Author Topic: SPACE X Dragon vs. Kistler K1: Which do you want to see flying as part of NASA's COTS Program? (Read 22915 times)

ShuttleDiscovery · « **on:** 04/14/2007 05:16 pm »

Hi everyone

I justed wanted to see what everyone thinks of the two competing systems for NASA's COTS program, and ultimately which you think is best!

Thanks

PS- Feel free to add your own options if you've thought of someting I haven't, and yes, multi-voting is allowed :cool:

Jim · « **Reply #1 on:** 04/14/2007 05:33 pm »

Quote

ShuttleDiscovery - 14/4/2007 1:16 PM

I justed wanted to see what everyone thinks of the two competing systems for NASA's COTS program

The COTS competition is over and Kistler and Spacex won. There will be another one for services in a couple of years.l.

ShuttleDiscovery · « **Reply #2 on:** 04/14/2007 08:12 pm »

Quote

Jim - 14/4/2007 6:33 PM

Quote
ShuttleDiscovery - 14/4/2007 1:16 PM

I justed wanted to see what everyone thinks of the two competing systems for NASA's COTS program

The COTS competition is over and Kistler and Spacex won. There will be another one for services in a couple of years.l.

Oh, sorry! I had no idea. Thanks for letting me know Jim :laugh:

bad_astra · « **Reply #3 on:** 04/14/2007 09:40 pm »

I am very skeptical that Falcon 9 will be ready to fly by the time phase one is over. I don't believe rpK will have progressed very far at all.

I think the phase 2 of cots will have a far different tone to it. Maybe SpaceX will have a shot at it by then, but an Atlas based solution would be difficult to beat.

MKremer · « **Reply #4 on:** 04/15/2007 07:58 am »

Quote

bad_astra - 14/4/2007 4:40 PM

I am very skeptical that Falcon 9 will be ready to fly by the time phase one is over. I don't believe rpK will have progressed very far at all.

I'm beginning to think that Falcon 9 will end up being "ready to fly" before ph.1 is over, but whether it *actually* flies or not in its first several flight tests is open to question.

CFE · « **Reply #5 on:** 04/15/2007 09:50 am »

We'll have a better idea of how ready Falcon 9 is based on whether SpaceX can achieve orbit on any of their Falcon I launches planned for later this year. While mastery of Falcon I doesn't guarantee success for Falcon 9, failure of Falcon I is certain failure for Falcon 9.

For being such a small company, SpaceX has a lot on its plate. I've advocated that SpaceX reduce the risk by flying Dragon on an Atlas V initially, then adapting it to Falcon 9 when that design matures. I doubt they'll do it, but it's the smartest way to go for COTS phase I.

meiza · « **Reply #6 on:** 04/15/2007 12:03 pm »

The Kistler design has some components which are very interesting, like the cheap russian engines (which still have reliable operating history), the first stage flying a vertical trajectory, recovery on land with airbags, full reusability.
It'd be nice to get more info on how things are going. And I'd love to see it fly.

sammie · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/15/2007 12:55 pm »

Quote

like the cheap russian engines (which still have reliable operating history)

I would like to point out that neither the NK-33 or NK-43 have much operating history. They we're ment to fly on the N-1, which as we all know never got very far. After the N-1 got cancelled and hushed-up the engines were stored to be never used again, until they were picked up by Kistler. The only history they have is from a number of failed N-1 flights, and from the test banches.

simonbp · « **Reply #8 on:** 04/15/2007 01:12 pm »

I don't think engine reliability will be the main problem with the K-1, but rather the sheer complexity of the flight profile. SpaceX is having problems enough with a single stage separation, and the K-1 has numerous points of either single-point mission failure, or lack of stage recovery (crucial to economic success for them).

That all granted, their current COTS bid is supported by ATK, and if they have a few successful flights, I wouldn't be surprised if ATK snaps them up...

Simon

meiza · « **Reply #9 on:** 04/15/2007 01:36 pm »

Quote

sammie - 15/4/2007 1:55 PM

Quote
like the cheap russian engines (which still have reliable operating history)
I would like to point out that neither the NK-33 or NK-43 have much operating history. They we're ment to fly on the N-1, which as we all know never got very far. After the N-1 got cancelled and hushed-up the engines were stored to be never used again, until they were picked up by Kistler. The only history they have is from a number of failed N-1 flights, and from the test banches.

Ok, yeah, you are right. I just meant that the N-1 failures were not because of the engines, in a way relevant to Kistler.

Danderman · « **Reply #10 on:** 04/15/2007 03:20 pm »

Quote

sammie - 15/4/2007 5:55 AM
Quote
like the cheap russian engines (which still have reliable operating history)
I would like to point out that neither the NK-33 or NK-43 have much operating history. They we're ment to fly on the N-1, which as we all know never got very far. After the N-1 got cancelled and hushed-up the engines were stored to be never used again, until they were picked up by Kistler. The only history they have is from a number of failed N-1 flights, and from the test banches.

For the record, neither the NK-33 nor the NK-43 flew on the N1. AFAIK, what was on the N-1 was the NK-9, an early version of these engines. The engines available today were updates that were meant for later versions of the N-1.

yinzer · « **Reply #11 on:** 04/15/2007 03:22 pm »

While the N-1 might not have gotten very far, don't the four test flights mean that 120 (!) NK-15 engines, which turned into the NK-33 with minor modifications, were flown? That's more than a lot of other engines...

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #12 on:** 04/15/2007 04:53 pm »

I have a soft spot for Kistler since I have been following them for more than 10 years and they really deserve to have something break their way after working so hard. That and they have the gumption to design a RLV where as Boeing, Lockheed, Ariane, etc. are even trying. However they appear to need more cash. But I like that they are building at Michoud and aren't looking for cheap ways out they have suppliers, designers and asembliers with depth in experience.

But one has to like SpaceX because they have some deep pockets and don't have to worry about finding funding and you can just work. But developing a new Merlin engine, using 9 of them on one vehicle, building the vehicle and the orbital vehicle and assembling the whole thing in house is a pile of work for a small company. If they can pull it off then we really get an idea how badly the government has been getting hosed by the established launch vehicle builders.

Bottom line is that both companies will have many challenges in meeting their deadlines. But those can also be a great motivator.

Good luck to both.

AntiKev · « **Reply #13 on:** 04/15/2007 07:37 pm »

Quote

wannamoonbase - 15/4/2007 12:53 PM
...
But I like that they are building at Michoud and aren't looking for cheap ways out they have suppliers, designers and asembliers with depth in experience.
...
But one has to like SpaceX because they have some deep pockets and don't have to worry about finding funding and you can just work.
...
Bottom line is that both companies will have many challenges in meeting their deadlines. But those can also be a great motivator.

Isn't the free market grand?

docmordrid · « **Reply #14 on:** 04/15/2007 10:17 pm »

Quote

wannamoonbase - 15/4/2007 11:53 AM

If they can pull it off then we really get an idea how badly the government has been getting hosed by the established launch vehicle builders.

And that's the nub of it; there has never been an incentive to do launches using KISS as a prevailing principle has there? It's been high cost or nothing.

Stowbridge · « **Reply #15 on:** 04/16/2007 02:03 am »

Is the COTS money ringfenced?

Jim · « **Reply #16 on:** 04/16/2007 02:05 am »

Quote

Stowbridge - 15/4/2007 10:03 PM

Is the COTS money ringfenced?

ringfenced?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #17 on:** 04/16/2007 02:46 am »

I couldn’t resist adding a private sector effort to the list. I believe that Dream Chaser will be capable of reaching the ISS prior to either the Orion or manned versions of either SpaceX or RPK. Whether they would be allowed to approach or dock is another matter.

JIS · « **Reply #18 on:** 04/16/2007 11:25 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 16/4/2007 3:46 AM

I couldn’t resist adding a private sector effort to the list. I believe that Dream Chaser will be capable of reaching the ISS prior to either the Orion or manned versions of either SpaceX or RPK. Whether they would be allowed to approach or dock is another matter.

Is this based on your knowledge of DCH or lack of it?

Christine · « **Reply #19 on:** 04/16/2007 01:13 pm »

Dreamchaser is only an engineering problem, easy. What Benson is going to have real difficulty with is finding the funding. There is only organisation with an orbital destination, and they've not exactly proven in the past that they'd be a good customer.