Finalists selected for new COTS round

"one of these things is not like the other"

Posted by Ed at 01/18/08 11:29:50

.

Resupply "Demonstrations"... so, they will not REALLY use it... ;)

Orbital is an excellent company but it's hard to call it a "new.space" start-up... :)

since Orbital has a multi-decades/multi-projcts know how (and lots of money from commercial and military customers) it will be the clear winner, while, the three others companies, will be only its "sparring partners"...

however, good luck

.

Posted by gm at 01/18/08 12:01:27

Yep. One uses Atlas V and the other all are new boosters.

Posted by Observant at 01/18/08 13:02:19

If the goal is to decrease costs (in $/kg) and increase customer value in Earth to LEO spaceflight, none of these proposals even begin to address the issues.

What we have here is the reinvention of the Delta II. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it certainly isn't going to decrease costs or increase customer value for basic space flight.

No matter, I have bigger fish to fry.

Posted by TLE at 01/18/08 14:33:59

What does orbital have to show I haven't even seen their COTS vehicle do they even have a concept they sure don't have a rocket powerful enough to lift meaningful cargo or people?
Or did they buy the K1?

Planetspace's/ATK's vehicle is a joke and doesn't even carry as much cargo as dragon.

Now spacehab's arctus now there is a clear winner and it's not even bound to any one launch vehicle.

Also arctus is very low risk .
The arctus plus dragon could perform 70% of the shuttle's old missions though if they brought on the SS/L tug that combo would be able to do everything Orion could do and 90% of what the shuttle did.

Of these finalists I must say it's spacehab no contest they also have the most experience more then orbital and in manned orbital system a lot more then planetapace/atk.

I would have choose spacedev over planetspace/atk as they also have experience and have a very good vehicle and a good launch vehicle though LM though the real problem might be that dream chaser is a better vehicle then Orion.

Posted by Ruri at 01/18/08 16:41:41

I forgot the andrew's space concept which could be nice for cargo but I don't think it can carry a crew though I think only spacex's and spacedev's can do that.

Though the Andrew's space concept does require a new vehicle called Hercules
same thing worng with ATK's concept though if I had to choose between ATK and andrew's space I'd pick the latter as theirs does carry up 3.7tons of pressurized cargo and also can return it.
Though their ballute reentry system might allow it to carry people safely.

Posted by Ruri at 01/18/08 16:52:11

I agree that SpaceDev's proposal probably looked too much like a competitor with Orion. It's too bad that SpaceDev didn't get through. Perhaps they'll be able to fund the DC through other means, or maybe another company will get with the program and develop a space plane. Oh well...we can take our dreams elsewhere.

Posted by Space plane fan at 01/18/08 18:16:10

Congratulations to the finalists.

The final group is a curious mix, I'm elated that Space Dev and T-Space were axed, with 22 months till the demonstration flight (demonstration flight for cargo delivery- everyone clear on that?) proof of concept companies have no place here.

I think it will come down to which company can realistically show the level of develoment is not on possible to accomplish in this time line, but most importantly show the finacial ability to finance that development. (I'm sure that NASA doesn't want another RiPK fiasco)

It'll be interesting to see what the final selection is.

My $ 0.02 worth

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 01/19/08 11:51:24

Buck, you think a completely NEW booster (Orbital, Andrews and PlanetSpace) PLUS a new spacecraft is less risky than a capsule or spaceplane launched on an Atlas 5 (t/Space or SpaceDev)? It seems unlikely that proof of concept issues had anything to do with the selection, only good 'ole boy connections (ATK) and the COTS office perception that Kathuria is Elon redux.

Posted by Risky business at 01/19/08 12:37:46

Risky Business,

Let me be clear.

I believe that an existing launcher with a capsule represents the least amount of risk from both technical and financial aspects.

A new launcher with a capsule would be the next lowest.

ANY space plane is ridiculous.

Bundy has Spoken! (new tagline for 2008)

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 01/20/08 14:50:13

"I believe that an existing launcher with a capsule represents the least amount of risk from both technical and financial aspects."

I agree.

Previously: "The final group is a curious mix, I'm elated that Space Dev and T-Space were axed, with 22 months till the demonstration flight (demonstration flight for cargo delivery- everyone clear on that?) proof of concept companies have no place here."

Since t/Space bid a capsule on an existing launcher (Atlas 5) they should not have been axed per your statement.

"ANY space plane is ridiculous."

Agreed.

Posted by Risky business at 01/20/08 15:46:16

Risky business,

You're right, I was thinking of t/Space's air-launch concept.

I'll call Mike Griffin tomorrow and tell him to add t/Space back onto the list of finalists.

(See in 2008 I'm a kinder gentler Buck.Bundy who can admit when I'm wrong)

;)

Bundy has Spoken!

Posted by Buck.Bundy at 01/20/08 16:04:24

"I'll call Mike Griffin tomorrow and tell him to add t/Space back onto the list of finalists."

ROFL! I expect he'll jump to and salute! ;)

Of course, Griffin wants none of the COTS guys to succeed, no matter what his public posture, since if they did, it invalidates the need for CEV-Ares I. I note he tried real hard to forestall the COTS cut, which was the only reduction in the whole NASA budget...not.

Posted by Risky business at 01/20/08 21:04:18

I’m always somewhat surprised that many people still don’t realize that over the last 25 years, Orbital has commercially funded and built 7 new launch vehicles and has either developed, built or is now under contract to produce over 650 launch and missile systems in all. Wow!!

To date, the company has already delivered over 20 Orbital Booster Vehicles to Boeing for the Country's ground missile defense program (over 50 to be built in all) and is currently under contract to LM to develop the launch abort system for NASA's Orion CEV.

I’m sure that their Taurus-II efforts will greatly leverage from these and other experiences to help drive down the cost for medium-class launch services, and thus enable customers to increase investments for commercial, scientific, and military space missions.

More could also be said from Orbital's experience in commercial, civil and military space (they have built or are under contract to produce 123 satellites in all, up to 5kW class, with 7 to 18 year mission lifetimes), which I'm sure is all very relevant to the COTS cargo delivery visiting vehicle system.

With ~$300M in cash sitting on their books, 1.1 million square feet of facilities, $1B in annual revenues, and $4B in total backlog, Orbital is undoubtedly the most capable and experienced of the four COTS finalist.

Posted by BLUR at 01/21/08 14:57:09

Blur,

Yes, Orbital is the most capable, but the award will go to PS and perhaps to SpaceHab. If the COTS office splits it, I figure about 2/3 to PS and 1/3 to SH. But Griffin will be disinclined to split it.

PS has ATK on the team, while Orbital has never built a liquid fueled launcher. And Taurus 2 uses the same Caster 30 upper stage as the ATK booster, so Orbital is at ATKs mercy when it come to pricing.

And finally, I think NASA is infatuated with PS's Kathuria, believing him to be the next Elon.

Posted by Risky business at 01/21/08 23:30:50

I haven’t heard that NASA has any intention of splitting the award, have you? There does not appear to be enough money.

You are right about ATK being expensive when it comes to solid propulsion systems (and those that buy them are definitely at their mercy when it comes to trying to be affordable). Perhaps that is why Orbital's Taurus- II is essentially a liquid design (except for the Castor 30, which is nil WRT overall cost). BTW, the high price of ATK's GEM-40s and -46s strap-ons alone is what caused Delta-II to become too costly and is why Taurus-II does not use ATK solids. The good news is that Orbital's partners bring over 40 years of liquid LV propulsion experience to their team.

Just looking at ATK's solid propulsion based Athena-like LV, it looks very expensive and perhaps aerodynamically instable (expansion ratio from Castor 120 to the fairing is beyond the limit of what has ever flown before). And yesterday's ATK press release citing a launch of their upper stack (Fall of 2009) is essentially what Orbital flew in 1994, it's called Taurus! Has ATK ever fully built, integrated and flown an entire rocket before? What avionics do they have? It's not as easy as it looks (ask Elon).

Today, is building four satellites for NASA, the LAS, and they typically launch 2-3 NASA satellites per year on either Pegasus, Taurus or Delta-II.

If NASA doesn't want to have an RIPK moment, then they best go with someone who already has a proven track-record of delivering....time and time again (hmmm, who might that be).

Posted by BLUR at 01/22/08 06:10:43

Can someone tell me that having a Russian outfit produce the Propulsion feed systems, and other propulsion components, is contributing to the advance of US launch technology? And how come the on line article does not have this blurb, whereas the in print version does? I do not like to see my tax dollars supporting out of country business in COTS.

Posted by JD-Space at 03/06/08 10:22:18

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

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