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

[meiza]

Well, what is extremely obvious to anyone with the faintest idea about Kyoto protocol, is that Branson could buy CO2 emissions rights (airlines are currently freeriding). That would mean they would then be out of the market and then the other industries would have to lessen the CO2 emissions. It makes a lot of sense - reductions should first happen where it is easiest. This is the way USA insisted the program should go, when they were still part of the Kyoto process. Other pollutants are traded in USA and the system works, reducing total output.
Capturing CO2 from thin air is the most boneheaded idea, there are a million places where it is thousand fold easier to capture or prevent emission and emissions trade is the mechanism that enables this seeking of the easiest points.

[publiusr]

aero313 - 18/2/2007  4:15 PM

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.

Most of those average payloads were not that long.


I have no problem with carbon sequestration if for no other reason than it can force more oil to the surface.
According to the book Hard Green, an individual who eats a Granola bar is worse for the environment than someone driving a sport-ute, for the latter gets its energy from a three-dimensional source, with minimal surface impact (a well-head the diameter of two fists), where the former needs much more surface area for crops--and growing that fuel will produce hydrocarbons as well--so the arguement that the plants will absorb its CO2 is bogus. CO2 is CO2.

Wellhead, crop acres, what have you.

Also, I wonder about the impact of growing a lot of fuel--for fear it may take a lot out of the soil. By burning trapped hydrocarbons from far below--you are really re-introducing biosphere material from Earth's richer past...

Back on topic. The AN-225 has a shoulder-mount wing, so a t/Space vehicle can be under slung, or it might slide out of a tube on top--and slide out the back, as long as the tube's top has an opening that gets wider the farther back it travels, so that the nosecone doesnt strike much.

A 747 on stilts is asking for trouble.

[nacnud]

meiza - 19/2/2007  1:03 PM

Well, what is extremely obvious to anyone with the faintest idea about Kyoto protocol, is that Branson could buy CO2 emissions rights (airlines are currently freeriding).

I agree, sort of. With that plan you are stuck only flying as much as the emmision regulators will allow. If you can find an alternative fuel then you could be free of such restriction and can sell to your competitors as well. The possible rewards are much larger, but of course so are the risks.

[kevin-rf]

nacnud - 19/2/2007  2:31 PM

I agree, sort of. With that plan you are stuck only flying as much as the emmision regulators will allow. If you can find an alternative fuel then you could be free of such restriction and can sell to your competitors as well. The possible rewards are much larger, but of course so are the risks.

Saddly there is not a truely "green" energy source. You could burn LH which does not directly release green house gasses. But it has never been viable due to it's low density, cryo storage requirements, and the most energy efficent method of making is cracking it out of natural gas. Which leaves you with left over carbon (which you could always sequester).

CO2 is CO2, so if you sequestered enough grass clippings (And other "green" carbon forms, wheat chaf, corn husks) you could offset the CO2 from petro chemicals burned by the airlines. (For the satire impared, that is unrealistic and ment wth humor)

[nacnud]

Saddly there is not a truely "green" energy source.

I don't quite follow this, biofuels produce no net carbon. This is what Branson is looking into.

[Antares]

Gentlemen, your discussion is not about rockets.

[Dan Moser]

publiusr - 19/2/2007  11:40 AM

aero313 - 18/2/2007  4:15 PM

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.

Most of those average payloads were not that long.

-snip-

Back on topic. The AN-225 has a shoulder-mount wing, so a t/Space vehicle can be under slung, or it might slide out of a tube on top--and slide out the back, as long as the tube's top has an opening that gets wider the farther back it travels, so that the nosecone doesnt strike much.

A 747 on stilts is asking for trouble.

Launching rockets by ANY method is asking for trouble.
Air launching via extraction from internal storage has been test-proven as a viable launch method.  
Air launching via bottom drop has been test-proven as a viable launch method.
You try to paint a picture of absurdity with your "747 on stilts" crack, but landing gear extensions have been proven to be a viable aircraft design modification.
Air launching may not be suitable for all missions and payloads, but it is here to stay.
Your disdain for air launching technology is your right, but you shouldn't expect that you will un-invent it with uninformed wise cracks.
Don't worry about t-Space.. they are not spending taxpayer money, and if their business succeeds, it will be because they have a vehicle which succeeds on its own merit.

[drmordrid]

Some points about the t/Space lauch system;

A Scaled Composites Proteus performed a drop using a 23% - 24% CXV/booster mockup stack back in 2005.  Proteus is nowhere near as powerful as White Knight, and given that the EVE is rumored to have the wingspan of a  757 but still be skinny as a rail its power to weight ratio must be something.  

Scaled was to build both the EVE for SS2 and the t/Space VLA.  Many believe that Rutan isn't one to duplicate his efforts. I agree; he'd build one plane to the higher spec and make it adaptable like Proteus, which was the direct ancestor of both White Knight and EVE.  Proteus had the option of 2 different engine types and could use wing extenders to go from 77' 7" to over 92' if need be, which is a very practical way to meet both needs.fd  If nothing else Rutan is extremely practical.

IMO no jumbo jets are necessary, just the EVE/VLA.  Jumbos waste too much of their power lifting their own buns off the deck.  Think how a Sky Crane is built vs. a Blackhawk or Mi-24 and which you'd rather lift a load with.

[marsavian]

PlanetSpace evaluating two launch sites

http://www.capebretonpost.com/index.cfm?sid=33799&sc=145

[marsavian]

http://atk.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=118&item=865

Team Provides a Highly Reliable and Cost Effective End-to-end Cargo Servicing Capability by 2011, Creating 350 New Jobs in Florida and adding $300 million to the Florida economy

Plans to Use Florida's New Commercial Launch Pad

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., Oct. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- PlanetSpace announced today it has added the Space Exploration division of The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) to its existing teammates, Alliant Techsystems (NYSE: ATK) and Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT), on the proposed solution to NASA for the Commercial Resupply Services to the International Space Station.

The PlanetSpace ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) team includes the following major members:

  -- PlanetSpace is the overall prime contractor and manages the CRS
     contract.
  -- ATK provides the Athena III launch vehicle and ground processing.
  -- Lockheed Martin and Boeing will develop, produce and operate modular
     Orbital Transfer Vehicles (OTV) that serve as the cargo carriers to the
     International Space Station."We are thrilled to add Boeing to round out our extraordinary team," said Dr. Chirinjeev Kathuria, chairman of PlanetSpace. "This team brings together technical innovations leveraging more than 50 years of relevant experience using flight-qualified U.S.-built Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motors, Athena launch vehicles, proven space vehicle technology and on-orbit operations."

Boeing's role on the team includes providing cargo carrier development, cargo integration services, and ISS integration and operations support.

"This CRS contract is an important part of ensuring the long-term viability and value of the ISS. Boeing is pleased to be a part of the PlanetSpace CRS team," said Brewster Shaw, vice president and general manager of Boeing's Space Exploration division. "The Boeing Company, as a partner in the design, development and integration of the ISS shares NASA's interest in ensuring this national resource and world-class laboratory is used to its full capability and potential."

ATK provides the innovative Athena III launch vehicle for the PlanetSpace team. It is based on propulsion with demonstrated performance on multiple launch vehicles. The first stage is a 2.5 segment derivative of the Space Shuttle's four-segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB). The second stage is the ATK CASTOR®120, utilized on the Athena I, Athena II and Taurus I launch vehicles. That foundation is topped by an ATK CASTOR 30 third stage and a flight-proven Orbit Adjust Module.

"By using existing hardware that is U.S.-built and has demonstrated performance, we shorten the development timeline," said Kent Rominger, vice president of Advanced Programs, for ATK's Launch Systems Division. "The Athena III provides a cost-effective solution to meet NASA's cargo requirements."

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, using its vast interplanetary, autonomous spacecraft design, manufacturing, system integration, and mission operations experience is developing the Orbital Transfer Vehicles for PlanetSpace.

"We are very pleased to be on the PlanetSpace team and to bring our full range of expertise to assure reliable Space Station resupply services," said John Karas, vice president and general manager of Human Space Flight for Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company. "The PlanetSpace team leverages the combined spacecraft, launch vehicle and human space flight systems that are the core competencies of our companies. We bring significant expertise in program management, autonomous spacecraft design, manufacturing, systems integration and mission operations for this vital mission to maximize the role of the space station.

The PlanetSpace consortium continues discussions with Space Florida on a nonexclusive basis for Space Launch Complex 36 on Cape Canaveral. Florida is a desired location as long as satisfactory financial incentives are agreed to. Space Florida drives aerospace economic development in the state and serves as a catalyst for space-related business development, education, spaceport operations, research and development, workforce development and financing.

"Space Florida has worked with PlanetSpace to facilitate their needs during the RFP proposal phase," stated Steve Kohler, President, Space Florida. "Through the Teaming Agreement we have established the parameters of support and development we can assist with for a planned future commercial launch site near Kennedy Space Center, if they win the bid."

The team's ISS Commercial Resupply program provides 100 percent United States manufactured assets which save and create hundreds of U.S. jobs. Space Florida recognizes new jobs and economic impact exceeding $300 million and is committed to launch site construction with PlanetSpace serving as the anchor tenant.

Additional team participants include PTC, SPACEHAB and MEHTA Engineering.

"The team PlanetSpace has assembled is the only team that can address NASA's capability based on availability of heritage hardware and software systems, unprecedented corporate commitment and the reputations for ultimate mission success," said Kathuria. "We commend Congress and NASA on their continued commitment to support and grow commercial spaceflight supporting our nation's space utilization needs."

ABOUT PLANETSPACE

PlanetSpace, leader in commercializing space and developer of space related technologies, with headquarters in Chicago is part of the new emerging space commercialization business. Teamed with major players in rocket booster and spacecraft development, the company is set to take the lead in the commercialization of space. PlanetSpace is developing a broad spectrum of commercial space services that include Cargo and Crew to the ISS, Point-to-Point Global Travel, Space Tourism, Satellite Orbital Delivery and Escape Velocity Missions. http://www.planetspace.org/.

ABOUT ATK

ATK is a leading provider of advanced space systems with $4.6 billion in annual sales, approximately 17,000 employees, and operations in 21 states. The company is the world's leading supplier of solid rocket motors. ATK expanded into the aerospace market with the acquisitions of Hercules Aerospace Company in 1995 and Thiokol Propulsion in 2001, which transformed the company into the world's largest supplier of solid propellant rocket motors and a leading provider of high-performance composite structures. They produce the solid rocket motors used on the shuttle and other major U.S. domestic launchers. http://www.atk.com/.

ABOUT LOCKHEED MARTIN

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, a major operating unit of Lockheed Martin Corporation, designs, develops, tests, manufactures and operates a full spectrum of advanced-technology systems for national security, civil and commercial customers. Chief products include human space flight systems; a full range of remote sensing, navigation, meteorological and communications satellites and instruments; space observatories and interplanetary spacecraft; laser radar; fleet ballistic missiles; and missile defense systems.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $41.9 billion. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/.

ABOUT BOEING

Boeing's Space Exploration division, based in Houston, is the leading global supplier of reusable and human space systems and services. Since the beginning of the Space Age, Boeing has designed, developed, built, and operated human and robotic space vehicles as well as supporting hardware. Space Exploration's legacy began with the X-15, spans Gemini, Apollo and Skylab, and continues with the space shuttle and International Space Station. Space Exploration is a division of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems' Network and Space Systems business unit. The division employs about 4,000 people in Alabama, California, Florida and Texas.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $32.1 billion business with 71,000 employees worldwide. http://www.boeing.com/.

   Media Contacts:

   PlanetSpace -- Lori Sheerin, 877-872-7928 office,
   [email protected]

   ATK -- George Torres, 801-251-2819 office, 801-699-2637 mobile,
   [email protected]

   Lockheed Martin -- Joan Underwood, 303-971-7398 office, 303-594-7073
   mobile, [email protected]

   Boeing -- Dean Acosta, 281-226-6005 office, 281-639-7011 mobile,
   [email protected]
SOURCE: PlanetSpace

CONTACT: George Torres of ATK, +1-801-251-2819, cell, +1-801-699-2637,
[email protected]; or Lori Sheerin of PlanetSpace, +1-877-872-7928,
[email protected]; or Joan Underwood of Lockheed Martin,
+1-303-971-7398, cell, +1-303-594-7073, [email protected]; or Dean
Acosta of Boeing, +1-281-226-6005, cell, +1-281-639-7011,
[email protected]

Web site: http://www.atk.com/
http://www.planetspace.org/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/
http://www.boeing.com/

[Lampyridae]

So much for their shiny spaceplane. I'm not really stoked about seeing their hardware fly, not without COTS money.

[HMXHMX]

Some points about the t/Space lauch system;

A Scaled Composites Proteus performed a drop using a 23% - 24% CXV/booster mockup stack back in 2005.  Proteus is nowhere near as powerful as White Knight, and given that the EVE is rumored to have the wingspan of a  757 but still be skinny as a rail its power to weight ratio must be something. 

Scaled was to build both the EVE for SS2 and the t/Space VLA.  Many believe that Rutan isn't one to duplicate his efforts. I agree; he'd build one plane to the higher spec and make it adaptable like Proteus, which was the direct ancestor of both White Knight and EVE.  Proteus had the option of 2 different engine types and could use wing extenders to go from 77' 7" to over 92' if need be, which is a very practical way to meet both needs.fd  If nothing else Rutan is extremely practical.

IMO no jumbo jets are necessary, just the EVE/VLA.  Jumbos waste too much of their power lifting their own buns off the deck.  Think how a Sky Crane is built vs. a Blackhawk or Mi-24 and which you'd rather lift a load with.

I can state for the record that WK2 and the proposed t/Space carrier aircraft (VLA) had nothing whatever in common.  The latter was to be at least ten times larger than WK2.  The drop test article we deployed from Proteus was 23% dimensionally scaled, not 23% mass.

And parenthetically:

We briefly considered the An225 top launch but there were just too many technical issues with it plus the business risk was too great with ITAR and other factors.  ITAR's the reason the An124 fell out of the trades as well.

I can also confirm that dropping 72K lbs. from the C-17A was a total non-event, flown with the pilots hands off the controls, and with virtually no detectable motion of the aircraft.  Numerous AIAA papers have been published on this topic for those who want to research the issue.

Since t/Space was not selected for either COTS 1 or COTS 2, the owners have decided to terminate operations.  The dollars to properly conduct the development simply aren't out there any more, due to NASA's choices and the market meltdown.