Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Feb 20 2008, 06:09 PM

http://www.orbital.com/AdvancedSpace/COTS/

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Feb 20 2008, 08:52 PM

Don't forget Space X's Falcon 9 Heavy.

Posted by: mps Feb 20 2008, 09:30 PM

Don't forget ATK's 'Athena III'
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5337

Posted by: djellison Feb 20 2008, 09:34 PM

Or go halves on an Ariane V

Doug

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Feb 20 2008, 10:49 PM

Since they didn't get COTS, doubtful it will to be

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Feb 20 2008, 10:51 PM

Actually that is more than a Delta II and not useful to NASA




That is an EELV class vehicle, in performance and cost

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Feb 20 2008, 10:58 PM

Yes. It is.

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Feb 20 2008, 11:13 PM

And therefore, not a Delta II replacement

Posted by: djellison Feb 20 2008, 11:13 PM

What does a 'potential Delta II replacement' have to do with COTS?

Yes - the Taurus II is part of the next COTS contract - but that's got nothing to do with it being a potential Delta II replacement.

Customers looking for Delta II like capacity could look to a lot of places, many suggested here, some not, for a replacement. Just because the as yet unflown Taurus II has a COTS contract, that doesn't render it any worse or better means of getting a Delta II sized payload into orbit. If you had opened the thread with 'US governmental customers looking for a replacement for Delta II that isn't a Falcon 9' - maybe you would be on to something.

Doug

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Feb 20 2008, 11:16 PM

Of course it is.

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Feb 20 2008, 11:21 PM

Why do you think OSC was picked ? It wasn't because the Cygnus was better than the other front ends.
COTS I wasn't about ISS resupply. NASA (the only real future Delta II class customer) picked it because of Taurus II.

None of the "other" ones are viable with the current market and especially without guaranteed order

ATK won't go forward. Falcon 9 Heavy is not in the same class (performance and cost wise), Ariane 5 is too big (even 1/2) and is not available to NASA


I brought this up on this forum because the lost of Delta II would be a determent to science missions and be of concern to forum members

Posted by: djellison Feb 20 2008, 11:40 PM

Apart from the Falcon 9, which NASA has also picked.

Again - had you started this thread ' Potential LV's that NASA could use to replace the Delta II ' - then fine. That's not what you said. you said ' Potential Delta II replacement'. NASA is not the only customer the Delta II has had in the last 19 years, nor is it the only customer in the next 12 launches, nor is the Delta II the only vehicle to have been filling that requirement in its lifetime. There are many alternatives for those customers to turn to, some that have been flying for years, some that are yet to fly.

If COTS 1 wasn't about ISS resupply, then someone better tell SpaceX and NASA who have described it thus:

SpaceX
".. demonstrating delivery of cargo to the ISS and safe return of cargo to Earth"

NASA
"to develop and demonstrate the vehicles, systems, and operations needed to support a human facility such as ISS."

I wasn't going to say this publicly but two threads in one day have dissolved to this sort of back and forth. I'm not sure if you're doing it intentionally, but it seems that you are going out of your way to be pedantic, argumentative and infuriating.

Doug

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Feb 21 2008, 01:51 AM

1. Aside from 4 GPS, which is leaving the Delta II, NASA is the only customer. The two STSS missions are NASA procured. (I am working one of them). There are no alternatives for Delta II's (from qualified providers) at former Delta II's prices. That is the reason Delta II going away because of its cost

2. http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esmd/ccc/ .
COTS is an effort by NASA to stimulate, and then take advantage of, a robust commercial market for spaceflight services.

As explained on other forums, if COTS I was about ISS resupply, then contractors that used pre existing ELV's and only were developing "front ends" would have won COTS I .

The companies that won were targeted for their LV development.

COTS II is the real resupply contract

Posted by: lyford Feb 21 2008, 03:18 AM

Does that mean http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.view&newsid=8D34F05A-E7F7-11C1-74E37AB2DBDA99CCs are dead in the water (or upper atmosphere) as well? I guess that link would be a good example of an ambiguous but optimistic press release....

Posted by: Greg Hullender Feb 21 2008, 05:25 AM

So is the issue that the Falcon 9 is just too big? I didn't see an estimated price for the Taurus. What does a Delta launch cost? Is there any issue besides cost and lift capacity?

--Greg

Posted by: simonbp Feb 21 2008, 06:30 AM

Well, we'll see how the Falcon 9 price changes between now and when it actually flies. Even still, it'll still probably end up cheaper than an EELV, though will less support than ULA would offer. In my mind, that makes it suitable for Discovery-class missions, though not necessarily ones with a larger budget.

Delta II was $50 million when Pathfinder launched, but it has gone up a lot since then...

Simon

Posted by: mps Feb 21 2008, 07:27 AM

Hey, it doesn't have to be a Falcon 9 Heavy. The basic version of Falcon 9 is more realistic alternative to Delta II

Launch Site: Kwajalein Cape Canaveral AFS
Inclination: 9 degree 28.5 degree
LEO Mass to Orbit (185 km circular): 10,400 kg 9,900 kg
GTO Mass to Orbit (185 x 35,788 km): 5,070 kg 4,900 kg

A Falcon 9 (5m fairing) mission to LEO is $35M.

Falcon 9 missions to GTO are:
Satellite Vehicle Mass (kg) Price
< 3500 $35M
3500-4500 $45M
4500-5000 $55M

(source: Space X's official web site)

Posted by: djellison Feb 21 2008, 09:41 AM

Unless there's a significant change of plans for these two customers, NASA is not the only Delta II customer between now and it's closure.

GeoEye 1 (or Orbview 5) for GeoEye ( http://www.geoeye.com/products/imagery/geoeye1/default.htm )
COSMO 3 for ASI ( http://www.telespazio.it/cosmo.html )

Totally ignoring COTS, you consider the Taurus II a Delta II replacement, but not the Falcon 9. Indeed, you are quick to dismiss the Falcon 9 entirely both here and elsewhere. Why? What is it that you know that MDA, Avanti and Bigelow do not?

Doug

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Feb 21 2008, 11:44 AM

Those aren't firm contracts. Still are place holders.

OSC has a proven track record and Spacex doesn't. OSC has an NLS contract.

As for MDA, Avanti and Bigelow, no different than what Hughes Space did on Delta III and H-II.

Posted by: Sunspot Feb 21 2008, 11:50 AM

ooohhh that SpaceDev's Dream Chaser is cute

Posted by: Greg Hullender Feb 21 2008, 04:44 PM

But this is not the argument you originally presented! You said Falcon 9 couldn't replace the Delta II "because it's an EELV and priced to match."

From the info that seems to be available to the public, though, it will cost less and lift more -- assuming SpaceX can really deliver, of course.

It's okay to pour cold water on everyone's fanciful ideas -- in a place like this, someone has to -- but your feedback should be truthful. Especially when you're using NSF's name to back it up.

--Greg

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Feb 21 2008, 05:41 PM

Reread the post, it was in reference to the Falcon 9 "Heavy"

Posted by: tedstryk Feb 22 2008, 01:56 AM

In that case, your post doesn't address what was being discussed, the Falcon 9. Frankly, the only thing that can be gleaned from your posts of late is that you have an obsession with imperative sentences, as well as declarative sentences with an implied subject.

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Feb 22 2008, 02:30 AM

You have problem with it? I am stating nothing but fact

THIS DISCUSSION IS NOW CLOSED - ADMIN