NASA Holds Competition to Develop Space Vehicles 227
BlueCup writes to tell us that the US space agency is holding a competition to develop space vehicles NASA doesn't have the time or resources to develop. The winning companies will get $500 million and NASA will merely lease them as the need arises. From the article: "NASA hopes the private-sector vehicles can bridge an expected gap between when the space shuttle fleet is grounded in 2010 and the crew exploration vehicle is flying in 2014. A thriving commercial space transportation industry also can offer researchers, and others, opportunities to send payloads into space without relying on NASA's crowded space shuttle schedule or worrying 'that the government will decide next month or next year not to launch,' Griffin said."
really? (Score:4, Informative)
And I can't believe a post got modded +3 without listing a single specific. Oh well, who needs evidence to be "insightful"? Evidently, not the mods.
Re:Resurrect Apollo (Score:1, Informative)
Apollo - 5 PSI pure oxygen
Skylab - 5 PSI pure oxygen
Space Shuttle - 12-15 PSI oxygen nitrogen mixture
International Space Station - 12-15 PSI oxygen nitrogen mixture
despite what you think, they are not so dumb at NASA.
Re:Great for a one shot vehicle... (Score:2, Informative)
And then you have to shed most of that velocity to get it back; that's equivalent to absorbing and re-radiating all the fuel you burned putting it up.
It's a long, long way from the X-Prize to commercial orbital vehicles.
Griffin said it. (Score:3, Informative)
Right on, Mr. Griffin. [geocities.com]
Armadillo (Score:5, Informative)
---------------------
Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> >> First, $100 million isn't enough, several people have tried
> >> and failed at $100 million projects.
> >
> > Failure has not been limited to $100 million projects. I suspect the
> > failures you speak of are where people tried to build $1 billion
> > vehicles for $100 million price tags.
>
>Yes - and a reasonable LEO launch system needs a half-billion-dollar
>vehicle. You can't really do it more cheaply. Reread the minimum mass to
>orbit thread, and then remember we need a decent payload as well.
We have been discussing the modular OTRAG designs for a reason --
they offer an incremental, scaleable, low cost development path to
inexpensive access to LEO.
I'm completely confident that "per-tube" costs can be under $10k, and
they might get below $5k. You should be able to get 10 - 20 pounds
of payload to LEO per-tube, depending on final Isp and mass ratios.
The size, scope, and complexity of the individual modules is lower
than the work we are currently doing at Armadillo, so development and
tooling expenses are modest. Module design and production can be
improved incrementally to decrease costs, like any mass produced item.
A few screw ups on the way to orbit are probably inevitable, so you
might need to produce several hundred tubes before entering revenue
service, but it still looks like it could be done in the low tens of
millions of dollars, even being rather pessimistic. You could even
buy a few pacific islands for yourself if you really needed to. That
is a long way from half a billion, let alone ten billion.
A system like this won't get to $100 / lb to LEO, but it will
outperform a conventional expendable upper stage on a hypersonic
booster, even disregarding development costs, plus it scales to a
wider range of payloads.
The real point though, is that billion dollar reusable space booster
developments are just fantasy projects at this point. You might as
well posit that you will develop anti-gravity in your garage. If you
were to say something like "The next generation of space vehicles
will prove out an elastic market for space launch, at which point my
ten billion dollar project will look like a sure thing to the smart
money investors" it might be a little more credible, and only have
more standard business and technical arguments against it, instead of
being just nuts.
NASA always goes with the lowest bidder (Score:3, Informative)
All I can think of was a Sci Fi TV show called "Salvage 1" [imdb.com] where some Junkyard turned junk into a space ship and went to the Moon to salvage the equipment that NASA left there. That is when I think of NASA asking anyone to build a space ship.
Re:How about the Russians? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How about the Russians? (Score:3, Informative)
Nah (Score:3, Informative)
Probably the latter. Chairmen who have to answer to shareholders will choose short-term small profits over long-term huge profits everytime.
The problem isn't long term over short term profits, people everywhere make 30-year investments all the time. Its called buying property, and no one is saying thats a bad idea (unless you're in a bubble area). In fact with decent initial investments, everyone can make a good living while the space mining program gets off the ground (nyuck nyuck). The big problem is reliability of that investment. No one can say for sure if all that money isn't going to go spiralling down the drain, and the reason for that is cost to orbit. It doesn't matter how much value you are returning, when the cost to get up there reduces that value below current prices. Remove cost to orbit issues, and space is wide open.
But the wealth is up there, insane treasures beyond the dreams of Midas. Lets take for example the relatively close Amun Asteroid [matter-antimatter.com], about $20 trillion dollars worth of useable materials. I recall one geologist said it was something like three times the total amount of metals mined in the history of the human race. And that is just one SINGLE asteroid. How many million or billion more are there, in our system alone? The first to economically tap into that reservoir will revloutionise human existence, to the extent that our current economic issues would become moot. What price can you put on a car or a computer if they are manufactured in orbit for pennies by robots?
Re:really? (Score:2, Informative)
> "shredded tires" fuel of Spaceship One
Just as a factoid, SpaceShip One doesn't use H2O2 (which is Hydrogen Peroxide) as oxidiser, it uses Nitrous Oxide, also known as "laughing gas".
Nitrous Oxide is self pressurising, which is where it scores over other oxidisers (although you take a performance hit because the specific impulse when using Nitrous Oxide is lower than with say Liquid Oxygen). With Hydrogen Peroxide as the oxidiser, you'd need to use a pressurisation tank, most likely of Nitrogen. You still need a pressurisation tank on very large Nitrous oxide powered hybrids, because the pressure drop during the motor burn becomes significant for a large motor, but for smaller hybrid motors, it's less of an issue.
Also, the shredded tires is a media over simplification. The actual fuel is a rubber-like compound, most likely HTPB (which is Hydroxyl Terminated Poly Buta-diene), hence the fact the media probably just call it rubber, because it is such a mouthful!
I've got some more information on hybrid rocket motors and how they work, which I'm slowly building up at:
http://www.ukrocketman.com/rocketry/hybridscience. shtml [ukrocketman.com]
If you're interested in hybrid rocket motors (and they are incredibly simple, as well as chaper and safer than solid rocket motors and liquid rocket engines), then hopefully it may be informative :-)
Re:Remember VentureStar? (Score:3, Informative)
I think the approach used by Scaled Composites for SpaceShipOne is right on the money - use a heavy lift aircraft to bring the spacecraft up to launch altitude. Doing so has several advantages: an aircraft tends to be simpler to develop and maintain, it can use jet fuel and breath atmosphere rather than hauling a more exotic fuel with an oxidizer, and the several miles of altitude that the spacecraft gets lifted to are the hardest ones of a space launch. Although the SS1 concept hasn't reached orbit, one could scale up their scenario and see that they'd have a significantly higher percentage of their launch weight as payload.