More COTS info; PlanetSpace projects [Update]

Athena 2 with an Atlas 3 or 5 14 foot fairing, using the LM spacecraft they pitched to Bigelow a few years ago. ATK would add a Shuttle SRB to the Athena 2 for a first stage to get the performance required.

Posted by No one at 11/30/07 22:06:05

Is there any reason whatsoever Planetspace has more credibility than RpK did?

Posted by amonymous at 12/01/07 04:46:10

::Is there any reason whatsoever Planetspace has more credibility than RpK did?

Just that: they havent been around ten years, and burned through hundreds of millions yet. Of course, they havent flown anything, or shown any hardware too

Posted by reader at 12/01/07 05:39:38

The Columbus/Rickenbacker spaceport idea is ridiculous. I live about 5 miles from there and have observed the local airport authority has a history of throwing grants and tax incentives at whatever airline asks to come set up shop. They haven't shown a lot of discernment.

How does Planetspace expect to overcome the safety issues? Even if they don't launch from here, recovery will be a real hoot...the runways at LCK are fine but I don't know how they could plan reliable operations. It's frequently instrument conditions here and you can't shoot an ILS in a glider.

Posted by Pat C at 12/01/07 08:56:04

This is depressing. Most/all of these folks are selling the old guard's wares. I hope NASA doesn't buy any of it.

Posted by Daniel Schmelzer at 12/01/07 11:30:52

Maybe ATK has a lot of Athena parts already on hand to put them to use as the vehicle was supposed to been a delta II and soyuz booster killer when it was developed.
Though this is only a cargo vehicle no crew but the Athena is tested but I wonder about the payload capacity and can it compete against vehicles like Falcon 9 and Soyuz in cost per Kg.

As for recovering the cargo vehicle I would stay far away from wooded regions and the ocean but instead use a tundra steep or better yet a desert region as a landing.
site.
Utah or Nevada could make a good landing site for the reentry vehicle.
I'm basing this on the Russians loosing a few vehicles such as the IRDT demonstrators in snow storms etc and to scrap hunters.
As for landing sites for the silver dart I think visibility conditions are the biggest issue unless they believe they have solved the The dart it's self should be much more robust then the shuttle as it has a metallic TPS so a little rain will not harm it unlike the shuttle.

Posted by Ruri at 12/01/07 15:48:23

Alan Boyle's Article is disappointing.

Alan is merely prostituting himself out for embargoed stories. He didn't ask ONE tough question. The story read like a PlanetSpace press release.

There wasn't even a challenge to Kathuria's ststement that they had met the first 5 COTS milestones.

There is NO PROOF anywhere that they have title to the land in Nova Scotia, and reasonablly good proof (Sarah Levy from NSBI - Oct.26.2007) that they do NOT have title to it.

anonymous,

"Is there any reason whatsoever Planetspace has more credibility than RpK did?"

In two words, Canadian Arrow. During the Xprize (1.0)Canadian Arrow did really impressive work on their engine and even did a drop test in Toronto. They were pretty quiet, except when they had done something. They issued a press release with pictures/video.

After they were bought by PlanetSpace in the spring of 2005, all that stopped.

There has been no indication that anything has been done there. (PlanetSpace's management hasn't even addressed this check out their websites for yourself.)

http://www.canadianarrow.com
http://www.planetspace.org
http://www.space505050.com

I had hoped this Planetspace thing would not take on the same persona that the RiPK thing did. I guess I was wrong.

RiPlanetSpace :(

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by amonymous at 12/01/07 04:46:10

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 12/01/07 15:48:56

Clark,

As I see it the problem with ITAR is this. They plan to launch from Nova Scotia. (Or they won't stand a chance of getting the required IRB for Athena). Getting this across the border MAY be the big issue. I'm not an expert in ITAR or MTCR (after Anthony Cesaroni's comments last week i've been researching both) Maybe someone with an understanding of these can enlighten us?

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 12/01/07 15:53:53

Is it just me, or was there a NOTICEABLE lack of discussion about the Arrow suborbital vehicle in their future?

If true, I guess these guys really are back to powerpoint presentations and vaporware. I had hoped they had been continuing their development effort as they had stated.

First flight late 2009/early 2010. They are using the standard 24 month to flight B.S. again.

:(

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 12/01/07 17:19:53

"As I see it the problem with ITAR is this. They plan to launch from Nova Scotia."

Look at the rendering of the booster at launch. If that is Nova Scotia, I'm a Canadian. (I'm not.)

The launch site is the Cape, as in Canaveral.

Posted by Check the image at 12/01/07 19:18:07

Check the image,

READ THE STORY!

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn....

" . . . to fly the suborbital Silver Dart with its Alchemy-powered booster from a Nova Scotia spaceport starting in late 2009 or early 2010."

"the first demonstration launch would lift off from Cape Canaveral, Fla., in late 2010"

Just because their launching a demo flight from Florida, doens't mean they don't intend to use the launch infrastructure they have to build in Nova Scotia.

Also, without bringing the launches to Nova Scotia, I don't think the Canadian Government will allow the IRB that LockMart needs to donate Athena to PlanetSpace.

Try to read the story instead of only looking at the pretty pictures. Thats what all the vaporware companies are counting on.

"OOOOooo look at the pretty picture, what a great company!" - Check the image.

I'm not Canadian either, but you have to feel sorry for them. First Not-so-Flyin Brian and now PlanetSpace.

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 12/01/07 20:23:59

B.B,
The way I read these articles, the new COTS proposal does not involve the Athena/Nova Scotia thing, which sounded to me like nothing more than a trial balloon that was quickly shot down big time.

The PlanetSpace/LM/ATK COTS proposal is an all US project. In fact, if they win an SAA, I don't see how they could even go to Canadian sources for significant investment since RpK tried that and it was not acceptable to NASA.

PlanetSpace hasn't flown anything or shown any hardware other than the Canadian Arrow engine tests, and has only released dabs of info. So I've no data on which to defend their credibility. However, I have to believe that LM/ATK did a reasonable degree of due diligence on the company and would not have agreed on a collaboration if the firm had no substance to it.

NASA has been interacting with PS via the unfunded SAA so the agency has some knowledge about the company. Furthermore, for the new funded SAA the team as a whole will have to convince the agency that they have a real shot at getting to orbit.

Besides, the cool thing about COTS is the fixed-price milestone structure. The money will be cut off early if the team isn't performing. Don't have to wait to the major overruns stage before shutting down a failed project.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/01/07 23:01:46

Clark,

Thanks for your insight.

I'll believe it when I see it. I don't believe that the IRB/Athena/LockMart thing is a coincedence.

I also have a hard time understanding why (other than the IRB) LockMart would partner with a company that, as you also observed, has done nothing.

The proposed launch centre in Nova Scotia will be intersting to watch then if all their going to do from there is SubOrbital space tourism with the Golden Dart and V-2 based boosters.

Can Space Tourism support the expense of building launch infrastructure there?

My understanding of PlanetSpace's Nova Scotia plans was that it was the ideal place to launch to the ISS due to it being close to Baikonur, and would not require the extra propellant to orbit shift, as a launch from Florida would.

I guess i'm just tired of all the rhetoric. I really enjoy seeing companies battle to make progress in what is a really tough idustry (from a technical & finacial perspective).

The next few months should be entertaining if not intersting.

Lastly, if i'm wrong about these guys, I'll be the first person to admit it.

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 12/02/07 09:38:54

“The Golden Dart Dream Team”.

I just found this over at spacefellowship.
This is very, Very Funny.

I am guessing it is not real though. I hope!
At least I think?
http://spacefellowship.com/...

Posted by Al Parke at 12/02/07 11:00:17

Hi, friends: I responded to the questions about the Nova Scotia deal in the comments section for the original item, but to recap:

Kathuria read the five milestones that NASA said were met, including the selection of the launch site. I will check again about this on Monday, and if it turns out NASA has not acknowledged that Planetspace has met those milestones, I'll definitely have the item reflect that and also note it in the comments.

Kathuria and Lockmart's Simpson said that the Canadian reports were wrong about the status of the Nova Scotia deal, but declined to go into the specifics. It sounds like the deal is still in flux.

It's complex because the unfunded SAA relates to the Silver Dart and the Alchemy-powered booster, while the COTS proposal would put forward the OTV from Lockmart plus the ATK-developed launch vehicle.

I don't understand where all these reader references to the Athena are coming from. Maybe ATK is planning an Athena-like launch vehicle. ATK's George Torres told me the launch vehicle would be a "new combination" of existing components (and specifically not the ALV X-1).

The COTS demonstration flight would take place from the Cape, as noted. Kathuria said it could well be that in the post-2010 time frame, flights to the space station would be launched from the Nova Scotia site ... depending on how things turn out. It sounds as if that aspect of it would require a lot of finessing.

It's important to note that, the way Kathuria puts it now, no launches or landings would take place from Ohio. Ohio would be an office and production facility, but the spacecraft integration and launch (for the COTS project) would be Florida-based. To me, it sounds similar to Blue Origin's arrangement (in that case, office/production in the Seattle area, test flights in Texas). The current plan calls for the suborbital launch to take place from Nova Scotia.

I don't have complete information so I'm sorry if there's a lot of hand-waving here. I meant to focus on the PlanetSpace/Lockmart/ATK angle but wanted to pass along what I heard (in response to my questions) about Ohio and Nova Scotia as well).

I do agree that the next couple of months will be interesting, but it could be that everything will fizzle out for the time being, as was the case for SpaceDev during the first COTS competition. Now SpaceDev and SpaceX look to be the favorites to get the re-offered COTS money (IMHO), and PlanetSpace et al. would certainly have to be considered a dark horse.

Posted by Alan Boyle at 12/02/07 17:32:17

Hi Alan,
Thanks for the extra info!
- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/02/07 18:41:24

Alan,

The core of the booster is the old Athena 2. LockMart has spare rockets they have been trying to offload for a while now. ATK will add a short Shuttle SRB to make it into the new booster. LM will add the Atlas 4M fairing.

Posted by Can-t say more at 12/02/07 18:50:50

Alan,

You say the favorites have to be SpaceDev and Space X. Why?

SpaceDev's DreamChaser is a project which will most likely cost upwards of $750 Million to $1 Billion to bring online, launches on EELVs which are certainly not cheap, and will not be ready until 2012 at the earliest possible (and quite unlikely) estimates. Not to mention, it only carries 2.5 mT of cargo. With such a low capacity on EELV it will be tremendously expensive.

Then you have Space X, which already has a contract, and has enough funding already. NASA would be making a tragic mistake to put all their eggs in one basket, especially considering the delays Space X has experienced.

It would seem that ARCTUS from Spacehab should be well in the running considering it can carry 6 mT launching from EELV which would make it far cheaper than Dreamchaser to deliver the 16 mT of cargo for ISS per year. Development will not cost nearly as much as the Planetspace or SpaceDev concepts, and will be online by 2009.

Also ATV/HTV launching on EELVs would be able to carry 6 mT, and will be human rated, plus is already in development.

I just don't see why SpaceDev would be a front-runner, especially after NASA's experience with a similarly ambitious and expensive proposal from RPK, and with 2 years gone buy with no development from Spacedev.

It would seem that NASA would be more likely to select a team which will be likely to deliver when the Shuttle goes offline.

Posted by Concered Bystander at 12/03/07 13:04:32

What would Spacehab offer that CSI will not be able to offer? If COTS 2 is only about covering the gap years and specifically only for space station cargo delivery, then I would agree that what Spacehab or CSI is proposing will get the job done. Ignoring political ramifications, it would be even better in terms of cost and risk to contract out the delivery to Russian (or even perhaps to ESA or Japanese) providers. NASA could just purchase the launches from existing foreign launch providers and forego funding COTS 2 altogether. This would only be a few years until the Ares is on line.

The Dreamchaser is a vehicle whose primary function is to deliver people AND cargo, and return to Earth via runway landing. That it would carry less than a pure cargo transport is a trade-off but not a showstopper. It seems also that the Dreamchaser would not live and die with the ISS. As for cost, clearly Spacedev is not entering COTS with proposed development costs of $750 million to $1 Billion. Not even the Dragon will cost that much. I believe $1 Billion has already been spent developing the HL-20. To be anecdotal, it seems to me that it is more realistic to think that the Dreamchaser would be an order of magnitude more costly than the SpaceshipOne costs, say $230 million.

Posted by HAL at 12/03/07 17:38:48

The cost of development of the shuttle is an excellent indicator of the costs to develop Dreamchaser, not to mention that the costs of maintenance for a space plane has proven to be tremendous when compared to a capsule design, especially one with such a curvy and complex leading edge. I think $230 Million is far too low, considering that Spacedev originally asked for much more than that in the original COTS I proposal and indicated that they would need additional funding from outside sources. You say "not even the Dragon would cost that much" as though capsule designs have been more expensive than space planes or that their is any reason to expect DreamChaser to be cheaper than Dragon.

With regards to the comment that instead of going with Spacehab NASA could just purchase foreign launch providers, there are several problems with that. NASA would only be able to purchase cargo space aboard the launches scheduled, and NASA cargo would certainly take a back seat to ESA cargo (or whatever agency they are buying a ride on).

You said "ignoring political ramifications" but that is a major problem when contracting out to foreign launchers and ignoring it is taking a major benefit of Spacehab or CSI away.

Spacehab's proposal also may prove to be the cheapest solution, considering the low cost of the development of ARCTUS due to the use of existing components and its ability to fly on EELVs requiring no development of a new LV. Also, since ARCTUS seems to fly on 4-5m fairing LV's it is also conceivable that it would be able to fly on F9 if and when Space X develop it, leading to what would certainly be a very cheap trip to LEO, ARCTUS flying on F9.

Posted by Concered Bystander at 12/03/07 19:00:33

It is my understanding that most of the cost estimates for the Dreamchaser in COTS I were due to SpaceDev's proposal for an entirely new launch system. There was a lot of effort by NASA to develop the HL-20. Capsules in space is nearly 50 years old. Lessons learned with the shuttle should not be a reason to perpetuate the usage of capsules, especially for LEO operations involving the transport of people. ESAS is a different story because we need to "learn" how to get to the moon again.

Posted by Rand at 12/03/07 21:16:01

Concerned Bystander:
One thing the Shuttle is NOT and will probably NEVER be is a 'good' example of anything :o)
It's development costs were far over what they should have been for the vehicle that we got, it was never designed with maintenance and operations costs as a factor and it isn't a good example of what such a vehicle as DreamChaser "could/should/will" cost to develop and put into operation.

Something to keep in mind.

Randy

Posted by Randy Campbell at 12/05/07 08:23:52

Alan,

Thanks for the clarification. It would probably be easier for PlanetSpace if they would stop sending mixed messages.

I will trust NASA that they say PlanetSpace has met their milestones. It seems that the only info from PlanetSpace is when they issue a press release, or story to the press with details of something new.

I had read the comments about their initial IRB back at the end of October and the only comment from PlanetSpace was a "No Comment" from Kathuria.

Again, thanks for your dillegence in updating this. I will give PlanetSpace the benefit of the doubt and write this off to bad PR on their part.

My $ 0.02 worth.

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 12/09/07 18:05:09

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me