More CSI/Loral COTS proposal info

With all the recent press by the COTS contenders, how have people's opinions changed for whom is the most likely frontrunner?

The information released to the public on the proposals for SpaceHab, SSL, and SpaceDev seem promising, but have they really had enough time to be thoroughly conceptualized? Are these companies just whipping up ideas that may or may not be half-baked?

Posted by Navi at 12/11/07 12:15:59

CSI and their container were around for a while, but I do not know how detailed their design is. I suppose that everything that is carried over from their previous proposal is very detailed, the rest may be less so. I expect the SS/L's tug to be used without refueling a few times around (if it ever flies).

Posted by Pete Zaitcev at 12/11/07 14:53:55

Hello... What about a launch vehicle? All these proposals are trying to do the "last mile" only, when the last mile is not the part where the problem is. If NASA had a $25M launch solution, wouldn't they be able to have LM, SSL, or Boeing whip up a can? And probably for less than the $175M that COTS has to give out. Griffin already said that the EELV was too expensive to be a viable solution, so I ask "Where is the launcher?" If PlanetSpace is the only team other than SpaceX proposing a launch vehicle, I suspect that they are an almost guaranteed win.

Posted by turkeysandwich at 12/11/07 16:13:04

"Griffin already said that the EELV was too expensive to be a viable solution"

No, the EELVs were rejected by him on the basis that they had certain "black zones" during their ascent trajectories where aborts were not possible. See this discussion:
http://www.nasaspaceflight....

Otherwise, starting from the EELVs clearly was a cheaper option than building a new ELV. The Ares 1 also will not have low operating costs.

A primary selling point for the Spacehab and CSI systems is that they are compatible with more than one launcher. Both proposals apparently focus on the EELVs but they could also use a foreign launcher or even a Falcon 9.

Their spacecraft are more than just "cans". Approaching and docking with the ISS is a big issue and NASA will have to be 100% convinced by a COTS contractor that their system can do this safely before they will be allowed to get anywhere close to the station. The Progress tug was held as a big positive feature of the original CSI proposal since that vehicle has already proven that it can dock safely with the ISS.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/11/07 17:52:27

"No, the EELVs were rejected by him on the basis that they had certain "black zones" during their ascent trajectories where aborts were not possible."

This is no longer a show-stopper (at least for Atlas 5) based on work LM and ULA reported at AIAA Space 2006 and 2007. Of course, it was only an excuse and never really true, in any case. Ares 1 is far more difficult to escape from at all times that any EELV.

Posted by Gary C Hudson at 12/11/07 18:43:04

It seems that the tug SSL is proposing is somewhat rigid in its capabilities unless COTS = "ISS (and only ISS) cargo supply".

Posted by Michael W at 12/11/07 20:23:14

Clark,

Griffin did expressly say that the EELV's were too expensive. Check the thread from a few weeks ago. He went off on the ULA guys during the STA breakfast, then when someone later asked why they were excluded from COTS, he clarified saying no one was excluded, they were just too expensive.

http://www.hobbyspace.com/n...

He has been quoted time and again as saying that they don't want EELV's as their transportation solution, manned or unmanned. So why is everyone clinging to that solution when it is clearly not what the customer wants?

Gary: Sorry about excluding your launcher from the possible list of winners, but it is not clear if the tSpace proposal is using it. Is tSpace and AirLaunch still teamed for COTS?

Posted by turkeysandwich at 12/11/07 20:38:16

"Gary: Sorry about excluding your launcher from the possible list of winners, but it is not clear if the tSpace proposal is using it. Is tSpace and AirLaunch still teamed for COTS?"

Unfortunately, while I wish I could talk about it I am not at liberty to reveal details of the t/Space proposal, but I can confirm that t/Space and AirLaunch are still teamed.

Posted by Gary C Hudson at 12/11/07 21:09:43

Its funny that the EELVs were not considered a problem for the OSP when it was the Shuttle replacement program of the day. What happened? Did the EELV performance change? Or is it just that the NASA administrator changed.

Posted by WiseSpacer at 12/11/07 21:42:04

Hi Gary,
I didn't mean to imply that the black zones could not be overcome. The article I linked to discusses how the LM studies eliminated such zones for the Atlas 5. I definitely agree that they were just Griffin's excuse to eliminate the EELVs from Constellation.

turkeysandwich,
Sorry, I thought you were talking about why NASA went with the Ares 1 rather than the EELVs. I don't remember seeing any details (especially WRT prices) on what the ULA guys submitted to the first COTS round. I'm sure that SpaceX's and RpK's proposed prices were a lot cheaper than ULA's.

However, when judging the current round of proposals, the fact that the ULA launchers are already flying should carry some weight when judging the ULA/X (where X is Spacehab, CSI/Loral, etc.) against the proposals that involve developing whole new launchers, especially with only $175M involved. A big positive factor for SpaceX and RpK in the first round was the fact that, out of all the startups, they had lots of hardware in hand.

As you suggest, NASA may nevertheless eliminate every proposal that has a ULA component. The weirdness of having ULA companies involved in a parallel program that accomplishes most of what can be done with Ares 1/Orion but for 20-30 times less money could be hard to explain.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/11/07 22:03:42

Closing black zones on an EELV would be a lot easier then on a booster with a first stage that cannot be throttled.
But one thing did change from the OSP and the CEV and thats the shape of the reentry vehicle.
The OSP was a space plane and the CEV became a scaled up apollo capsule.
Space planes do have one big advantaged over capsules in that they have a high lift to drag coefficient that allows them to flatten a steep reentry while in the upper atmosphere before hitting the denser layers of the atmosphere.
This allows them to keep g forces with in survivable ranges.

Posted by Ruri at 12/11/07 22:06:40

The only real reason I can see using ares I would be to keep the shuttle ground crew and ATK employed.
Though alternative SDVs like direct launcher would make a lot more sense politically then ares I as they require no new srbs or engines.
The biggest waste in the nasa plan is developing the J2X if they went with direct launcher they would only need an upper stage engine for the EDS and a cluster of three RL60s would be a better choice then the single j2x from a cost and safety stand point.
Also since the RL60 has a higher ISP the EDS's tanks can be around 7% smaller then with a J2-X.
Every ton saved on the EDS is about a half on ton more payload that can be used on the LSAM.

Posted by Ruri at 12/11/07 22:16:05

turkeysandwich,

Developing a launch vehicle and an autonomous spacecraft until 2011 or so for just 175 million USD is almost impossible.

The only reason SpaceX has a decent chance do this is because they had significant hardware development going before COTS was announced.

I think a concept with "just" a cargo container and a space tug would be good for space development in general. For example, a system consisting of a "dumb" propellant container and a refuelable space tug would be very helpful for an orbital fuel depot.

Posted by anonymous at 12/12/07 10:16:11

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

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