attraction was built there would still not be enough business to make it profitable. If, however, a large enough portion of the VSE could be added to the above missions then we might see a viable business opportunity. They believe something like that would actually kick start the whole privatization of space exploration/exploitation.

The problem that has been discussed over and over here is that NASA is constrained by the political realities of job retention and that NASA has had to make decisions that are compromises between what is the best engineering solution and what is politically viable. These people don’t buy into any of that.

bad_astra · « **Reply #31 on:** 07/25/2006 05:02 pm »

The company (I forget what there name was) that had a plan for a cargo module to be brought in by an empty Progress looked good. Shame it didn't get much further. OSC and Rocketplane-Kistler working together might bring about some results, though.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #32 on:** 07/25/2006 05:10 pm »

Quote

bad_astra - 25/7/2006 11:49 AM

The company (I forget what there name was) that had a plan for a cargo module to be brought in by an empty Progress looked good. Shame it didn't get much further. OSC and Rocketplane-Kistler working together might bring about some results, though.

Constellation Services International, yeah I like the idea of using the empty Progress as a space tug. It is an idea that ought to have some use.

Edit: For that matter the HTC and ATC might have that capability too.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #33 on:** 07/25/2006 06:31 pm »

The full Space Frontier Foundation White Paper is available here. http://www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/UnaffordableUnsustainable.pdf

Jim · « **Reply #34 on:** 07/25/2006 07:06 pm »

I have mixed feelings about this. However, I am dead set against the legisation proposal. CEV to ISS is a good way to work out the bugs. Maybe there can be a compromise. Let NASA build its own spacecraft but compete the launcher for it.

PS. I skimmed the white paper, I will read it in detail tonite.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #35 on:** 07/25/2006 07:59 pm »

I am not a member of or affiliated with SFF. I have spent the last hour and a quarter reading this white paper; while they often descend into their own jargon and are needlessly antagonistic I think they make some good points. They could have made an even stronger case if they had used some of the arguments I have seen here and elsewhere on the Internet.

To clear up some of the misunderstanding engendered by Space.com’s article I will quote their recommendations:

The Foundation recommends that CEV Block 1,
which is focused on ISS, be cancelled immediately.

The Foundation recommends that the CLV be
delayed consistent with CEV Block 2 and that the
Atlas V & Delta IV be reconsidered because of the
national security and taxpayer benefits, and the large
jump in the cost estimates of the CLV program.

The Foundation recommends that several billion
dollars of the near-term savings be used to create an
additional COTS competition, to create larger space
transportation prizes, and for service acquisitions.

Whoops, in reviewing (something they should have done) I see that I missed one of their recommendations. Their recommendations are scattered throughout the paper with supporting arguments and then summarized at the end in different wording. For some reason this recommendation was not in the summary.

RECOMMENDATION: The White House and
Congress should specify, as a matter of policy
and/or law, that NASA cannot develop, build,
own or operate a new vehicle for crew or cargo
missions to the ISS or to other parts of low
Earth orbit. For those missions, NASA must
buy a service from U.S. companies

MKremer · « **Reply #36 on:** 07/25/2006 08:11 pm »

Just my own opinion, but this SFF paper seems to be more due to preferential politics than engineering, especially considering how much the CEV program designs are still evolving, with many more engineering and materials research/studies still to be done before any final spec's have been agreed upon.

Jim · « **Reply #37 on:** 07/25/2006 08:32 pm »

There is already a law on the books, it is called the Commercial Space Act and it states that NASA must by commercial launch services. There are some exceptions., manned spaceflight is one.

Also There is no Block I or II CEV. the first one off the line can go to the moon.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #38 on:** 07/25/2006 08:32 pm »

Quote

MKremer - 25/7/2006 2:58 PM

Just my own opinion, but this SFF paper seems to be more due to preferential politics than engineering, especially considering how much the CEV program designs are still evolving, with many more engineering and materials research/studies still to be done before any final spec's have been agreed upon.

I agree completely, they are clearly stating that they believe that NASA's implementation of the VSE is flawed primarily from a policy point of view. The fact that some of the engineering decisions made so far seem to be questionable is just supporting their argument. The engineering that they most question are those that are policy based, CEV Phase I and the CLV. Their suggestion to reallocate "several billion dollars of the near-term savings" is specious since those dollars could be spent on CEV Phase II and CaLV now. Although if you buy into their arguments it does make some sense to beef up the COTS so that it has something operational by 2010.

Jim · « **Reply #39 on:** 07/25/2006 08:36 pm »

COTS doesn't guarantee that there will be a viable vehicle. It isn't a procurement. It is a wait and see. If I see progress I like, you will get some money for it.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #40 on:** 07/25/2006 08:52 pm »

Jim their argument is that there is a Block I, with docking mechanisms for the ISS and no methane engine, and Block II with the LIDs docking mech and with the methane engine that was dropped to get to the ISS in a timely fashion.
They also argue that the COTS should lead to a procurement if not contain guarentees of a procurement. If fact they imply that NASA should issue a procurement for services to the ISS now.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #41 on:** 07/25/2006 09:16 pm »

It is kind of amusing, these guys are space advocates after all, and so while they really want private carriers, they really really want a heavy lift vehicle, even if it is a government one. I would guess that there is a strong contingent at SFF that is arguing for multiple EELV (or COTS) to assemble the moon mission in orbit but an equally vocal group arguing for heavy lift. Kinda like around here.

zinfab · « **Reply #42 on:** 07/25/2006 09:41 pm »

The purpose of ISS visits early in the CEV path is more "proof of concept" and "meeting International committments" (6 people escape). NASA is not planning to make CEV to ISS a very repeatable thing (it'll be too expensive).

I still don't understand why NASA should divert 17% of its annual budget toward the COTS program. Don't they realize that if we sent CLV money (Atlas/Delta OR Ares), they may be destroying the VSE all together?

Unfortunately, this just looks like another painful instance of space advocates eating their own...

Thanks for these sources, Norm. You've reinvigorated this thread!

edited to add: All my disagreements aside, I wish NASA had the will to make the most economical decision on launch vehicles. This ATK SRB thing is starting to make me ill. Maybe I just read too many one-sided opinions on this board, though.

mong' · « **Reply #43 on:** 07/25/2006 10:34 pm »

at the time, there is NO private company able to send significant payloads (10 to 20 tons) to the ISS on its own, so I don't see why NASA should spend such a big amount of its ressources on it, COTS is already more or less an act of faith, and $500 million is enough for that.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #44 on:** 07/25/2006 11:03 pm »

mong' - are you saying that there is no private company able to send significant payloads (10 to 20 tons) to LEO?

mong' · « **Reply #45 on:** 07/25/2006 11:22 pm »

no, I am saying they can't send it to the ISS. some big companies have the launchers (lockmart, boeing) but only 2 (soon 3) governments have the spacecrafts able to perform the rendezvous and docking manoeuvers, and that is no small task.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #46 on:** 07/26/2006 12:00 am »

Now why would a private company develop rendezvous and docking capability unless they were hired to do so? Even if they had wanted to would NASA allowed them to dock to the ISS? This is what both the COTS and the Commercial Space Act are intended to encourage. Why would NASA pay them to develop and market this capability? So that they could focus on the VSE.

Edit: and because the President and Congress told them to.

mong' · « **Reply #47 on:** 07/26/2006 12:08 am »

that is the point of COTS. let them show they can do it, then we might have a job for them. but we don't know if they will succeed, there is no reason to give them more money than necessary, especially in a tight budget.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #48 on:** 07/26/2006 12:33 am »

Hum and meanwhile we (NASA) will assume that they may not succeed so we will build our own system. But... we have a tight budget and need more money to develop our own system. So since they may not succeed anyway we will use some of that money for our system since we know it will work.

Meanwhile SpaceY is out hustling venture capital, "Please sir, give us money so we can convince NASA we can do the job" and venture capital is thinking 'Hum NASA is spending billions on their own system. I don't think NASA is going to hire SpaceY to do it when they can do it themselves' "NO!"

SpaceY can not provide NASA with proof that they have a sound business plan. SpaceY can not develop their system because the money in COTS has been reduced and they do not have enough cash to do it on their own.

NASA says "Well it is a good thing we developed our own system!"

But NASA has spent so much money on their own system that now they can not afford the VSE and so they go to Congress and say "Please sir, give us money so we can do what you told us to." and Congress thinks to themselves 'Hum NASA didn't do what we told them to in the first place.' "NO!"

End of VSE

zinfab · « **Reply #49 on:** 07/26/2006 01:04 am »

Norm, you're missing something here. They can actually SKIP NASA with the ISS. That's the WHOLE FREAKIN' point of COTS and the VSE.

NASA is no longer interested in LEO, except licensing the things they want done. NASA's mission is to push the boundaries of space.

If a company proves they can get to the ISS safely, they'll be allowed to visit. The ISS is INTERNATIONAL-- not just NASA. Remember when Russia started selling tourism seats? Remember how mad NASA got? Remember who won? If a commercial company proves the ability to get there, NASA won't be able to stop it, whether they want to or not. After 2016, NASA is supposed to be out of the ISS business. It'll be harder still to complain about international tourism after 2010.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #50 on:** 07/26/2006 01:31 am »

Hum, perhaps you are right and I am missing something, I am going to go do some more reading. I will leave with one last question. If "NASA is no longer interested in LEO" why are they developing the CLV?

Jim · « **Reply #51 on:** 07/26/2006 01:39 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 25/7/2006 4:39 PM

Jim their argument is that there is a Block I, with docking mechanisms for the ISS and no methane engine, and Block II with the LIDs docking mech and with the methane engine that was dropped to get to the ISS in a timely fashion.
They also argue that the COTS should lead to a procurement if not contain guarentees of a procurement. If fact they imply that NASA should issue a procurement for services to the ISS now.

Methane is not going to be added back for the "near term" lunar missions. And LIDS for APAS is a minor change.

If NASA were to follow what they want to the "t". They can do what NASA does for ELV's. Compete it one mission at a time.

First "COTS" mission let's say is approximately $80m total cost. Now how is a COTS startup going to fund their development? NASA hasn't funded ELV development since the 80's. What is the difference between funding COTS development and CLV development? If ATK/USA/upperstage contractor wanted to go commercial with the CLV, then NASA probably would let them.

Jim · « **Reply #52 on:** 07/26/2006 01:44 am »

Quote

zinfab - 25/7/2006 8:51 PM

If a company proves they can get to the ISS safely, they'll be allowed to visit. The ISS is INTERNATIONAL-- not just NASA. Remember when Russia started selling tourism seats? Remember how mad NASA got? Remember who won? If a commercial company proves the ability to get there, NASA won't be able to stop it, whether they want to or not. After 2016, NASA is supposed to be out of the ISS business. It'll be harder still to complain about international tourism after 2010.

You are missing the point. NASA still has to support the ISS its portion of the ISS, which is above and beyond the ATV, HTV and Progress. This will requires other logistics vehicles.

and no, not anyone can visit the ISS. Yes, NASA can stop them. Russia is different, they are a partner.

NASA doesn't get out the ISS untill 2017 and then everyone has to.

NASA still flys to LEO. ELV's still go there

lmike · « **Reply #53 on:** 07/26/2006 05:40 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 25/7/2006 2:03 PM

It is kind of amusing, these guys are space advocates after all, and so while they really want private carriers, they really really want a heavy lift vehicle, even if it is a government one. I would guess that there is a strong contingent at SFF that is arguing for multiple EELV (or COTS) to assemble the moon mission in orbit but an equally vocal group arguing for heavy lift. Kinda like around here.

Well, they do take a spirited swing at the HLV CaLV under chapter number 2. And I qoute:

"...
Furthermore, the issue of whether or not such a
heavy-lift vehicle is the correct strategic path21
remains unresolved. There are valid arguments on
both sides, and this is a hotly debated issue.
Fundamentally, the correct answer depends on your
objective. If your primary goal is to place humans
on the Moon or Mars, as soon as possible in the
simplest and lowest risk manner, a super-heavy-lift
vehicle is arguably the best answer. However, if
your primary objective is to open up the frontier to
large numbers of people, or to produce large
reductions in launch costs, or to increase competition
and create redundant pathways to space, or to create
a breakthrough in space commerce for the benefit of
humankind, or to settle this new frontier, then logic
and history suggests a different choice...." and so forth.

Read further, and my take is they don't like it one bit.

[edit] btw, their mission goal is stated as "...the large-scale permanent settlement of space. " So it's not the "manned space is a waste... robots rule... " crowd. Quite the opposite. (perhaps too much opposite)

Avron · « **Reply #54 on:** 07/27/2006 05:46 pm »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 25/7/2006 9:18 PM

Hum, perhaps you are right and I am missing something, I am going to go do some more reading. I will leave with one last question. If "NASA is no longer interested in LEO" why are they developing the CLV?

CLV is to do one thing wrt to manned space flight.. is to launch the Crew .. i.e. CEV.. CLV is launch only.. CEV and other stages that the CEV may meet in LEO for longer flights is another matter... So the statement that NASA is not interested in LEO, is way off the mark.. First step is to get to LEO.. then onwards... right now the Only way to LEO is STS for NASA.. but again we see all the eggs in the same basket... CLV..

In terms of the cargo angle, there really should be a direction from Congress to use EELV or other launch vehicle that are made/owned in North America (eh.. hope for Canada here) and not use the CLV for Cargo in any form other than to launch crew.. Now that does not mean that the vehicle that carries the Cargo cannot be NASA owned and operated... when will be get international or even national standards for Payload/LV interfaces???

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #55 on:** 07/28/2006 03:10 pm »

Moved to specific section.

Jim · « **Reply #56 on:** 07/28/2006 03:37 pm »

Quote

Avron - 27/7/2006 1:33 PM

In terms of the cargo angle, there really should be a direction from Congress to use EELV or other launch vehicle that are made/owned in North America (eh.. hope for Canada here) and not use the CLV for Cargo in any form other than to launch crew.. Now that does not mean that the vehicle that carries the Cargo cannot be NASA owned and operated... when will be get international or even national standards for Payload/LV interfaces???

COTS requirements are US only (majority).

There are standard Payload/LV interfaces:
37, 47 and 66" clampband adapters (945, ,1194, 1666 mm)
37 and 61 pin connectors

mlorrey · « **Reply #57 on:** 07/28/2006 09:58 pm »

Quote

Jim - 21/7/2006 9:45 AM

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE

And so long as NASA is in charge, it never will....

mlorrey · « **Reply #58 on:** 07/28/2006 10:04 pm »

Quote

zinfab - 25/7/2006 7:51 PM

Norm, you're missing something here. They can actually SKIP NASA with the ISS. That's the WHOLE FREAKIN' point of COTS and the VSE.

NASA is no longer interested in LEO, except licensing the things they want done. NASA's mission is to push the boundaries of space.

If a company proves they can get to the ISS safely, they'll be allowed to visit. The ISS is INTERNATIONAL-- not just NASA. Remember when Russia started selling tourism seats? Remember how mad NASA got? Remember who won? If a commercial company proves the ability to get there, NASA won't be able to stop it, whether they want to or not. After 2016, NASA is supposed to be out of the ISS business. It'll be harder still to complain about international tourism after 2010.

I kinda doubt this. NASA won the ISS tourist fight, by being able to restrict Russias tourists to the Russian modules. No way nohow that NASA would allow a US company to operate space tours to ISS to use US modules without hefty fees, likely equal to what tourists already pay the Russians for both the ISS stay AND the Soyuz launch.

If NASA tried to give a US company cheaper access, the Democrats would be on the administrations case in no time for giving "corporate welfare".

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush sold off ISS access rights at about the same time as he issued his last presidential pardons....

DigitalMan · « **Reply #59 on:** 07/29/2006 03:57 am »

Seems kinda like wandering the desert for 30 years with another 10 still to go...

:-(

Jim · « **Reply #60 on:** 07/29/2006 03:59 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 28/7/2006 5:45 PM

Quote
Jim - 21/7/2006 9:45 AM

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE

And so long as NASA is in charge, it never will....

Who else would be in charge?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #61 on:** 07/31/2006 03:39 pm »

This article provides some interesting comments on NASA and it's changing version of what COTS is supposed to be. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/672/1

By changing the playing field from a commercial opportunity to a "US industrial development program" with suitably foggy definitions of success, NASA has neatly avoided any need to make any commitment to purchase services from any of the participants. COTS has been changed from a business opportunity to another government handout for developing technology. I wouldn't be surprised to never see any flight hardware come out of NASA's redefined COTS program

Jim · « **Reply #62 on:** 07/31/2006 04:02 pm »

Phase 1 of COTS was never a "pay for service". That's why COTS is using Space Act Agreements. NASA is paying to see incremented demonstrations of capability. Phase 2 is the contract for services. If NASA really wanted to just send logistics to the station, they could have contracted ATV and HTV on Deltas and Atlases (see new thread on this) or paid Energia directly for Progress flights. That's why CSI, LM and Boeing didn't make the COTS cut. COTS is more of what SFF wants but it doesn't go far enough as they are concerned. Imagine what they would have said LM or Boeing made the cut.

Can't have it both ways. None of the COTS entrants would have been able to compete in a RFP for logisitcs services.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #63 on:** 07/31/2006 04:44 pm »

Quote

Jim - 29/7/2006 10:46 AM

Quote
mlorrey - 28/7/2006 5:45 PM

Quote
Jim - 21/7/2006 9:45 AM

COTS has nothing to do with the VSE

And so long as NASA is in charge, it never will....

Who else would be in charge?

Aye, there's the rub. NASA has steadfastly avoided any efforts to move it toward supporting commercial access to space. If NASA had followed the original VSE plans they would have been buying a considerable number of launches from someone other than themselves. Furthermore many of the VSE proposals created infrastructure in space, at L1, LEO, and/or LLO. Many of these could have developed into commercial opportunities for logistical support and perhaps more.

Suppose that fifteen or twenty years ago NASA had announced that they would pay x amount per lb to any US firm that could deliver cargo to the ISS. Suppose that NASA had offered to pay x amount per pound for any firm to return cargo to Earth from the ISS or x amount per person. What would have developed within the industry? We will never know.

Suppose that NASA, instead of developing their 250 Billion dollar in-house VSE, had decided to offer commercial contracts for delivery of the parts, fuel, and men needed to construct a lunar/mars transport system within some overarching VSE. Offered contracts for delivery of supplies, modules, and equipment to LEO, L1 or the lunar surface. Would it have cost more? Would it have been more effective? I guess we won't know that either.

NASA is perfectly happy resurrecting Apollo (on steroids), retaining tens of thousands of contract employees under their massive bureaucratic domains, rather than see anything like the private development of space.

Who else would be in charge? NASA could be in charge, but until they change their vision, until they begin to lead instead of dictate, until they grasp the power that a free market and capitalism gives them, the answer is no one will be in charge.

Jim · « **Reply #64 on:** 07/31/2006 05:07 pm »

"NASA has steadfastly avoided any efforts to move it toward supporting commercial access to space." Other than maaned missions, NASA is required and does but commercial access to space. All of the ELV's are commercially procured.

"until they grasp the power that a free market and capitalism gives them," this line of reasoning has been discounted in many threads. Any firm can develop the service it they want, but they shouldn't rely on NASA. It does NASA no good to develop a market than it is the only customer.

Jim · « **Reply #65 on:** 07/31/2006 05:07 pm »

"NASA has steadfastly avoided any efforts to move it toward supporting commercial access to space." Other than maaned missions, NASA is required and does but commercial access to space. All of the ELV's are commercially procured.

"until they grasp the power that a free market and capitalism gives them," this line of reasoning has been discounted in many threads. Any firm can develop the service it they want, but they shouldn't rely on NASA. It does NASA no good to develop a market that it is the only customer.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #66 on:** 07/31/2006 05:09 pm »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 10:49 AM

Phase 1 of COTS was never a "pay for service". That's why COTS is using Space Act Agreements. NASA is paying to see incremented demonstrations of capability. Phase 2 is the contract for services. If NASA really wanted to just send logistics to the station, they could have contracted ATV and HTV on Deltas and Atlases (see new thread on this) or paid Energia directly for Progress flights. That's why CSI, LM and Boeing didn't make the COTS cut. COTS is more of what SFF wants but it doesn't go far enough as they are concerned. Imagine what they would have said LM or Boeing made the cut.

Can't have it both ways. None of the COTS entrants would have been able to compete in a RFP for logisitcs services.

Perhaps you're right Jim. I agree that none of the COTS entrants could have competed against LM or B or against government backed vehicles like ATV, HTV, or Progress. On the other hand there needs to be a solid business opportunities that spur competition to develop low cost LEO access. Half or a third of a billion dollars is a lot of money to a small company but is it enough to develop a new launch system? NASA is spending between 1 and 3 billion to develop its own CLV. And once the COTS system is developed is NASA offering enough business to keep it developing? While there is some 10 years left to the ISS how many missions does that leave the COTS? Is there any room in NASA's implementation of the VSE for the COTS winners or any private lift providers?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #67 on:** 07/31/2006 05:30 pm »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 11:54 AM

"until they grasp the power that a free market and capitalism gives them," this line of reasoning has been discounted in many threads. Any firm can develop the service it they want, but they shouldn't rely on NASA. It does NASA no good to develop a market that it is the only customer.

Of course it does NASA good, lower cost to LEO, alternate access to LEO to name a couple. If NASA had developed these markets years ago we would have had access to the ISS while the shuttle was grounded.

If these services were available now what would NASA's VSE look like? Who knows what the free market would have dreamed up, I don't think that NASA would have come up with the feathered wing reentry of SpaceShip One. Look at the wide varity of proposals the original VSE created. NASA needs to be thinking outside the box and while they would be the sole customer initially do you think that other countries would pass up on cheap prefab stations like Bigelow's if it were developed for a NASA purchase and then offered on the free market?

Jim · « **Reply #68 on:** 07/31/2006 05:42 pm »

NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system. The main part of COTS is the spacecraft. That is the drive with COTS. Spacehab has the right idea, design a spacecraft that can fly on any ELV, Atlas, Delta, falcon, etc

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #69 on:** 07/31/2006 05:54 pm »

"NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system." Hum... cough *CLV* cough.

No but seriously, what about the t/Space/Rutan "SpaceShip One on steroids" launcher? All weather/ possible major cost savings, now that's outside the box.

Jim · « **Reply #70 on:** 07/31/2006 06:37 pm »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 31/7/2006 1:41 PM

"NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system." Hum... cough *CLV* cough.

No but seriously, what about the t/Space/Rutan "SpaceShip One on steroids" launcher? All weather/ possible major cost savings, now that's outside the box.

I wasn't talking manned systems. COTS is not a manned system.

SpaceShip One on steroids" launcher isn't orbital.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #71 on:** 07/31/2006 06:59 pm »

Actually it is Phase 1 cargo, Phase 2 Manned.

Actually it is. I have not seen t/Space's COTS proposal but it seems to be based on the same thinking as their VSE proposal where they were planning on using the Quick Reach 2 air launched from an aircraft. Check it out on their web site http://www.transformspace.com/ .

mr.columbus · « **Reply #72 on:** 07/31/2006 08:30 pm »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 1:29 PM

NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system. The main part of COTS is the spacecraft. That is the drive with COTS. Spacehab has the right idea, design a spacecraft that can fly on any ELV, Atlas, Delta, falcon, etc

Totally agree. I also think that Spacehab's proposal is the only one that really is somewhat realistic. NASA knows Spacehab is an experienced company with people who know that they can built what they are proposing and stay within some kind of budgetary as well as time limit - that's the reason why they will chose them as one of the 2-3 competitors to get COTS money.

Also I think that if COTS will have any actual result, it is rather likely that it will be a Spacehab vehicle - probably launched on an Atlas V 401. The only bad thing about all that is, such a system will be nearly as expensive but will have less payload than the ATV, and while having a bit more payload but will be much more expensive than Progress. I hope Spacehab focuses on downlink capacity, then it would actually has a real advantage over other ISS supply vehicles.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #73 on:** 07/31/2006 08:42 pm »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 1:29 PM

NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system.

There is a need for new technology that will lower launch costs significantly. The problem is, the private sector, with its focus on short term returns, cannot invest heavily in technology development that would lead to an RLV down the road. That's where organizations like NASA come in. Private industry today to a large extent simply exploits technology that was developed with taxpayer dollars.

mlorrey · « **Reply #74 on:** 07/31/2006 11:59 pm »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 12:29 PM

NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system. The main part of COTS is the spacecraft. That is the drive with COTS. Spacehab has the right idea, design a spacecraft that can fly on any ELV, Atlas, Delta, falcon, etc

There is a glut of expensive expendable launch systems. That is all. There is no supply of affordable and/or reusable launch systems, and as much as you might deny it, NASA is an "anchor tenant" for such a system, provided they actually start putting the taxpayer ahead of keeping government employee unions happy. No matter what the market, anchor tenants have to pony up the cash: no bucks, no buck rogers.

Jim · « **Reply #75 on:** 08/01/2006 12:49 am »

What government employee unions?
Contractors at space flight centers out number civil servants 10 to 1.

Jim · « **Reply #76 on:** 08/01/2006 12:50 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 31/7/2006 4:29 PM

Quote
Jim - 31/7/2006 1:29 PM

NASA isn't looking for a new launch system. The market has a glut. There is no need for a new system.

There is a need for new technology that will lower launch costs significantly. The problem is, the private sector, with its focus on short term returns, cannot invest heavily in technology development that would lead to an RLV down the road. That's where organizations like NASA come in. Private industry today to a large extent simply exploits technology that was developed with taxpayer dollars.

It is not NASA's job to make it easier on the private sector. That is up to market forces. You can't have it both ways.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #77 on:** 08/01/2006 12:53 am »

Quote

Jim - 31/7/2006 8:37 PM

It is not NASA's job to make it easier on the private sector. That is up to market forces.

That's where I have a fundamental disagreement. It has always been NASA's job to perform research into new technologies that will benefit commercial interests down the road. The private sector has always relied on government funded research and development, which is why I cannot fully buy into the notion that private industry can do things better without the benefit of government support. It simply cannot afford to make the long term investment in research and development.

Jim · « **Reply #78 on:** 08/01/2006 12:56 am »

Quote

mlorrey - 31/7/2006 7:46 PM
There is a glut of expensive expendable launch systems. That is all. There is no supply of affordable and/or reusable launch systems, and as much as you might deny it, NASA is an "anchor tenant" for such a system,

NASA is not. The DOD and commercial manifests have more influence. 2 CLaV's and 2 CLV's are not enough requirements for commercial development.

The other launches on ELV's aren't enough in one class to drive commercial requirements. At the moment, small and medium class ELV's are on the verge of shutting down because NASA is the only user and can't itself sustain the market.

Jim · « **Reply #79 on:** 08/01/2006 01:01 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 31/7/2006 8:40 PM

Quote
Jim - 31/7/2006 8:37 PM

It is not NASA's job to make it easier on the private sector. That is up to market forces.

That's where I have a fundamental disagreement. It has always been NASA's job to perform research into new technologies that will benefit commercial interests down the road. The private sector has always relied on government funded research and development, which is why I cannot fully buy into the notion that private industry can do things better without the benefit of government support. It simply cannot afford to make the long term investment in research and development.

There is no magic technology that will make an RLV work better. The only thing that an RLV needs is development money. Unlike EU, NASA doesn't pay to develop airplanes. We are past the point for funding LEO LV development (DOD has its own unique requirements) for unmanned spacecraft. By law, NASA must by commercial launch services for unmanned vehicles.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #80 on:** 08/01/2006 03:46 am »

So, what does the other "A" in NASA stand for then, if not aeronautics?

Jim · « **Reply #81 on:** 08/01/2006 06:30 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 31/7/2006 11:33 PM

So, what does the other "A" in NASA stand for then, if not aeronautics?

That doesn't support your argument . There is no basic research needed for an RLV. Only a business case. Just like the US gov't did not fund an SST (whereas Europe did and it failed commercially), it shouldn't fund RLV development

vt_hokie · « **Reply #82 on:** 08/01/2006 08:05 am »

Quote

Jim - 1/8/2006 2:17 AM

That doesn't support your argument . There is no basic research needed for an RLV. Only a business case. Just like the US gov't did not fund an SST (whereas Europe did and it failed commercially), it shouldn't fund RLV development

I wasn't talking only about RLV's, although I do think NASA should be investing in RLV technology instead of trying to revive Apollo. But I was speaking more about NASA's general role in research and development, and responding to your comment about the EU funding airplanes. And I do think it was a shame that NASA killed its "High Speed Civil Transport" research.

What is the business case for CEV? There isn't one, and there need not be. NASA is not a profit driven corporation, and exists to perform the kind of scientific and technological research and development that private industry cannot realistically be expected to do. Unfortunately, I think this latest lunar exploration program is going to suck up all of NASA's funds and kill a lot of other worthwhile research programs. In the grand scheme of things, it is a strategic advantage for the United States to maintain its leadership in aerospace, and that certainly makes the investment worthwhile.

HailColumbia · « **Reply #83 on:** 08/01/2006 05:57 pm »

vt_hokie... What exactly do you plan to do with your much vaunted RLV if you had one? All you talk about is how we need a Winged RLV. ok. fine. If we built one, whats it for?

vt_hokie · « **Reply #84 on:** 08/01/2006 08:20 pm »

Quote

HailColumbia - 1/8/2006 1:44 PM

vt_hokie... What exactly do you plan to do with your much vaunted RLV if you had one? All you talk about is how we need a Winged RLV. ok. fine. If we built one, whats it for?

(A) Transporting researchers to and from the ISS on a rountine basis so we can actually get something out of the space station that we've spent many years and many billions of dollars to obtain. NASA reminds me of a spoiled kid right now, for years saying "I want a space station" and then when the parents save enough to buy one, the kid says, "I'm bored with that, I want something else now."

(B) Servicing the space station and transporting large replacement components such as CMG's that a Progress or ATV could not deliver.

(C) Hubble servicing type missions.

(D) Delivering lunar or interplanetary payloads into orbit, such as the shuttle launched Galileo.

(E) Delivering the components for beyond-LEO manned spacecraft to be assembled in LEO.

(F) High speed transportation between destinations on Earth (although such might be provided by a different, suborbital vehicle, but the technology would be applicable).

Essentially, a reusable launch vehicle is for doing whatever NASA plans to do with its human spaceflight program, be it research at a space station in LEO or human missions to the moon or Mars. The point is that at half a billion dollars or a billion dollars per flight, or even more, with currently planned launch systems, NASA is going to be spending the bulk of its budget on launch vehicle operations and won't have much left over to actually do anything once we get to the moon. And flight rates will be so low that only two or three lunar missions per year will actually occur, if NASA is lucky.

aero313 · « **Reply #85 on:** 08/01/2006 09:56 pm »

Quote

vt_hokie - 1/8/2006 4:07 PM

Quote
HailColumbia - 1/8/2006 1:44 PM

vt_hokie... What exactly do you plan to do with your much vaunted RLV if you had one? All you talk about is how we need a Winged RLV. ok. fine. If we built one, whats it for?

(A) Transporting researchers ...

(B) Servicing ...

(C) Hubble servicing type missions.

(D) Delivering lunar or interplanetary payloads into orbit, such as the shuttle launched Galileo.

(E) Delivering the components for beyond-LEO manned spacecraft to be assembled in LEO.

(F) High speed transportation ...

Essentially, a reusable launch vehicle is for doing whatever NASA plans to do with its human spaceflight program, be it research at a space station in LEO or human missions to the moon or Mars. The point is that at half a billion dollars or a billion dollars per flight, or even more, with currently planned launch systems, NASA is going to be spending the bulk of its budget on launch vehicle operations and won't have much left over to actually do anything once we get to the moon. And flight rates will be so low that only two or three lunar missions per year will actually occur, if NASA is lucky.

Yeah, and except for your last one (high speed transport) we've got one of these now. How is a new RLV going to be the all-singing, all-dancing workhorse that the shuttle was supposed to be but isn't? I thought we learned from the shuttle that it made no sense to use the same large vehicle to deliver people and cargo. A paper rocket is ALWAYS less expensive to operate than a real one. These are the same arguments that got us the shuttle in the first place.

Should the CEV be winged instead of ballistic? That's at least a reasonable discussion to have. Should one vehicle be used for both crew and cargo? Not a chance. Will whatever comes next be as inexpensive to operate as the studies suggest? Get serious.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #86 on:** 08/01/2006 10:25 pm »

Well, I think I'll respond to that by posing another question. What do you see as the future of space transportation looking, say, 50 years down the road? 100 years? Should we be flying Apollo capsules launched by Thiokol/ATK SRB's for the next century? Or should we do what got us to where we are now, and invest in new technology? At what point does it become okay to start improving technology again, and if we are to start advancing again at some point in the future, then why not now?

HailColumbia · « **Reply #87 on:** 08/01/2006 11:05 pm »

So basically you just want to stick to the space shuttle status-quo. Except you want a new shuttle with 200% more awesome.

Part A: can be accomplished by CEV.

Part B: Large station components could be delivered by EELVs. (I know we need an OMV, but thats easier then an RLV) Crews can use one of the stations many airlocks and robot arms to duplicate all shuttle abilities

Part C: Your right, hard to do with the CEV, but I wouldent say impossible. The Shuttle has only performed a handful of such missions, cheaper to just build new space telescopes then build an RLV

Part D: Not a job well suited to the shuttle anyway, just stick 'em on a Delta IV

Part E: Again, can be done by EELVs, or even better in one big chunck on an ARES V. How much can your RLV lift anyway? Venture star was somthing like 10 tons I think. But I suppose we can assume that this theorectical RLV runs on magic, and can lift whatever you want.

Part F: pffft. would be so expensive, you cant make a business case for this for another 40 or 50 years.

Now, Do I wish that Venture Star would have worked? Of course. I think most people on this board really are fans of the SSTO/RLV idea. But Should they be the primary focus of the space program? no. not at all. In the end, you cant do any exploring, you cant do anything new. NASA is for pushing out the frontier. That frontier is the moon, and then mars, cruising around LEO for the rest of our lives accomplishes nothing. In an Ideal world, NASA would have the money for both an agressive exploration program, and and RLV for LEO duties, but until we get a more NASA friendly congress, we get one or the other, and I pick boots on the moon.

Best case scenerio, the lunar return is hugely popular with the public, NASAs funding goes up, and you get your RLV.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #88 on:** 08/02/2006 12:11 am »

Quote

HailColumbia - 1/8/2006 6:52 PM

Now, Do I wish that Venture Star would have worked? Of course. I think most people on this board really are fans of the SSTO/RLV idea. But Should they be the primary focus of the space program? no. not at all. In the end, you cant do any exploring, you cant do anything new.

And I am going to predict that NASA won't be able to do any exploring or do anything new if it bases its future on outrageously expensive shuttle derived launch vehicles that cost hundreds of millions or even billions per flight and fly just as infrequently as the space shuttle currently does.

zinfab · « **Reply #89 on:** 08/02/2006 12:33 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 1/8/2006 7:58 PM

Quote
HailColumbia - 1/8/2006 6:52 PM

Now, Do I wish that Venture Star would have worked? Of course. I think most people on this board really are fans of the SSTO/RLV idea. But Should they be the primary focus of the space program? no. not at all. In the end, you cant do any exploring, you cant do anything new.

And I am going to predict that NASA won't be able to do any exploring or do anything new if it bases its future on outrageously expensive shuttle derived launch vehicles that cost hundreds of millions or even billions per flight and fly just as infrequently as the space shuttle currently does.

That, of course, has nothing to do with the CEV, but merely NASA's jobs program. If you're going to make a technological argument in support of your RLV, then don't simply bust chops on NASA's "don't cut my program" methodology. The RLV wouldn't be exempt from that, either.

HC outlined the arguments I was thinking about (though he actually did it). The two compelling arguments I've heard in your favor vt (and you didn't even mention them):

1) deorbiting large mass
2) deorbiting injured (low G) crew

No need to build a LARGE mass RLV for the second, and the first has YET to prove financially practical for anything.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #90 on:** 08/02/2006 12:42 am »

Something like Aviation Week's purported "Blackstar" is exactly the type of vehicle I would like to see for crew transport to/from LEO. Whether it really exists or not, it is exactly the type of system I've been wanting to see for years. As for heavy payloads, sure, an expendable launch vehicle can do the job, but at a high cost and without the down mass capability of the shuttle. So yes, de-orbiting large mass is a big one that I missed there. Now, I realize that the shuttle costs as much as expendable launchers despite being partially reusable, but at some point, we'll have to reach a stage where we don't throw away complex engines, avionics, structures, etc. on every flight.

The X-38/CRV seems like it would have made a good basis for a small, relatively economical crew transport for the interim, while we develop the next generation of reusable launch vehicle technology.

zinfab · « **Reply #91 on:** 08/02/2006 01:36 am »

Sorry to channel Jim for a moment, but what large down-mass market is there?

vt_hokie · « **Reply #92 on:** 08/02/2006 01:44 am »

Quote

zinfab - 1/8/2006 9:23 PM

Sorry to channel Jim for a moment, but what large down-mass market is there?

MPLM ISS missions, for one, which will no longer be possible after 2010.

zinfab · « **Reply #93 on:** 08/02/2006 02:00 am »

How much more expensive are 2 ATV launches compared to 1 shuttle flight carrying an MPLM?

And will you put unnecessary crew on board, or auto launch and dock?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #94 on:** 08/02/2006 02:27 am »

Sorry to go back on topic but it is interesting to note that of the six contenders for COTS all but SpaceHab are developing their own launchers. Of the others two are air launched, Andrews and t/Space and the other three are ground launched on their own launch systems.

It would appear that NASA is being offered launch systems whether they want them or not. I have to agree with Jim, SpaceHab will have the inside track. It is something NASA understands and a name they know, not as NIH as the other competitors. Both the air launched systems are probably not even going to be seriously considered although they offer the greatest opportunity for real savings.

vt hokie ought to be happy SpaceDev's system has wings

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #95 on:** 08/02/2006 02:51 am »

It would be really interesting to see NASA go for the wild cards in this deck Andrews, t/Space, and SpaceDev. SpaceHab, Kistler, and SpaceX are offering the same old thing one way or another, a liquid fueled rocket, launched from the ground with a payload. We know that's expensive.

We don't know about air launched large payload to orbit systems and we don't know about a ground launched hybird engine stack like SpaceDev's. Virtually everyone agrees that we need low cost access to LEO but no one is doing anything about it. Market forces are not strong enough to generate a good business plan and if NASA is not willing to make a commitment to some form of VSE that will purchase large amounts commercial lift we won't see any driving market for the development of low cost lift. Until that lift capability is developed we are not going anywhere.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #96 on:** 08/02/2006 03:02 am »

I have to disagree with vt hokie. It's not about reusable, it's about cheap.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #97 on:** 08/02/2006 03:07 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 1/8/2006 10:49 PM

I have to disagree with vt hokie. It's not about reusable, it's about cheap.

How cheap can launch costs get as long as we're throwing out complex liquid fueld engines and complex avionics, etc. with each flight?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #98 on:** 08/02/2006 03:11 am »

Cheap is cheap. No one has come up with a reusable that's cheap.

It is not in LM or B interest to develop a really cheap launch system, where is the profit in that? If there was a market that could generate more profit from a cheap system than they currently get from their ELV system then we might see some development.

The only markets that I can see are the "tourist industry" and the VSE. The tourist industry is not going to make it happen anytime soon and the VSE is not being implemented in a way that would create such a market.

Jim · « **Reply #99 on:** 08/02/2006 06:05 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 1/8/2006 8:29 PM

The X-38/CRV seems like it would have made a good basis for a small, relatively economical crew transport for the interim, while we develop the next generation of reusable launch vehicle technology.

the X-38/CRV is NO different than the CEV. Both are reusable and both need ELV's for launch. Only thing X-38 provided was a little more cross range at a lot more upmass

aero313 · « **Reply #100 on:** 08/02/2006 03:51 pm »

I don't have the answer as to whether ELV or RLV makes more sense financially, but the reality is that in terms of total life cycle cost it isn't clear that RLV is less expensive than ELV. All the paper RLVs (and paper ELVs for that matter) predict orders-of-magnitude lower costs, but the only hard data we have on RLV costs doesn't support these numbers. Why, for example, will a new RLV be any less expensive to operate than the shuttle? Will there be a mythical new thermal protection system that requires less refurb time and effort? Shuttle tiles were supposed to be this (but we're smarter now...). Will there be new, higher performance AND higher reliability propulsion systems? The SSME was supposed to be this (but we're smarter now...). Yes, there have been advances in electronics, actuator systems, GN&C software...but I submit that these are not the cost drivers for the Shuttle. (As an aside, one of the best lines that I ever heard pointed out that while the Shuttle SRBs were supposed to be reused, it's really more like they're recycled.)

More to the point, when was the last time anyone here had an appliance or lawn mower or gas grille or cell phone repaired rather than just throwing it away and buying a new one? Expendable isn't necessarily higher cost. RLV proponents point to the airliner model. The problem is that a) commercial airliners don't need to carry their own oxidizer, b) only need to lift a fraction of their weight, c) don't need to worry about aerodynamic heating, and d) the flight dynamic environment is sufficiently benign to allow graceful aborts. A better analogy might be to compare space launch to a top fuel dragster where the engine, clutch, and driveline only need to live for a few seconds and are rebuilt after every race.

To address the CLV/CaLV cost issue, being Shuttle-derived isn't necessarily a bad thing. The big cost drivers for the shuttle are a) the orbiter and b) the astronauts. Eliminating the cost of refurbing and prepping the (ironically) reusable part of the system will save a large fraction of the cost of launching a shuttle. Eliminating the need to be man-rated (for the CaLV anyway) will similarly save a ton. Reusing infrastructure and trained personnel does have some benefits.

And to get dangerously close to the original subject of this tread, why should COTS be funding the development of a new launch vehicle anyway? When you ship a package through FedEx, do you expect to pay for them to develop a new truck? The alt.space group bleats about commercial services but wants to operate in the same manner as the traditional aerospace contractors. When LockMart and Orbital DID commercially develop launch vehicles and offer commercial launch services, NASA gladly paid the lower commercial prices but expected the same level of service it always received from the cost-plus Delta program. That's why Pegasus costs what is does today. Is there any reason to believe NASA will behave any differently?

Jim · « **Reply #101 on:** 08/02/2006 04:12 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 2/8/2006 11:38 AM
When LockMart and Orbital DID commercially develop launch vehicles and offer commercial launch services, NASA gladly paid the lower commercial prices but expected the same level of service it always received from the cost-plus Delta program. That's why Pegasus costs what is does today. Is there any reason to believe NASA will behave any differently?

There is no difference between LM and Boeing contracts. Atlases were bought the same way as Delta's and had similar contracts. Now all 3 (OSC, LM, and Boeing) have the same contract.

aero313 · « **Reply #102 on:** 08/02/2006 06:08 pm »

Quote

Jim - 2/8/2006 11:59 AM

Quote
aero313 - 2/8/2006 11:38 AM
When LockMart and Orbital DID commercially develop launch vehicles and offer commercial launch services, NASA gladly paid the lower commercial prices but expected the same level of service it always received from the cost-plus Delta program. That's why Pegasus costs what is does today. Is there any reason to believe NASA will behave any differently?

There is no difference between LM and Boeing contracts. Atlases were bought the same way as Delta's and had similar contracts. Now all 3 (OSC, LM, and Boeing) have the same contract.

Actually, I was refering to the original Pegasus and Athena vehicles, not the current (and much more expensive) contracts. In particular, the original SELVS contract was supposed to be a commercial launch services contract. In the early 1990s NASA had no clue what the difference was between a fixed price launch services contract and a CPFF contract where the gov't takes title to the vehicle hardware prior to launch. There are major differences in liability and SOW. Unfortunately, (and despite what they said) NASA wanted all the oversight, CDRLS, and approvals that they had had on the Delta II for years and got frakked off when they didn't get them.

Space Lizard · « **Reply #103 on:** 08/02/2006 07:41 pm »

Quote

the X-38/CRV is NO different than the CEV. Both are reusable and both need ELV's for launch. Only thing X-38 provided was a little more cross range at a lot more upmass

If I remember well, the X-38/CRV was not reusable, it was refurbishable, and it was planned for launch by the shuttle, not an ELV (although some studies were done on the European side, to fly it atop Ariane 5, Hermes-style).

Space Lizard · « **Reply #104 on:** 08/02/2006 07:49 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 2/8/2006 5:38 PM

I don't have the answer as to whether ELV or RLV makes more sense financially, but the reality is that in terms of total life cycle cost it isn't clear that RLV is less expensive than ELV. All the paper RLVs (and paper ELVs for that matter) predict orders-of-magnitude lower costs, but the only hard data we have on RLV costs doesn't support these numbers.

The key to affordable RLV is a huge number of launches (20+ per year) and there's no market to support that.

Moreover, if you develop a RLV that will be in use for 20 years starting in 5 years from now (this is overoptimistic), you'll have to get a design that is not only competitive with ELVs available in 5 years from now, but also with those that will fly in 25 years from now, with new technologies and a market that has evolved too in terms of requirements.

Remember that huge launch rates also decrease ELV launch costs and that it is always easier to adapt an ELV design to an evolving market than to reshape or upgrade a RLV.

I'd love to see RLVs flying in our skies, but I'm afraid I'll have to wait for reincarnation to enjoy that.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #105 on:** 08/02/2006 08:11 pm »

ESAS concluded that the re-useable CEV was only marginally cheaper than a disposable one - probably at 6 flights/year. They might be proven wrong at 2/year.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #106 on:** 08/02/2006 09:56 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 2/8/2006 11:38 AM

Why, for example, will a new RLV be any less expensive to operate than the shuttle? Will there be a mythical new thermal protection system that requires less refurb time and effort?

Well, one of the purposes of X-33 was to test and validate a new metallic TPS.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #107 on:** 08/02/2006 10:08 pm »

Quote

Space Lizard - 2/8/2006 3:36 PM

I'd love to see RLVs flying in our skies, but I'm afraid I'll have to wait for reincarnation to enjoy that.

At the rate we're progessing right now, you'll probably have to wait at least 1000 years to come back if you want to see RLV's in your next life!

aero313 · « **Reply #108 on:** 08/02/2006 10:28 pm »

Quote

vt_hokie - 2/8/2006 5:43 PM

Quote
aero313 - 2/8/2006 11:38 AM

Why, for example, will a new RLV be any less expensive to operate than the shuttle? Will there be a mythical new thermal protection system that requires less refurb time and effort?

Well, one of the purposes of X-33 was to test and validate a new metallic TPS.

Which is exactly my point. All the claims for lower cost RLVs rely on mythical (or at least unproven) technologies and unrealistic flight rates.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
-George Santayana

vt_hokie · « **Reply #109 on:** 08/02/2006 10:37 pm »

How will unproven technologies become proven if we are no longer willing to fund research? NASA's current plan seems to be to pour all of its money into operation of vintage launch vehicle systems and have nothing left over for technology development.

Jim · « **Reply #110 on:** 08/03/2006 12:28 am »

There are no magical new technologies

vt_hokie · « **Reply #111 on:** 08/03/2006 12:47 am »

Quote

Jim - 2/8/2006 8:15 PM

There are no magical new technologies

Who said anything about magical? As for new technologies, are you saying we have peaked and have achieved all that can possibly be achieved, and that there's no point in trying to advance any further?

DigitalMan · « **Reply #112 on:** 08/03/2006 02:22 am »

To someone in a third world country the new shear-liquid bulletproof body armor might seem magical. But the reality is significant new technological developments usually happen through persistent research and creativity. I would like to see more significant research happening to develop various technologies while making an effort to simplify testing.

simonbp · « **Reply #113 on:** 08/03/2006 03:09 am »

NASA typically does technology development with small, cheap missions that sometimes work (see Deep Space 1 and DART for both sides of that coin); the X-33 was originally supposed to be like that, but they bit off more than they could chew and ran out of money. Simple as that. As NASA is really no longer interested in LEO (as evidenced by COTS), any future US government RLV technology development/demonstration will probably be funded through DARPA or the Air Force...

Simon

vt_hokie · « **Reply #114 on:** 08/03/2006 03:26 am »

Quote

simonbp - 2/8/2006 10:56 PM

As NASA is really no longer interested in LEO (as evidenced by COTS), any future US government RLV technology development/demonstration will probably be funded through DARPA or the Air Force...

Which unfortunately means it will likely be devoted to finding new and better ways to kill people instead of making life on Earth better, and will likely remain in the black world and suck up taxpayer dollars while providing no benefit to the commercial sector or to the cause of peaceful exploration.

Jim · « **Reply #115 on:** 08/03/2006 04:09 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 2/8/2006 8:34 PM

Quote
Jim - 2/8/2006 8:15 PM

There are no magical new technologies

Who said anything about magical? As for new technologies, are you saying we have peaked and have achieved all that can possibly be achieved, and that there's no point in trying to advance any further?

wrt RLV's

vt_hokie · « **Reply #116 on:** 08/03/2006 04:18 am »

Quote

Jim - 2/8/2006 11:56 PM

wrt RLV's

Surely you jest! Are you actually saying that there will be no more advances in materials, propulsion, or other areas that could be applicable to future RLV's?

Jim · « **Reply #117 on:** 08/03/2006 04:26 am »

none that will make them any more viable in the near term. It isn't technology that is grounding the RLV, it is a business case. Find a reason to fly it more than 20 times a year and someone will build one. And built it and they will come is not a good enough reason for NASA to it. That would be a Commerce Dept job

DigitalMan · « **Reply #118 on:** 08/03/2006 05:17 am »

There should be a terrific tourist market for frequent flights into space. The only real problem is cost. So the current issue would seem to be that the cost to build/fly an RLV is greater than the price needed for a sustainable market. These are the precise kinds of technologies NASA should be working on. I wouldn't want to see them try to build space planes (yikes!) but if the critical problems receive a reasonable level of consistent research then private industry should be able to afford to build the spaceplanes. It is only a matter of time.

I agree with Jim and I believe a considerable amount of time will be needed to make it happen. If research is halted however it seems to me there will be little use for a flexible VSE since there may not be enough technology advances in the pipeline to upgrade on a reasonable basis. Another reason to have a steady amount of research is so it wouldn't be necessary to cancel programs in other disciplines just because one of them forgot to do their homework. I think the small, focused research projects (like deep space 1) are worthwhile and can provide decent incremental advances.

It would be interesting to know exactly what research is still going on and what has been cancelled. And what is the likelihood that the DOD is actually doing a lot of research? And if so, once they achieve a measure of success how long might it take for critical technologies to be made available to US industry?

I think the (two ?) small free-flying basketball-type probes sent to ISS are a great way to sort out the issues with formation-flying small objects in space.

yinzer · « **Reply #119 on:** 08/03/2006 06:26 am »

Quote

Jim - 2/8/2006 9:13 PM

none that will make them any more viable in the near term. It isn't technology that is grounding the RLV, it is a business case. Find a reason to fly it more than 20 times a year and someone will build one. And built it and they will come is not a good enough reason for NASA to it. That would be a Commerce Dept job

How much money is NASA planning to spend on the CaLV? What is the dry weight of the single largest component that will fly on it? How much propellant are they going to launch into LEO?

I think that an RLV would be useful in the context of the VSE, especially at higher mission rates. Or rather, it would be useful for exploring the moon.

aero313 · « **Reply #120 on:** 08/03/2006 02:39 pm »

Quote

yinzer - 3/8/2006 2:13 AM

Quote
Jim - 2/8/2006 9:13 PM

none that will make them any more viable in the near term. It isn't technology that is grounding the RLV, it is a business case. Find a reason to fly it more than 20 times a year and someone will build one. And built it and they will come is not a good enough reason for NASA to it. That would be a Commerce Dept job

How much money is NASA planning to spend on the CaLV? What is the dry weight of the single largest component that will fly on it? How much propellant are they going to launch into LEO?

I think that an RLV would be useful in the context of the VSE, especially at higher mission rates. Or rather, it would be useful for exploring the moon.

Actually, I disagree with Jim on one point. I DO think technology is grounding RLVs. All we need is higher mass fraction structures, higher Isp propulsion, and reliable thermal protection systems. I also feel that R&D should be one of NASA's primary missions. I fully support RLV technology research. My BS detector starts going off when people and startup companies claim orders of magnitude reductions in launch cost thanks to unproven RLV technologies. The problems with this are 1) we don't yet know the full cost to fully develop these technologies and turn them into to operational systems, 2) we don't yet know the extent and cost of post-mission refurbishment, 3) the cost estimates ALWAYS overlook at least 50% of the true operational costs and 4) the flight rates used to make the business case are always optimistic by at least an order of magnitude. And as I've said before, these issues (except for #2) aren't unique to RLVs.

The problem is that VSE is a Presidential mandate (at least for now) and NASA has to do as it's told. COTS (to bring this back on topic) is supposed to be a commercial cargo delivery service, not an RLV development program. If you're goal is to ship a package cross country, you don't want to have to invent a new form of truck first. Reasonable people can debate whether or not NASA should be funding RLV research, but NASA's current mandate for COTS is package delivery, not R&D. Claiming that mythical vehicles and technology can do the job for a fraction of the price are naive at best. Even the Russians have admitted that with Klipper:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060802/52194380.html

Developing the CLV and CaLV from existing components and using existing infrastructure, processes, and trained people is a good story. Unfortunately, even derivative vehicles such as these require more development effort and diverge more from the initial design than anyone ever expects. This isn't necessarily intentional, physics just seems to get in the way. For example, anyone who thinks that the new SRB-derived stages won't be brand new SRMs by the time they fly is naive or lying. Unfortunately, other alternatives are probably even less well understood.

mlorrey · « **Reply #121 on:** 08/03/2006 09:24 pm »

We have higher Isp propulsion: RBCC engines show an average Isp from mach 0-24 of 1500 sec. This allows near-aircraft-level mass fractions. The NASA GTX vehicle would have demonstrated it this year if the project had not been cancelled.

We have better TPS: SHARP materials (hafnium diboride and zirconium diboride) allow mach 7 flight at sea level and mach 11 flight at 100,000 ft, have radio-transparent shock waves, reduce hypersonic drag by 90%, and have a peak thermal tolerance of over 2000 C. Unfortunately, NASA cancelled the SHARP program on claims of "duplicate research", despite there being no similar public programs, and the US Gov't has reclassified most information on the materials because they are used in guide fins for MIRVs, i.e. they are a 'dual use' technology. Now, what they thought to achieve by reclassifying something that is already out of the bag is beyond me, but I'm beyond wondering at the stupidity of government, anymore.

RBCC, TBCC, and SHARP are now being used in the DARPA projects focused on hypersonic global strike capability, particularly a scramjet propelled missile. The technology is here, it is mature and proven. The NASA VSA is nothing but corporate welfare for the defunct ICBM industry, as well as a form of disinformation, presenting the idea that Apollo is the best that the American government can achieve.

aero313 · « **Reply #122 on:** 08/03/2006 11:13 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 3/8/2006 5:11 PM

We have higher Isp propulsion: RBCC engines show an average Isp from mach 0-24 of 1500 sec. This allows near-aircraft-level mass fractions. The NASA GTX vehicle would have demonstrated it this year if the project had not been cancelled.

We have better TPS: SHARP materials (hafnium diboride and zirconium diboride) allow mach 7 flight at sea level and mach 11 flight at 100,000 ft, have radio-transparent shock waves, reduce hypersonic drag by 90%, and have a peak thermal tolerance of over 2000 C. Unfortunately, NASA cancelled the SHARP program on claims of "duplicate research", despite there being no similar public programs, and the US Gov't has reclassified most information on the materials because they are used in guide fins for MIRVs, i.e. they are a 'dual use' technology. Now, what they thought to achieve by reclassifying something that is already out of the bag is beyond me, but I'm beyond wondering at the stupidity of government, anymore.

Sorry, but these technologies are nowhere near mature enough to field an operational system in the next ten years. Should be be funding development and qualification testing of these technologies at NASA? Absolutely. Do I believe any operational system cost claims based on these technologies? Not a chance.

Looking at it another way, I'm willing to bet that the SSME and shuttle tiles were pushed as being similarly mature when the shuttle cost/benefit trades were done in 1972.

Quote

RBCC, TBCC, and SHARP are now being used in the DARPA projects focused on hypersonic global strike capability, particularly a scramjet propelled missile. The technology is here, it is mature and proven.

And I'm still waiting to hear about even one OPERATIONAL system with flight history, full qualification data, and production cost numbers.

Quote

The NASA VSA is nothing but corporate welfare for the defunct ICBM industry, as well as a form of disinformation, presenting the idea that Apollo is the best that the American government can achieve.

Boy, that shtick is really getting old. I'm guessing you firmly believe that Big Oil killed the 100 mpg Fish carburetor also. By the way, I'm involved in the DARPA FALCON program. The "hypersonic test vehicle" (don't call it a weapon system) is in technical and cost trouble. Might that be part of the source of my skepticism on these new technologies?

Oh, but wait! The prime contractor is LockMart, poster child for the "defunct ICBM industry". Is this yet ANOTHER conspiracy to kill this technology?

BEEP .... BEEP ... BEEP

That sound you hear is the BS detector going off.

meiza · « **Reply #123 on:** 08/04/2006 01:10 pm »

Why do we need higher ISP for reusables? Use two or three stages.

aero313 · « **Reply #124 on:** 08/04/2006 03:33 pm »

Quote

meiza - 4/8/2006 8:57 AM

Why do we need higher ISP for reusables? Use two or three stages.

You can certainly fly a multi stage reusable vehicle. The problem is one of impact, er... recovery sites for the lower stages. You either need to have multiple downrange recovery sites, with the attendant costs of multiple recovery teams and costs to return them to the launch site, or flyback lower stages with the additional complexity and cost of the return propulsion system.

There are collateral costs associated with these trades also. Downrange recovery sites means that you now have additional weather constraints on launch (ELV's don't care if it's raining at the lower stage impact sites), which lead to more frequent scrubs and the not insignificant costs associated with that. These costs include range costs (as a data point, VAFB charges about $150K for every launch attempt due to the need to bring personnel in, get range equipment operational, conduct weather balloon launches and tracking, etc.), TDY costs for launch site personnel, TDY costs for downrange recovery personnel, delay penalties imposed by the payload, potential refurbishment and/or retest of vehicle systems, etc. Flyback boosters mean you now have really crappy mass fraction due to wings, landing gear, and control systems. You also have doubled or tripled your launch prep costs due to the additonal systems to check out. You also have additional logistics for mission critical spares and additional risk of launch scrubs due to failure in the booster return systems, not to mention the whole issue of third party liabilty for this UAV on it's return to base.

I assume it's a UAV. If it is a piloted system, you now have all the man-rated BS that the shuttle has to deal with.

And, of course, what's the cost impact to the system if you fail to recover the lower stage(s)?

mlorrey · « **Reply #125 on:** 08/04/2006 07:03 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 3/8/2006 6:00 PM

Quote
mlorrey - 3/8/2006 5:11 PM

We have higher Isp propulsion: RBCC engines show an average Isp from mach 0-24 of 1500 sec. This allows near-aircraft-level mass fractions. The NASA GTX vehicle would have demonstrated it this year if the project had not been cancelled.

We have better TPS: SHARP materials (hafnium diboride and zirconium diboride) allow mach 7 flight at sea level and mach 11 flight at 100,000 ft, have radio-transparent shock waves, reduce hypersonic drag by 90%, and have a peak thermal tolerance of over 2000 C. Unfortunately, NASA cancelled the SHARP program on claims of "duplicate research", despite there being no similar public programs, and the US Gov't has reclassified most information on the materials because they are used in guide fins for MIRVs, i.e. they are a 'dual use' technology. Now, what they thought to achieve by reclassifying something that is already out of the bag is beyond me, but I'm beyond wondering at the stupidity of government, anymore.

Sorry, but these technologies are nowhere near mature enough to field an operational system in the next ten years. Should be be funding development and qualification testing of these technologies at NASA? Absolutely. Do I believe any operational system cost claims based on these technologies? Not a chance.

Your argument is bogus. SHARP has been used on USAF ICBM MIRVS for at least two decades. It is the very epitome of "mature". RBCC engines have been tested to death in wind tunnels, the opportunity to build a flight test article in 2004 and fly it this year was cancelled. You can't say a technology isn't mature when ATK lobbyists were at the heart of preventing them being flight tested.

Quote

Quote
RBCC, TBCC, and SHARP are now being used in the DARPA projects focused on hypersonic global strike capability, particularly a scramjet propelled missile. The technology is here, it is mature and proven.

And I'm still waiting to hear about even one OPERATIONAL system with flight history, full qualification data, and production cost numbers.

Quote
The NASA VSA is nothing but corporate welfare for the defunct ICBM industry, as well as a form of disinformation, presenting the idea that Apollo is the best that the American government can achieve.

Boy, that shtick is really getting old. I'm guessing you firmly believe that Big Oil killed the 100 mpg Fish carburetor also. By the way, I'm involved in the DARPA FALCON program. The "hypersonic test vehicle" (don't call it a weapon system) is in technical and cost trouble. Might that be part of the source of my skepticism on these new technologies?

Oh, but wait! The prime contractor is LockMart, poster child for the "defunct ICBM industry". Is this yet ANOTHER conspiracy to kill this technology?

BEEP .... BEEP ... BEEP

That sound you hear is the BS detector going off.

Um, no, LockMart doesn't build ICBMs, that is Thiokol's job. LockMart's market position is to lie to NASA about its nonexistent composite multi-lobed fuel tank technology, speaking of BS.

aero313 · « **Reply #126 on:** 08/04/2006 08:50 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 4/8/2006 2:50 PM

Um, no, LockMart doesn't build ICBMs, that is Thiokol's job. LockMart's market position is to lie to NASA about its nonexistent composite multi-lobed fuel tank technology, speaking of BS.

LockMart doesn't build ICBMs? That's pretty interesting since Martin Marietta was the prime contractor on Peacekeeper, SICBM, and Titan II; while Lockheed has been the prime contractor on Polaris, Poseidon, Trident I and Trident II - in other words, every FBM ever fielded by the US.

mlorrey · « **Reply #127 on:** 08/09/2006 05:07 am »

Quote

aero313 - 4/8/2006 3:37 PM

Quote
mlorrey - 4/8/2006 2:50 PM

Um, no, LockMart doesn't build ICBMs, that is Thiokol's job. LockMart's market position is to lie to NASA about its nonexistent composite multi-lobed fuel tank technology, speaking of BS.

LockMart doesn't build ICBMs? That's pretty interesting since Martin Marietta was the prime contractor on Peacekeeper, SICBM, and Titan II; while Lockheed has been the prime contractor on Polaris, Poseidon, Trident I and Trident II - in other words, every FBM ever fielded by the US.

Who made all the solid rocket engines? Either Thiokol, or Aerojet General. The primes dealt with systems integration and guidance, and thats it.

Jim · « **Reply #128 on:** 08/09/2006 11:28 am »

CSD also

Cretan126 · « **Reply #129 on:** 08/10/2006 10:33 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 8/8/2006 10:54 PM
Quote
aero313 - 4/8/2006 3:37 PM
Quote
mlorrey - 4/8/2006 2:50 PM Um, no, LockMart doesn't build ICBMs, that is Thiokol's job. LockMart's market position is to lie to NASA about its nonexistent composite multi-lobed fuel tank technology, speaking of BS.
LockMart doesn't build ICBMs? That's pretty interesting since Martin Marietta was the prime contractor on Peacekeeper, SICBM, and Titan II; while Lockheed has been the prime contractor on Polaris, Poseidon, Trident I and Trident II - in other words, every FBM ever fielded by the US.
Who made all the solid rocket engines? Either Thiokol, or Aerojet General. The primes dealt with systems integration and guidance, and thats it.

One of the misconceptions I pick up on this message board and many other places is equating rocket motors with launch vehicles. The rocket motors are just a component element of the full launch vehicle system, albeit a major one. Once upon a time many years ago, rocket science really was cutting-edge with real scientists blazing new technologies. By and large, that era ended in the mid-sixties, if not before. Since then it has been rocket engineering. Getting the rocket motors to work is no longer the hardest part, unless you want to do a historical re-creation (like SpaceX). Making the whole system fly is the challenge now. That is the role of the system integrator, including avionics and guidance. That's truly "IT".

STEFANALB · « **Reply #130 on:** 08/16/2006 03:02 am »

I'd love to hear what everyone posting here thinks will be the winner(s) of COTS. See vote under Private Launchers. Let's see if the collective knowledge will pinpoint the winners.

guidanceisgo · « **Reply #131 on:** 08/17/2006 04:45 am »

[/QUOTE] " The primes dealt with systems integration and guidance, and thats it.[/QUOTE]"

This statement sure makes things like guidance and control systems, vehicle aerodynamics, avionics, aeroheating, navigation, mechanical structures, and separation ordnance sound like accessories!

mlorrey · « **Reply #132 on:** 08/17/2006 04:20 pm »

COTS will be cut and the money rerouted to pay for the cost overruns of the major contractors for ESAS. Mark my words.

Avron · « **Reply #133 on:** 08/17/2006 05:58 pm »

Then I think there may be some legal action at a higher cost...

DigitalMan · « **Reply #134 on:** 08/18/2006 02:49 am »

Also, I think congress would take issue with redirecting those funds since they actually looked pretty excited about COTS in one of the hearings, possibly in may.