SPACE X Dragon vs. Kistler K1: Which do you want to see flying as part of NASA's COTS Program?

[simonbp]

Norm Hartnett - 15/4/2007  9:46 PM

I couldn’t resist adding a private sector effort to the list.

?!?

SpaceX and RpK are just as much "private sector efforts" as anything else! Indeed, if the Dreamchaser does fly on the DoD-developed Atlas V, it will have as much effective government funding as the COTS I companies are...

Simon

[docmordrid]

Exactly, and there examples in other industries from automotive to weaponry where complex/expensive/twitchy  gets trumped by simpler/cheaper/reliable across the board.

[Jim]

docmordrid - 16/4/2007  12:37 PM

Exactly, and there examples in other industries from automotive to weaponry where complex/expensive/twitchy  gets trumped by simple/cheaper/reliable across the board.

That is not what he is saying.  He saying the costs of launch is high because of the high expense of the payload demands high reliability

[docmordrid]

And my point is that reliability doesn't always flow from high cost and complexity, though that's the path that often gets taken either because of govt. requirements & interference or poor internal decision making.

[ShuttleDiscovery]

My poll seems to be popular. The SPACE-X Falocn 9/Dragon seems to be by far the best in everyone's opinion so far...



PS- Everyone, if you haven't voted yet, don't hesitate to do so! It will be really interesting to see which design you think is best.

[Norm Hartnett]

JIS - 16/4/2007  4:25 AM

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

Based on on faith, no knowledge at all.  

simonbp - 16/4/2007  6:45 AM

?!?

SpaceX and RpK are just as much "private sector efforts" as anything else! Indeed, if the Dreamchaser does fly on the DoD-developed Atlas V, it will have as much effective government funding as the COTS I companies are...

Simon

COTS is a NASA program, Ares/Orion is a NASA program.

Atlas/DC isn't.  

Kistler's biggest problem hasn't been technology, just business - by working through outside contractors, competing for business with much larger firms, with no expectation of immediate volume, they get rotten pricing and rotten T's and C's. So as a result, rotten capital use - you have to raise enormous amounts of funds to pay contractors, and there's no incremental movement towards launch progress, just an incredible gamble of putting a fair portion of a billion on a single square, and hoping to roll box cars.

It's insane to front load finance a LV business - you are competing with the big guys who have things you can't have like 1) accumulated military underwriting of existing LV and 2) ability to partner to get whole tested systems you might use to fill development gaps.

[quark]

simonbp - 16/4/2007  7:45 AM

Norm Hartnett - 15/4/2007  9:46 PM

I couldn’t resist adding a private sector effort to the list.

?!?

SpaceX and RpK are just as much "private sector efforts" as anything else! Indeed, if the Dreamchaser does fly on the DoD-developed Atlas V, it will have as much effective government funding as the COTS I companies are...

Simon

Conversely, there is more private investment in Atlas V than RpK and SpaceX combined, by factors....

[quark]

Perhaps a more interesting question is "What do you believe is the most likely outcome for the COTS program?"

Although I really want to see COTS succeed, I am skeptical that NASA is doing anything other than checking a political box by engaging in the COTS 1 demo.  Despite Griffin's public remarks about the importance of COTS, NASA's behavior belies their true intensions.

1. They just signed a $719M agreement with the Russians to provide crew and cargo launches through 2011.  That effectively carves off a substantial portion of the front end of the market.  It also sets them up for an easy extension beyond 2011 if the COTS-1 demos fail---which will be NASA's determination.
2. They are starting to talk of "commercial" applications for Ares 1.  Set aside the fact that this violates all sorts of laws and policies.  It effectively carves off the back end of the COTS market.  Surely the easiest commercial market for Ares is ISS cargo since NASA picks the "winner".  
3. So to make a business plan and attract the necessary investment, a COTS hopeful has to make all his money in the short window between 2012 and 2014.  After the Russians are done and before Ares takes all the business.  How many investors will want a piece of that sweet deal??
4. NASA reacts very negatively to any COTS concept that becomes too credible, especially if existing launch vehicles are employed.

Why would NASA secretly want COTS to fail?  It's very simple.  A successful COTS program, especially if it includes crew delivery (capability D), effectively renders NASA's Ares program irrelevant.  If you can buy transportation services commercially, what reason for NASA to spend billions per year to be in the transportation business?  The nation as a whole wins big, but a large portion of NASA looses.  The current NASA leadership has a huge personal stake in ESAS and the bloated transportation architecture it committed us to.

I hope I'm wrong....

[nacnud]

That doesn't sound right to me. I think you've gone entirely the wrong way after the end of the contract with the Russians in 2011. Why does COTS threaten Ares/Orion? It doesn't in my book, COTS frees resources to concentrate on Luna missions and exploring. Which is really what the Ares rockets and Orion are all about rather than LEO. These vehicles are much more capable than just space station servicing, it seems a waste to use them for that.

[Jim]

nacnud - 17/4/2007  9:41 PM

That doesn't sound right to me. I think you've gone entirely the wrong way after the end of the contract with the Russians in 2011. Why does COTS threaten Ares/Orion? It doesn't in my book, COTS frees resources to concentrate on Luna missions and exploring. Which is really what the Ares rockets and Orion are all about rather than LEO. These vehicles are much more capable than just space station servicing, it seems a waste to use them for that.

Not true.  Ares rockets and Orion need to fly early and often.  COTS will actually take work away from Ares rockets and Orion.  Two lunar flights a year aren't enough to keep the program busy

[Avron]

nacnud - 17/4/2007  9:41 PM

That doesn't sound right to me. I think you've gone entirely the wrong way after the end of the contract with the Russians in 2011. Why does COTS threaten Ares/Orion? It doesn't in my book, COTS frees resources to concentrate on Luna missions and exploring. Which is really what the Ares rockets and Orion are all about rather than LEO. These vehicles are much more capable than just space station servicing, it seems a waste to use them for that.

In a logical world YES.. but who said its about logic?

[Norm Hartnett]

nacnud - 17/4/2007  6:41 PM

Why does COTS threaten Ares/Orion?

If either of the COTS participants is able to field a cost effective method of getting cargo and crew to the ISS it is certainly going to raise questions about the multi-billion Ares I. But that’s not going to happen, as Quark pointed out its NASA’s game and if it is going to make NASA look bad they will kill the program.
How?
Quark pointed out one method, undercut their ability to draw investors causing them to fail to make financial milestones.
Another method could be to increase the amount of mandatory paperwork beyond what their staff can handle causing them to miss "technical" milestones.

[JIS]

nobodyofconsequence - 17/4/2007  12:59 AM

Kistler's biggest problem hasn't been technology, just business -

Kistler reusability must work 100% from the very first launch. It's something like STS without NASA's resources. It would be world wonder if it works.

[jongoff]

JIS,

Kistler reusability must work 100% from the very first launch. It's something like STS without NASA's resources. It would be world wonder if it works.

Yeah, they picked a rather complicated way to do reusability.  Back when Kistler first caught my attention, about 10 years back, I thought their approach made a lot of sense, and was very straightforward and simple, but now that I have some experience, I'm no longer so impressed.  Interestingly enough, our Bus Dev guy, Michael Mealling was speaking with Rick Citron (who helped raise a lot of the money for Kistler, and several other big space ventures like Orbital and SpaceHab, IIRC) about a year ago.  Rick said that the original intent was for the Kistler guys to build a subscale suborbital vehicle, and practice reusing it, figure out what worked, and what didn't, and maybe even try to market it.  Only once they had some real RLV experience under their belt would they have taken on the orbital vehicle.  He said that had they done that, Kistler probably still would've been around, under its original ownership/management, and still been a profitable, going concern.  With experience they would've both ditched some of their wackier earlier approaches, but also avoided some of their extravagant later expenses.

~Jon

[jcanal12]

>Why would NASA secretly want COTS to fail?
Does it have to be all (opts A-D) or nothing? What if just D is rejected? In that case it seems like NASA could halve their Russian buy AND support commercial space for cargo.

[AntiKev]

Because it forces NASA to go to the moon.  Now this in and of itself isn't a bad thing, it gives NASA some worthwhile goal.  But the bureaucratic inertia is very large, and when you've been sitting there for 25 years doing the same thing over and over, you don't want to change, and you resist change with all of your strength.  The success of one COTS competitor or the other (or both!) would mean that NASA must actually now give results, because private industry is in the game.

[MKremer]

I've tied my tin foil hat really tight reading this thread.

[NotGncDude]

JIS - 18/4/2007  5:58 AM

nobodyofconsequence - 17/4/2007  12:59 AM

Kistler's biggest problem hasn't been technology, just business -

Kistler reusability must work 100% from the very first launch. It's something like STS without NASA's resources. It would be world wonder if it works.

True. It's a complicated system. But so cool though. :laugh:

Technically though, the two only big uncertainties are the flyback of the launch stage after separation and the reentry of the orbital vehicle (They are truly big uncertainties). And there's talk in the air of flying downrange so that leaves you with reentry only. The rest is "standard" rocket science. Ha.

[Norm Hartnett]

MKremer - 18/4/2007  1:56 PM

I've tied my tin foil hat really tight reading this thread.

Would that be the one with the two kool-aid containers and the straw on it?  :laugh: