NASA signs non-paying COTS acts with t/Space and PlanetSpace

[marsavian]

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/feb/HQ_0720_COTS_agreements.html
http://www.planetspace.org/pdf/PressRelease020107.pdf

[marsavian]

PlanetSpace history

http://www.indusbusinessjournal.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=879DE025DE8043E9A6867EFC5CE07A1D

t/Space website

http://www.transformspace.com

[HIP2BSQRE]

So how does this help both companies?  Do you think that t/space has a chance in getting outside funding and in building their rocket?

[Jim]

HIP2BSQRE - 1/2/2007  3:51 PM

So how does this help both companies?  Do you think that t/space has a chance in getting outside funding and in building their rocket?

It let's NASA have some insight into their projects.  And NASA can exchange info with them

[marsavian]

HIP2BSQRE - 1/2/2007  2:51 PM

So how does this help both companies?  Do you think that t/space has a chance in getting outside funding and in building their rocket?

http://www.space.com/news/070201_nasa_spaceact.html

'
“It’s important that investors and potential stakeholders see that NASA values t/Space as a potential supplier to the International Space Station,” t/Space president David Gump told SPACE.com of the new agreement. “We expect to be able to do a crude orbital flight by the close of 2010.”

Alan Lindenmoyer, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office at the Johnson Space Center, said NASA’s goal is to help facilitate access to low-Earth orbit. The new Space Act agreements address just two of the some 21 proposals NASA received from private firms during the COTS competition.

“There were some excellent ideas there,” Lindenmoyer said in a telephone interview. “It’s just that we didn’t have enough money to fund all those studies.”
'

[aero313]

HIP2BSQRE - 1/2/2007  2:51 PM

So how does this help both companies?  Do you think that t/space has a chance in getting outside funding and in building their rocket?

Let us not forget that this is EXACTLY how Orbital Sciences got started.  OSC (they were still OSC then) raised commercial investment money to develop an upper stage for the shuttle that NASA was going to pay for with gov't money.  OSC had a similar arrangement in that NASA would participate in the early design of the Transfer Orbit Stage to ensure that this commercially developed stage would satisfy future NASA requirements.  Of course that participation eventually led to a contract to deploy Mars Observer and ACTS, so the early involvement paid off.  What most people (including most OSC employees at the time) is that the Pegasus development was made possible by profits from the TOS program.

[realtime]

I wonder if Bigelow has been talking with t/Space recently.  There could be good synergy there, and they sure don't want to be single-sourced with ULA.

[publiusr]

t/Space's ride is underpowered--and needs a 747 on stilts. Gump (or Branson, rather) could have spent money on the (rumored) second AN-225 not yet assembled. It has a shoulder-mount wing at the very least.

[bad_astra]

Since one of the uses of an aero-launched rapidly deployable LV might be for noncommercial payloads (see Quickreach), I don't think they'd want an Antonov as their zero-stage.

[PurduesUSAFguy]

I rather seriously doubt that T/Space will secure adequate funding to develop their booster, but then again I remember reading somewhere that Scaled Composites was specifically overbuilding the White Knight II to meet T/Space weight requirement. I have no idea if that's true or not but it came from somewhere in the blogosphere/forums.

[publiusr]

Rutan has no experience in building large airframes. The perfect thing would have been to convince Branson to purchase the unassembled second AN-225 rumored to be out there. Thus he would have a Virgin Cargo division, and the vehicle would be available within a few days notice. A top-mount craft would have made more sense. I really don't see the t/Space booster having enough moxey.

[marsavian]

The Ultimate Glide: PlanetSpace's Suborbital Travel Plan

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070214_techwed_planetspace.html

The firm’s planned Silver Dart space plane, currently targeted at providing NASA crew and cargo services to the International Space Station (ISS), could be equipped with a suborbital rocket engine for point-to-point flights around Earth, PlanetSpace CEO Geoff Sheerin told SPACE.com.

“This is the killer application for space industry,” Sheerin said. “You’ve got a destination already.”

“A flight from New York to Paris in 20 minutes is not out of the question using that system,” Sheerin said, adding that it is the longer, 16-hour flights where Silver Dart could excel. “The best uses for this vehicle are places where it might take a jet a long haul.”

[meiza]

Uh, 6000 kilometers in 20 minutes, that's 5 km/s.
Taking into account that a 100 km height hop takes about 1.5 km/s delta vee, this is ambitious.

[nacnud]

A top-mount craft would have made more sense.

So how do you launch from that without stressing the airframe with dive manoeuvres etc? I can imagine that an abort from such a dynamic position wouldn't be much fun :S.

Seeing as you've got to build the An225 anyway a custom craft more suitable for the roll would be preferable and could still be used for out-sized cargo if wanted.

As for money well if the sub-orbital market is profitable that where the money will come from, it's all rather dependent on that I think.

[jongoff]

Meiza,

Uh, 6000 kilometers in 20 minutes, that's 5 km/s.
Taking into account that a 100 km height hop takes about 1.5 km/s delta vee, this is ambitious.

Not everyone wants to go to just 100km...While MSS's first suborbital vehicle will probably be just barely suborbital, our eventual goal is having a vehicle that can reach 400-500km without squishing the passengers/cargo on the way down.  That takes a lot of delta-V.

~Jon

[meiza]

I'll wait till you fly to 4-5 meters to then speculate on that
I expect this to happen in a few months, no?

[jongoff]

Meiza,

I'll wait till you fly to 4-5 meters to then speculate on that
I expect this to happen in a few months, no?

Well, we try not to comment too much on schedules for stuff still in
development, but yeah, barring some major snag we should be
flying in that timeframe.

~Jon

[publiusr]

nacnud - 14/2/2007  9:55 AM

A top-mount craft would have made more sense.

So how do you launch from that without stressing the airframe with dive manoeuvres etc? I can imagine that an abort from such a dynamic position wouldn't be much fun :S.

Like dropping something out the back of a C-17 isn't hairy?  At least AN-225 has a shoulder-mount wing--and can be used as a unique Cargo hauler:

http://www.antonov.com/products/air/transport/AN-225/index.xml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-225

Branson could very easily have bought Rutan that partially completed second AN-225 with the money he pledged both to the Clinton Foundation (focused on poverty relief--poverty due to UNDERdevelopment) and to Gore's group on environmental remediation (where the #1 threat is often considered to be OVERdevelopment)

In other words---Branson might just have well put all his fortune in a bonfire and burned it---what with folks wanting to build dams and clean water infrastructure--with anti-levee types just wanting to tear them back down again.

Rutan should be screaming his head off at Branson's foolishness---not bashing Griffin.

[aero313]

publiusr - 18/2/2007  2:43 PM

Like dropping something out the back of a C-17 isn't hairy?  

Well, considering that's what the C-17 was DESIGNED to do, no.

[nacnud]

I completely disagree about Branson burning his fortune with the environmental stuff. It's all currently aimed at developing alternative fuels to preserve his current businesses when the mandatory CO2 reductions arrive.

As for the top/bottom mount options I think bottom mount is easier and safer, but thats my uninformed opinion. I'd still like the other An225 to be finished though