COTS - status

SpaceNut · 2016-04-23 20:24:09

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/dream-chaser/

So what's the scheduel for those launches....
http://www.space.com/24401-dream-chaser … aunch.html

Dream Chaser still has two years of work ahead of it before its first orbital flight. Officials with Sierra Nevada plan to fly the space plane out at Edwards Air Force Base on at least one more autonomous test, after which it will be fitted with an ejection seat before flying crewed atmospheric tests, said Steve Lindsey, program manager for Sierra Nevada Corporation Dream Chaser.

The November 2016 flight will be an autonomous, uncrewed orbital flight that will probably last about one day before landing on the U.S. West Coast, Lindsey said.
"The vehicle [flying in 2016] will be basically identical to the vehicle that we will fly about a year later when we put crew on it," Lindsey said. "Our intent is to have all of those systems and subsystems onboard and checked out and use this on the path to certification for the orbital crewed vehicle."
The Dream Chaser space plane, buit by Sierra Nevada Corp., is scheduled to launch from Cape Canaveral, Fla. on Nov. 1, 2016, atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket, the company announced Thursday (Jan. 23).
The test flight is expected to pave the way for manned missions to low-Earth orbit by 2017,

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegal … -2243.html

RobertDyck · 2016-04-24 10:11:30

First launch this November 1st? Good! I said SLS could launch the first unmanned mission of Orion some time in that month, instead of a year later. SLS and Orion are taking far too long. But glad something will launch. But that article was written January 2014. Is it still relevant? Here are some articles that I read...
February 26, 2016: Dream Chaser: Sierra Nevada's Design for Spaceflight
January 15, 2016: NASA Adds Dream Chaser Spacecraft to ISS Cargo Roster

The new round of cargo flights are expected to begin in 2019, with a maximum of $14 billion to be awarded between the three providers through 2024. Each company is required to deliver a minimum of six missions. This is a change from NASA's CRS-1 contracts, which were based on total mass delivered to the station.

January 18, 2016: NASA Picks Dream Chaser Shuttle for Space Station Resupply

And Dragon mission CRS-7 was supposed to deliver the docking port for crew missions, to be used by crew Dragon and CST-100. It was called IDA-1 (International Docking Adapter 1). It was to be carried in the trunk. But that was the one and only Falcon launch to fail. What are plans to replace it?
Wikipedia: SpaceX CRS-7

This adapter would have been attached to one of the existing Pressurized Mating Adapters (specifically, PMA-2 or PMA-3) and convert the existing APAS-95 docking interface to the new NASA Docking System (NDS).

SpaceNut · 2016-04-24 17:19:16

Thanks for filling in with the more recent links...Nasa likes to do a couple of dry runs near the iss before allowing it to approach as was the case with Space X So I can see the 2019 date as being the first unload of cargo for the DreamChaser....

RobertDyck · 2016-04-27 12:20:28

I'm not sure where to put this, but it's so exciting I have to post it somewhere!

SpaceX plans to debut Red Dragon with 2018 Mars mission

SpaceX has entered into an agreement with NASA for a Dragon mission to Mars, set to take place as early as 2018. Known as “Red Dragon”, the variant of the Dragon 2 spacecraft will be launched by the Falcon Heavy rocket, ahead of a soft landing on the surface of Mars. The spacecraft is set to carry a suite of scientific instrumentation as part of the NASA agreement.

And SpaceX themselves posted two images to Facebook. Click image to see Facebook post. Their caption...

SpaceX is planning to send Dragons to Mars as early as 2018. Red Dragon missions will help inform the overall Mars architecture that will be unveiled later this year.
These missions will help demonstrate the technologies needed to land large payloads propulsively on Mars.

RobertDyck · 2016-05-12 00:00:43

Video from 9 Sep 2015
Boeing Starliner - Crew Space Transportation CST-100
The interesting thing is the docking hatch. Video starts at 1:11. The hatch on CST-100 still has a soft capture ring with shock absorbers. The ISS side has the adapter which looks like a metal cylinder.

SpaceNut · 2016-05-12 17:17:43

I hear that there is a bit of a delay for the Boeing's Starliner....Boeing Starliner schedule astronauts slips 2018 means only SpaceX can wean NASA off Russian transportation by next year.

Boeing’s Starliner schedule for sending astronauts into orbit slips to 2018

Boeing joins Starliner test article domes to form first 'full-blown capsule'

RobertDyck · 2016-05-13 00:33:55

SpaceNut wrote:

I hear that there is a bit of a delay for the Boeing's Starliner....Boeing Starliner schedule astronauts slips 2018 means only SpaceX can wean NASA off Russian transportation by next year.

Bad move. Very bad. If SpaceX successfully delivers crew to ISS, more than once, replacing Russian transport before Starliner flies? Then why would anyone want to buy Starliner? And if SpaceX lands Red Dragon on Mars before Starliner first unmanned test flight?

Excelsior · 2016-05-13 12:23:40

RobertDyck wrote:

SpaceNut wrote:
I hear that there is a bit of a delay for the Boeing's Starliner....Boeing Starliner schedule astronauts slips 2018 means only SpaceX can wean NASA off Russian transportation by next year.
Bad move. Very bad. If SpaceX successfully delivers crew to ISS, more than once, replacing Russian transport before Starliner flies? Then why would anyone want to buy Starliner? And if SpaceX lands Red Dragon on Mars before Starliner first unmanned test flight?

Has Old Space ever come close to competing with SpaceX? They more or less exist thanks to political patronage, and to keep SpaceX honest. Thankfully Elon is truly dedicated to the cause, and not to the shareholders, but there is no guarantee he will always command the company.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-15 07:11:38

Excelsior wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
SpaceNut wrote:
I hear that there is a bit of a delay for the Boeing's Starliner....Boeing Starliner schedule astronauts slips 2018 means only SpaceX can wean NASA off Russian transportation by next year.
Bad move. Very bad. If SpaceX successfully delivers crew to ISS, more than once, replacing Russian transport before Starliner flies? Then why would anyone want to buy Starliner? And if SpaceX lands Red Dragon on Mars before Starliner first unmanned test flight?
Has Old Space ever come close to competing with SpaceX? They more or less exist thanks to political patronage, and to keep SpaceX honest. Thankfully Elon is truly dedicated to the cause, and not to the shareholders, but there is no guarantee he will always command the company.

You just have to establish the industry, after the industry is established, it won't matter who is running SpaceX or any other company, either they compete or they don't.

SpaceNut · 2016-05-19 20:29:51

But it takes more than 1 supplier of products even if some are a bit more in cost to the lower it comes back to can the product be supplied when its wanted for the performnce that the customer would need for a reasonable price. This more than 1 supplier allows for free choice to be made and when there is only 1 then you have a monopoly which can raise prices to an even higher cost to what would have been the next closest provider.

GW Johnson · 2016-05-20 14:17:56

Competition works when there are enough players that the actions of any one of them are not predictable. Statistically, that's about the same as a min credible sample size. In other words, you need 22 or more players to have free competition, in the sense that most of us think about it.

Which is why having only Boeing and Lockheed-Martin as the major contractors (or just ULA in the rocket launch business) is NOT competition. Now there's Spacex, maybe Orbital ATK, Ariane, and Roscosmos in the big launcher business. That's still far from 22 players, and about half of them get government support under the table in one form or another. It's competition, but it's not free competition yet, not by a long shot.

Given the beneficial effects in terms of falling prices of having Spacex enter the business, can you even imagine what the benefits of real free competition would be, if there were 22+ players in the business?

Under-22 is oligopoly capitalism, which requires serious and thoughtful regulation not to devolve into piracy. We haven't had that, or these outfits would not have been allowed to agglomerate from several dozen companies into the small-handful oligopoly we see today.

Sorry, just pointing out some facts. We have a long way to go in the space business, or just about any other sector.

GW

SpaceNut · 2016-06-21 18:00:11

Blue Origin launched its New Shepard suborbital vehicle on its fourth consecutive successful flight June 19.
Of the same booster and capsule........

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-06-22 06:08:50

High profits by oligopoly players will have the effect of bringing in more competition? If SpaceX can do it, it will be followed by a lot of copycats trying to do the same. There is no reason to suppose that only SpaceX can reuse its rocket stages, so any advantage SpaceX reaps will be only temporary until other companies get in on the act. In the meantime SpaceX can raise a lot of money with its cheaper access to space than its competitors.

SpaceNut · 2016-06-22 17:40:47

The oligopoly players are Lockheed and Boeing, ULA but Space X is in its own group as its actually not driving the prices up to make larger profits but rather making larger profits by selling more rockets......

SpaceNut · 2016-12-01 21:25:39

Just did a search for the topic one way only to come up empty, then did another in another format and whalla now to post.....
We just got a step closer to being able to use off the shelf with
RocketBuilder: ULA revamp launch services selection process

ULA provides and operates all Atlas V, Delta II and Delta IV rockets, mainly used by the US Government...

http://www.rocketbuilder.com/

a few years ago an Atlas V 401 sold for $191 million. Now it’s $109 million. “We’ve streamlined, taken advantage of experience. It now takes half amount of time to build rocket in Alabama and 1/3 time for process in VIF and pad.”
A cited example of a total cost of even less was shown, resulting in Mr. Bruno adding: “$80 million for Atlas V 401 makes very competitive, compelling market case when you’re able to finally see the true cost of lift.
“Prices are always going down. Now, there are a limited amount of launch slots, so you’ll have to trade off whether to wait for a lower price, if a slot will then be available when you need it.”

kbd512 · 2016-12-03 12:41:25

Between Blue Origin, Boeing / Lockheed-Martin (ULA), and SpaceX, I think we have enough competitors to minimize launch costs. Recent developments related to defense launch services certification seem to indicate that the writing is on the wall. Lower your launch services prices or lose business to competitors.

The effect SpaceX had on ULA was profound. ULA's launch services costs were cut in half and continue to fall. With three capable players in the game, I'm guessing that the cost to deliver up to 25t in LEO will be in the $50M range. Full reusability without substantial refurbishment will have an even more dramatic effect on costs. I'd like to see fully reusable systems from Blue Origin and SpaceX cut that $50M price tag in half again.

SpaceNut · 2016-12-03 20:29:28

There are a few others that are in the game but they are smaller and have less funding to help make the dreams that they have happen.... Serria Dream chaser

GW Johnson · 2016-12-04 12:43:40

The satellite launch business is in fact international. Do not forget the French (Ariane) and the Russians (Proton and R-7), or to some extent the Japanese. And sooner or later the Chinese.

The big players in the commercial launch business on the US side are ULA and Spacex. Blue Origin and the rest aren't there yet (hopefully they soon will be). Orbital is struggling, but may recover. Until Spacex wedged its foot in the door, ULA essentially had a monopoly in the US segment of the market, and certainly for the government portion of that business. The fall in ULA prices is the result of that monopoly being broken.

The "rocketbuilder" thing is a marketing tool to offset needing to lower prices even more, in order to compete with Spacex domestically, and the French and Russians internationally. The top executives aren't getting to take home the lion's share of the revenue from the launch business anymore. The fact that the French and Russian outfits have unfair government subsidies doesn't enter into the competition on price. Their executives still get to take a lot of that home.

What's real in business has nothing to do with what's fair. You all already know that! I should not have to tell you.

GW

SpaceNut · 2016-12-04 19:17:00

Well said GW, so how do we get the launch rate up in order for human missions to cause prices to drop even more when the only place we can go to is controlled by governmental partners of the ISS. The providers need to wake up and get something else in orbit for more destinations to allow for not only science to happen but for a space fairing civilization to start....Next stop getting to the moon and then to other places via comercial providers.....

GW Johnson · 2016-12-06 13:04:37

I'm hoping that Bigelow still wants to build a private space station for the rich tourist crowd. The lure they haven't advertised is zero-gee sex. You can sell anything with sex, we've already seen that.

Beyond that, there needs to be some sort of assembly, repair, and staging facility for the up-and-coming moon and asteroid mining ventures. It doesn't require an enormous construction to do that, and a less inclined orbit than ISS would cut launch costs. If this were a privately-owned facility, there would be far fewer contracting bureaucracy items to deal with.

Note that SLS is not required to do either of those. And if you stage out of LEO using assembly-by-docking, SLS is not required to send things one-way to the moon or Mars. Especially small robot things.

We've been waiting over 40 years for government agencies to either shit or get off the pot (with respect to doing things anywhere outside LEO). Looks to me like it's past time for them to get off the pot and let somebody else have a go at it.

The governments are going to be too busy arguing amongst themselves to do anything useful (down here, much less out there) for some time to come. We'll be lucky to avoid a major war, the way things are shaping up.

This political instability and lack of resources (of government agencies) is the result of the corporate welfare state spreading far beyond the US, with the rise of "fuehrers" like Putin in too many other places. Sad that so few recognize what is really happening.

Meanwhile, the commercial guys have begun testing the waters, as far as space goes. That gives me some hope.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-12-06 13:07:01)

SpaceNut · 2016-12-06 19:04:52

Along with bigelow the orbital ATK units would also be an item to make another station with and I would hope that they would have more interest in creating the opportunity to make it happen as other businesses that are not able to afford the trip to the ISS might be able to do. Plus if assembly and maintence is needed there are now space jobs as well for these companies that build these stations....

SpaceNut · 2017-02-18 21:45:20

Both Space x Dragon and the CST-100 Starliner have put up timeline delays for a manned crew flight to the ISS using them.
With the Orion SLS combination being asked to jump through hoops to be able to do a crewed mission instead of uncrewed first flight for EM-1.

Starliner has not had as much press so here is what I am finding.

Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner is 16.5 feet (5.03 meters) long and 15 feet (4.56 meters) in diameter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CST-100_Starliner

Captura-de-pantalla-2016-05-16-a-las-8.17.32.png

But since this is to be able to launch on Atlas V, Falcon 9 and more it was found to be a bit over weight like Orion was an had to go on a diet.

Boeing nears fix for CST-100 Starliner design hitch officials are optimistic the spaceship will be ready to deliver astronauts to the International Space Station in early 2018.

CST-100 will be launched atop a United launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V 401 rocket

Boeing and SpaceX, which signed crew transportation contracts with NASA in 2014 worth $4.2 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively, are “grinding” through their development steps.

Launch Abort Engines for Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner undergo testing

There are four 40,000-pound (177.9-kilonewton) thrust launch abort engines incorporated into the Starliner service module. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-88
Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters as well as Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control (OMAC) thrusters.
The OMAC thrusters are 1,500-pound (6,672-newton) thrust class and are used for low-altitude launch abort attitude control, maneuvering, and stage-separation functions, along with high-altitude direct abort capability and large orbital maneuvers.
The spacecraft’s RCS engines are 100-pound (445-newton) thrust class and provide high-altitude abort attitude control and on-orbit maneuvering. Moreover, these engines can also provide the ability to reboost the space station when required.

RobertDyck · 2017-02-18 22:15:46

Technical note: the article says CST-100 will launch on top of an Atlas V 401. However the image shown is Atlas V 421. The 3-digit designation for Atlas V: diameter of fairing (4 = 4 metre fairing), number of solid rockets, number of engines on upper stage. Note the designation "401" with the middle digit "0" meaning no solids. Yet the image shows 2 solids.

The upper stage shown is narrower than the core stage, which is appropriate for the first digit "4". CST-100 is launched "naked", meaning no fairing. So the correct first digit is "4". The last digit can be "2" for 2 engines on the upper stage. That allows the rocket to lift heaver payload to low orbit. However, for a CST-100 Starliner, the appropriate number is 1. My concern is the least expensive configuration of Atlas V is "401", which is what CST-100 is supposed to use. So why do the artists insist on depicting a pair of solids?

SpaceNut · 2017-02-19 09:26:16

Yes as you noted clearly an artist drawing to nomenclature mismatch. The fact that it needed to go on a diet is why the delay and it comes as no dismay since the design is nearly Orion and from that same group which created he to heavy Orion in the first place.

Much like Dragon the details are a little lacking....

SpaceNut · 2017-07-15 10:26:11

Starliner meets milestones as ULA switches Atlas booster for maiden flight

Meanwhile, the first crewed Starliner mission appears to be slipping to “late 2018”.

So now what's the problem?

interesting design of the capsule
Screen-Shot-2017-07-13-at-10.29.21-350x332.png

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2016-04-23 20:24:09

Re: COTS - status

#127 2016-04-24 10:11:30

Re: COTS - status

#128 2016-04-24 17:19:16

Re: COTS - status

#129 2016-04-27 12:20:28

Re: COTS - status

#130 2016-05-12 00:00:43

Re: COTS - status

#131 2016-05-12 17:17:43

Re: COTS - status

#132 2016-05-13 00:33:55

Re: COTS - status

#133 2016-05-13 12:23:40

Re: COTS - status

#134 2016-05-15 07:11:38

Re: COTS - status

#135 2016-05-19 20:29:51

Re: COTS - status

#136 2016-05-20 14:17:56

Re: COTS - status

#137 2016-06-21 18:00:11

Re: COTS - status

#138 2016-06-22 06:08:50

Re: COTS - status

#139 2016-06-22 17:40:47

Re: COTS - status

#140 2016-12-01 21:25:39

Re: COTS - status

#141 2016-12-03 12:41:25

Re: COTS - status

#142 2016-12-03 20:29:28

Re: COTS - status

#143 2016-12-04 12:43:40

Re: COTS - status

#144 2016-12-04 19:17:00

Re: COTS - status

#145 2016-12-06 13:04:37

Re: COTS - status

#146 2016-12-06 19:04:52

Re: COTS - status

#147 2017-02-18 21:45:20

Re: COTS - status

#148 2017-02-18 22:15:46

Re: COTS - status

#149 2017-02-19 09:26:16

Re: COTS - status

#150 2017-07-15 10:26:11

Re: COTS - status

Board footer