Flightglobal's spaceflight analysis this week looks at the 10 August announced Commercial Crew Development (CCdev) programme and it and its participants' prospects when US president Barack Obama could kill all hopes for an instant market by not choosing commercial space transportation
Looking at the list of 50 or so companies that have expressed an interest in CCDev some names are more credible than others. All the aerospace primes. Lockheed Martin, the joint venture United Launch Alliance, ATK et al are there and their previous teaming partner PlanetSpace.
The problem for the primes is that to date they have not succeeded in bidding for commercial contracts. Beaten by Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences in the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services and Commercial Resupply Services competitions these "old space" aerospace prime contractors are not obviously a good bet
Looking further down the list's aerospace industry food chain (or is that up?) and selecting on the basis of cashflow and technology and not just collective brain power SpaceX and Orbital spring out at the reader as does Bigelow Aerospace and Blue Origin
Orbital Sciences has been very radio silent with past Flightglobal interview requests not responded too and no reply to an email about its CCDev intentions, so its situation is difficult to judge as is Blue Origin's
The secrecy of Blue Origin and the resources of its alleged billionaire owner Jeff Bezos (alleged billionaire status not his ownership of the company) means that its position is also difficult to judge and could mean it is a wild card. However Blue Origin has only been aiming for a sub-orbital system and over the years its design has changed from a single-stage-to-suborbit vertical take-off vertical landing rocket towards a more conventional rocket and capsule
The team that Hyperbola thinks could be quite interesting is a Bigelow Aerospace, SpaceX partnership but is Bigelow, a company that has told Hyperbola it is to make a CCDev proposal, about to take a different turn?
Looking at the list of 50 or so companies that have expressed an interest in CCDev some names are more credible than others. All the aerospace primes. Lockheed Martin, the joint venture United Launch Alliance, ATK et al are there and their previous teaming partner PlanetSpace.
The problem for the primes is that to date they have not succeeded in bidding for commercial contracts. Beaten by Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences in the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services and Commercial Resupply Services competitions these "old space" aerospace prime contractors are not obviously a good bet
Looking further down the list's aerospace industry food chain (or is that up?) and selecting on the basis of cashflow and technology and not just collective brain power SpaceX and Orbital spring out at the reader as does Bigelow Aerospace and Blue Origin
Orbital Sciences has been very radio silent with past Flightglobal interview requests not responded too and no reply to an email about its CCDev intentions, so its situation is difficult to judge as is Blue Origin's
The secrecy of Blue Origin and the resources of its alleged billionaire owner Jeff Bezos (alleged billionaire status not his ownership of the company) means that its position is also difficult to judge and could mean it is a wild card. However Blue Origin has only been aiming for a sub-orbital system and over the years its design has changed from a single-stage-to-suborbit vertical take-off vertical landing rocket towards a more conventional rocket and capsule
The team that Hyperbola thinks could be quite interesting is a Bigelow Aerospace, SpaceX partnership but is Bigelow, a company that has told Hyperbola it is to make a CCDev proposal, about to take a different turn?
Bigelow, led by hotelier Robert Bigelow, another individual identified as a billionaire by some media, could lead a team with a marketing led pitch that describes a private space station, ISS customer base as its business rationale for a crew transport system
NASA's CCDev solicitation document states that the agency will evaluate a business' viability on the basis that "The participant shall provide data that demonstrates the participant viability as an ongoing company able to provide the proposed commercial crew space transportation capability once developed". So having a clearly identified second customer, the private space station, would seem like a pretty good feature of any proposal
And now we know what transport system Bigelow has in mind, apparently a scaled down version of NASA's Orion crew exploration vehicle that would sit atop a Lockheed Martin, United Launch Alliance Atlas V, which for years we have been told can be human rated merely with the addition of a disaster detection system
This blog has addressed the issue of human rating Atlas V and the slight problem of its engines being Russian
And if that wasn't enough Hyperbola has in the past spoken to senior, eh make that, very senior Lockheed Martin Space System's space exploration officials and the story this blog gets about the alleged Bigelow, Lockheed co-operation on the blogosphere's holy grail of a crew launching Atlas V is, eh, now don't be too upset, a couple of friends yakking over whisky tumblers
In the MSNBC/space.com article Bigelow spokesman (and counsel I think) Mike Gold says he "believes" this Orion lite/Atlas V launch system could be launched in 2013 but Hyperbola has had no indication of substantial work having been done for this launch system. And in the space.com article it states "Gold would not say whether Orion prime contractor Lockheed Martin has or will have any involvement in Orion Lite" and that Lockheed did not respond to space.com's calls
While Scott Horowitz, when he was head of exploration systems, did tell Flightglobal that Orion subsystems could be used for commercial ventures one wonders what the legal situation is with the intellectual property rights for a vehicle that would be designated a "national asset"
To be fair to Lockheed, Orion is a key part of the Constellation programme and the entire Moon return effort could be about to be cancelled. The problems for Lockheed in talking publicly about using Constellation systems for a commercial venture begin with maintaining relations with NASA personnel (I've seen senior Constellation personnel and Lockheed managers publicly clash over the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, Ares I crew launch vehicle debate), the wider politics of the space sector, the Obama administration and Congress, and then the nitty gritty of the legal agreements regarding who owns what
For a commercial venture, while Lockheed is a large company with a successful spaceflight legacy with that history comes pension and health programme liabilities that stack its cost base in the wrong direction
What will a Bigelow, Lockheed team get for a few tens of millions of dollars, if the proposal is accepted? Remember Kistler Aerospace and its K-1? They spent, what, $600 million using the aerospace primes as their subcontractors and ended up with hardware nicely warehoused but never flown
Wouldn't teaming with SpaceX provide a better hourly labour cost rate? Or is Bigelow planning a dream team proposal using both companies?
What makes Hyperbola wonder if SpaceX is going to be a prime and may instead be a sub on a team is the odd response this blog received to an enquiry about CCDev
After asking SpaceX if it would submit a proposal Hyperbvola waited three days for this statement attributed to Lawrence Williams, SpaceX Vice President of Strategic Relations: ""SpaceX enthusiastically supports NASA's historic decision to invest in developing domestic human spaceflight capabilities on a commercial basis. Congress has now officially authorized and appropriated the Commercial Crew Development program, which aligns with the Augustine Commission's recommendation for a robust, multi-year commercial human spaceflight initiative. Given the Congressional approval and the Augustine Commission's recommendations, it appears almost certain that commercial human spaceflight will be a critical part of NASA's exploration plans going forward."
Nice warm words, but what are they actually going to do?!
Hyperbola's theory about this is that as CCDev is about assisting companies develop "capabilities and technologies" for mitigating risk for crew transport, it could include an emergency detection and launch abort system (LAS)
NASA says of its CCDev selection evaluation that "Key...factors include the degree of progress on long lead capabilities, technologies, and commercial crew risk mitigation tasks associated with proposed commercial crew space transportation system goals and the likelihood of successful execution of performance milestones as proposed."
Is basic work for a common emergency detection system or even a LAS a viable, achievable goal over 10-months?
SpaceX has said a period of about two years is needed for developing a LAS for Dragon but surely Lockheed could bring data to the table that could shorten that?
On the other hand SpaceX may well go ahead and be a prime with its own proposal. Other firms on the list of interested companies that are linked to SpaceX include its COTS partners Paragon Space Development, which was to provide life-support systems for Dragon and Odyssey Space Research and Ares, which will provide safety and mission assurance expertise
But NASA does say in its pre-proposal conference charts that it could award the $50 million to just one organisation/team. Why not have a Bigelow led team that includes SpaceX and Lockheed?
BTW the ARRA that is funding this programme also had a further $100 million for commercial spaceflight with $40 million going towards analysing the reliablity of the COTS and CRS providers launch vehicles - those being Space Exploration Technologies' Falcon 9 and Orbital Sciences' Taurus II. Something to think about
NASA's CCDev solicitation document states that the agency will evaluate a business' viability on the basis that "The participant shall provide data that demonstrates the participant viability as an ongoing company able to provide the proposed commercial crew space transportation capability once developed". So having a clearly identified second customer, the private space station, would seem like a pretty good feature of any proposal
And now we know what transport system Bigelow has in mind, apparently a scaled down version of NASA's Orion crew exploration vehicle that would sit atop a Lockheed Martin, United Launch Alliance Atlas V, which for years we have been told can be human rated merely with the addition of a disaster detection system
This blog has addressed the issue of human rating Atlas V and the slight problem of its engines being Russian
And if that wasn't enough Hyperbola has in the past spoken to senior, eh make that, very senior Lockheed Martin Space System's space exploration officials and the story this blog gets about the alleged Bigelow, Lockheed co-operation on the blogosphere's holy grail of a crew launching Atlas V is, eh, now don't be too upset, a couple of friends yakking over whisky tumblers
In the MSNBC/space.com article Bigelow spokesman (and counsel I think) Mike Gold says he "believes" this Orion lite/Atlas V launch system could be launched in 2013 but Hyperbola has had no indication of substantial work having been done for this launch system. And in the space.com article it states "Gold would not say whether Orion prime contractor Lockheed Martin has or will have any involvement in Orion Lite" and that Lockheed did not respond to space.com's calls
While Scott Horowitz, when he was head of exploration systems, did tell Flightglobal that Orion subsystems could be used for commercial ventures one wonders what the legal situation is with the intellectual property rights for a vehicle that would be designated a "national asset"
To be fair to Lockheed, Orion is a key part of the Constellation programme and the entire Moon return effort could be about to be cancelled. The problems for Lockheed in talking publicly about using Constellation systems for a commercial venture begin with maintaining relations with NASA personnel (I've seen senior Constellation personnel and Lockheed managers publicly clash over the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, Ares I crew launch vehicle debate), the wider politics of the space sector, the Obama administration and Congress, and then the nitty gritty of the legal agreements regarding who owns what
For a commercial venture, while Lockheed is a large company with a successful spaceflight legacy with that history comes pension and health programme liabilities that stack its cost base in the wrong direction
What will a Bigelow, Lockheed team get for a few tens of millions of dollars, if the proposal is accepted? Remember Kistler Aerospace and its K-1? They spent, what, $600 million using the aerospace primes as their subcontractors and ended up with hardware nicely warehoused but never flown
Wouldn't teaming with SpaceX provide a better hourly labour cost rate? Or is Bigelow planning a dream team proposal using both companies?
What makes Hyperbola wonder if SpaceX is going to be a prime and may instead be a sub on a team is the odd response this blog received to an enquiry about CCDev
After asking SpaceX if it would submit a proposal Hyperbvola waited three days for this statement attributed to Lawrence Williams, SpaceX Vice President of Strategic Relations: ""SpaceX enthusiastically supports NASA's historic decision to invest in developing domestic human spaceflight capabilities on a commercial basis. Congress has now officially authorized and appropriated the Commercial Crew Development program, which aligns with the Augustine Commission's recommendation for a robust, multi-year commercial human spaceflight initiative. Given the Congressional approval and the Augustine Commission's recommendations, it appears almost certain that commercial human spaceflight will be a critical part of NASA's exploration plans going forward."
Nice warm words, but what are they actually going to do?!
Hyperbola's theory about this is that as CCDev is about assisting companies develop "capabilities and technologies" for mitigating risk for crew transport, it could include an emergency detection and launch abort system (LAS)
NASA says of its CCDev selection evaluation that "Key...factors include the degree of progress on long lead capabilities, technologies, and commercial crew risk mitigation tasks associated with proposed commercial crew space transportation system goals and the likelihood of successful execution of performance milestones as proposed."
Is basic work for a common emergency detection system or even a LAS a viable, achievable goal over 10-months?
SpaceX has said a period of about two years is needed for developing a LAS for Dragon but surely Lockheed could bring data to the table that could shorten that?
On the other hand SpaceX may well go ahead and be a prime with its own proposal. Other firms on the list of interested companies that are linked to SpaceX include its COTS partners Paragon Space Development, which was to provide life-support systems for Dragon and Odyssey Space Research and Ares, which will provide safety and mission assurance expertise
But NASA does say in its pre-proposal conference charts that it could award the $50 million to just one organisation/team. Why not have a Bigelow led team that includes SpaceX and Lockheed?
BTW the ARRA that is funding this programme also had a further $100 million for commercial spaceflight with $40 million going towards analysing the reliablity of the COTS and CRS providers launch vehicles - those being Space Exploration Technologies' Falcon 9 and Orbital Sciences' Taurus II. Something to think about
on August 24, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply
It sounds like nobody these days knows how to construct a rocket! It we could do it 40 years ago, surely SOME PRIVATE COMPANY can do it today!
on August 24, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply
.
no, since, so far, the "commercial" (like the CRS program) prices are up to FOUR times higher than the (already expensive) Shuttle costs
however...
are you curious to know WHAT you can do (in Space) with the ($35 billion) Ares-1 "price"???
well, you can find NINE options here: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/051ares1price.html
.
on August 24, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply
Saying there's any difference between paying a self made billionaire & paying NASA to do a job is ridiculous. SpaceX is totally dependent on the Air Force for launch facilities & money. All the private companies depend on government contracts. You think Scaled Composites got its machine tooling selling lemonade? There is no difference in cost.
on August 24, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply
Right now, private industry just doesn't have a reliable rocket capable of launching the Orion space craft into orbit. And until they develop such a rocket, there's no way that NASA or the tax payers should entertain the idea of immediately turning over access to LEO to private industry.
NASA and private industry need to get together in order to develop a-- simple-- rocket booster capable of delivering the Orion space craft into orbit that could also be used to launch satellites and cargo into LEO.
Man-rating a Delta IV heavy would not be the answer for private industry, IMO. We need an Earth to orbit booster even simpler than this one. I suggest a shuttle derived-- DIRECT-light-- vehicle that only uses the space shuttle external tank and several SSMEs but no solid rocket boosters to carry the Orion into orbit.
on August 25, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply
You are missing the point.
Bigelow does not want a partner per se. They want MULTIPLE companies in space. SpaceX is absolutely going to be there with a cargo craft in under two years (likely in under one, unless they lose a falcon 9). But, keep in mind that Bigelow has waited for many years for SpaceX to get there. They want their BA-330 up there ASAP. But the only way is to have cheap reliable launchers. SO, bigelow is hoping to convince NASA (really congress) to fund ULA. To be honest, I would rather see congress spend money on ULA, spaceX AND scaled's (nee northrup) SS3. That way, within 3-4 years, we have many human rated launchers from America that will compete.
Also, as to Bigelow, what is missing is that we really need them to start their production line. I am hoping that Bigelow will approach NASA/Congress and try to sell them on buying a sundancer AND a BA-330. The sundancer would come first and be used for storage. That way, its hatch would be mostly closed, but opened when getting supplies. In a year or so later, then a BA-330 would be hooked up and it could be used for living space. These would cost under 100 million each, though launch costs would make them be 200-400 million each. But, that would get Bigelow's line started and lead to multiple space stations in orbit by 2012. That is multiple destinations for launchers. That will only lower the future costs for NASA.
on August 25, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply
Eh? Bigelow Aerospace has bought a Falcon 9 flight to launch a space station prototype module. You think ULA has cheap launchers compared to SpaceX?
on August 27, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply
FlightGlobal used to be such a well respected source for news about the Space Program. Now it has devolved into a mouthpiece for the Coalition for Space Exploration.
Where to start? Let's focus on one particular section.
"And if that wasn't enough Hyperbola has in the past spoken to senior, eh make that, very senior Lockheed Martin Space System's space exploration officials and the story this blog gets about the alleged Bigelow, Lockheed co-operation on the blogosphere's holy grail of a crew launching Atlas V is, eh, now don't be too upset, a couple of friends yakking over whisky tumblers"
I have in my hands a set of charts from May 5, 2008 entitled "Technical Interchange Meeting #1" that according to the Title Page was conducted in Denver Colorado. This 162 page LM presentation package has a SIGNIFICANT amount of technical data on how an Orion-Lite would be designed.
I wonder how many "friends" were "yakking over whisky tumblers" during this 162 page presentation?
From the package, it looks like even ULA participated, and presented a detailed Atlas V compatibility assessment. This would seem to contradict your assertion "...but Hyperbola has had no indication of substantial work having been done for this launch system." The ULA charts clearly show otherwise.
There's even a detailed Orion Lite schedule that shows an ILC in 1Q 2012! Of particular interest is the Summary Chart presented by LM that says "No Show Stoppers Identified!"
Maybe only LM was drinking "whisky tumblers" as they presented these charts. That might explain their apparent memory loss about this Study.
Oh, wait!! LM and Bigelow must have had a great time doing whisky shots during the first TIM, because they got together once again, this time in Sin City!!
I have another set of 116 charts which are entitled "Technical Interchange Meeting #2." According to the Title Page, this was held in Las Vegas, Nevada on July 21st and 22nd 2008. Once again, a considerable amount of Orion-Lite mature, baseline designs in this LM package. And on their "Project Status" chart, LM says once again "No Show Stoppers."
Your "very senior LMSS space exploration official" had no problem taking money from Bigelow to conduct an Orion-Lite Study, but they sure are distancing themselves once the story came out in SpaceNews. Why would they do that?
Rob, did you DO any investigative reporting before you made this post? Did you bother to make a call to Bigelow to even ASK about the study, or did you simply take LM's word for it? Maybe you wanted an invitation to the next LM "Whisky Tumbler" TIM.
on August 27, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply
Its easy to make claims about presentations that no one else can see.
I have no doubt that LM will tell a prospective customer what they want to hear.
It takes 5min to claim there are no show stoppers. We have all been told that but I didn't believe it and if you have seen my blog post about the Atlas V engines you'll know that the obstacles to a man rated Atlas V are not just the addition of an emergency detection system. Did those presentations mention that? The issues surrounding the Russian engines?
You accuse me of being in the coalition for space exploration's pocket and then start spouting LM at me. That company is in the coalition.
In 2008 I spoke to LMSS about eight weeks before this alleged May presentation you wave around would have been drawn up and it was made clear to me then that it had just been talk.
The question is, what is substantial work?
In the context of the claim that an Orion lite atop a human rated Atlas V could be launched by 2013 Hyperbola says there has been NO substantial work to achieve this
on August 28, 2009 4:36 AM | Reply
Come on, Rob... "It takes 5min to claim there are no show stoppers."
How long do you think it took LM to generate the 162 pages TIM #1 package and the 116 page TM #2 package to get the data to allow them to conclude "...No Showstoppers"??
I ask again... Did you call another source? Did you follow all the leads? Maybe even put a call in to Bigelow? I think their number is in the phone book. I can look it up for you, since it seems you don't have access to a phone book. Heck, I'm sure your source at LM has the phone number.
The information is out there, all you have to do is make a simple phone call.
Isn't that what a true journalist is supposed to do??
on September 2, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply
Re ET tank w/o SRBs. LOX/LH2 is a hi-altitude fuel - for which the SSME engines are "biased". It's sea level Isp is too low, as is the Dsp. If not solids, then LOX/RP1 or Toxic Dose(N2O4/Hydrazine derivatives) medium Isp fueled liquid boosters are still required.
I think unless the "Big Three" change their financial and Engineering modus operandi, roping them in on ANY commercial start-up in space is a losing wicket. As Rob pointed look at poor old Kistler: the people with the ONLY answer to "airline"(circa 1930's!) access to space.
The USAF connection with SPACE X may well be why the former, via the "AEROSPACE Corp", tripled the cost of Constellation/Orion/ARES in comparison with previous estimates. What's THEIR game I wonder? Military only in space...curious...revenge for DynaSoar & MOL...ICGO&O!