ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Spaceship dreams get real

Posted: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:05 PM by Alan Boyle


Lewis Geyer / Times-Call
Malcom Buckley, 4, plays underneath a full-scale mockup of SpaceDev's Dream
Chaser spaceship on display Wednesday at Centennial Airport in Englewood, Colo.

Even as one NASA team prepares for next week's shuttle launch, another team is taking a hard look at six alternative visions for low-cost successors to the shuttle. NASA officials are keeping a low profile, but the six finalists involved in the agency's $500 million commercial space competition are giving way more visibility to those future spaceship visions.

The idea behind NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or COTS, is that the space agency would purchase services on privately built spacecraft to send crew members or cargo back and forth between Earth and the international space station. The concept has been compared to renting a truck from U-Haul rather than maintaining your own fleet of moving vans and buses.

It so happens that NASA is working on the equivalent of a moving van as well - a whole new spaceship called the Crew Exploration Vehicle at an estimated cost of $18 billion. The CEV could do the station supply job, of course. But if COTS works, the cost of keeping the space station running would be much less.

"The CEV is overkill for the station," explained Elon Musk, the founder of California-based SpaceX, one of the COTS finalists. Because the Crew Exploration Vehicle and its rocket are really meant for moon missions, using that system to go into low Earth orbit would have a high "financial drag coefficient," he told me.

Theoretically, the spaceships developed for the COTS program could be used for private-sector missions as well - including space tourism jaunts and point-to-point rocket transport. In fact, NASA is banking on the hope that the spaceship companies won't be relying on the space agency as their sole client. (Can you imagine U-Haul making a profit on government business alone?)

Because COTS is all about cost, competitiveness and commercial strategies, NASA has declined to provide status reports about the negotiations with the finalists. When word first emerged last month about the finalist round, the space agency declined to confirm publicly who was in or out. All the information had to come from the companies themselves or sources who were familiar with the competition.

Since then, the finalists have become increasingly open about their proposals.

California-based SpaceDev, for example, publicly unveiled a full-scale mockup of its proposed Dream Chaser mini-shuttle on Wednesday, the second anniversary of SpaceShipOne's historic private-sector spaceflight. SpaceDev says the Dream Chaser, which is modeled after a 1980s-era concept known as the HL-20 lifting body, could carry up to six people and/or cargo to the station and land like an airplane on almost any runway in the world.

In addition to unveiling the mockup at Centennial Airport in Englewood, Colo., the company and its recently acquired space hardware subsidiary, Starsys, unveiled their partners in the COTS proposal: Adam Aircraft, The Aerospace Corp., Emergent Space Technologies, Oceaneering and BAE Systems National Security Solutions.

The company's chief executive officer, Mark Sirangelo, said Wednesday's event was a preview for a NASA site visit that's under way today and tomorrow. During that evaluation, space agency representatives would "see and touch what you're seeing and touching today," he told the invitation-only attendees.

If NASA give the go-ahead to the Dream Chaser concept, the mini-shuttle could fly into orbit from existing spaceports in Florida and Virginia, SpaceDev founder and chairman Jim Benson told me. The craft could also be used for suborbital spaceflights, like the one SpaceShipOne flew two years ago.

"We intend to do our suborbital flights out of New Mexico," Benson said.

You can check out the press reports about the Dream Chaser's unveiling from the Denver Post and the Longmont Daily Times-Call - and get a load of this new SpaceDev animation of the future spacecraft in flight.

All six of the finalists told me today that they would proceed with their spaceship visions even if they didn't get the COTS cash for demonstration flights - but they said NASA's backing would definitely accelerate their plans and make it easier to recruit additional private investors. Here are updates on the other five finalists:

Spacehab: The Houston-based company says it was the first of the finalists to host a two-day NASA site visit. NASA's evaluators visited Spacehab's Florida operations on June 5-6, company spokeswoman Kimberly Campbell told me.

"We felt like it was a very successful two days," she said. NASA officials also wanted lots of supporting documents for the Spacehab bid, and Campbell said the company "felt we've provided all the deliverables."

Spacehab and its partners are proposing its Apex spacecraft concept, which was unveiled almost exactly a year ago. Campbell said "Apex is a big part of our strategic plan," and numerous parties have voiced interest in using one of the selections in the Apex small-medium-large product line. "At this time, we have one customer that has committed funds," Campbell said. She declined to identify the customer.

Andrews Space: The Seattle-based company's co-founder, Jason Andrews, declined to discuss the status of the COTS negotiations, other than to note that his team was proposing an updated version of the crew/cargo spaceship system it had studied under the terms of three earlier NASA contracts in the 2000-2003 time frame.

COTS is different from those earlier efforts, in that this time NASA knows it has to come up with an affordable replacement for the shuttle system. "Before, NASA had confidence in the shuttle. ... There was never a critical mass to go forward with hardware development or service procurement," he told me.

This time around, NASA assumes that private companies won't need public funds for the entire development cost of a new spaceship. Considering the space agency's funding limitations, "that's probably the right approach to take," Andrews said. However, the vision assumes that there will be other markets for orbital space travel - and Andrews noted that "the only market in existence today ... is NASA."

t/Space: The Virginia-based consortium's president, David Gump, told me he was "breathing a sigh of relief" after providing NASA with another 24 pounds' worth of supporting documents for their bid - but he declined to say anything else about the status of t/Space's proposal.

In addition to seeking NASA support, t/Space is going after private backing for its spaceship concept. "We are a good way down that path of raising additional funds, and we think we'll have everything we need if we win a COTS award," he said.

Rocketplane Kistler: The Oklahoma-based company is offering an updated version of the Kistler K-1 concept for orbital operations, at the same time that it's building its Rocketplane jet-rocket hybrid for suborbital flights. "We have a broadly based commercial market for our two vehicles," said David Urie, Rocketplane's executive vice president.

He declined to provide specifics on the status of the COTS negotiations, other than to say the company was "involved in the process" of providing documentation and hosting site visits.

SpaceX: Musk confirmed reports that all the finalists would go to Washington in mid-August to make their final pitch at NASA Headquarters - and it was his understanding that NASA would make a public announcement on the one, two or perhaps three recipients of COTS funding "no later than September."

He said it would be challenging for any company to create an orbital space program like SpaceX's Dragon supported only by the $500 million that NASA has set aside for a four-year COTS demonstration program.

"It is a pretty tall order to accomplish what's being asked for in COTs," he told me. "It would be hard to imagine how an amount of money that is 2 to 3 percent of the shuttle budget for a year could support a whole lot of people."

Musk noted that SpaceShipOne developer Burt Rutan has said creating an orbital spaceflight program would cost a billion dollars or more. "And that's a man who knows how to stretch a buck," Musk added.

Despite those wonderings about the bottom line, Musk said the COTS program was crucial to NASA's success as it makes the transition from the space shuttle era to the next stage of human spaceflight.

"It's far more important than the 1 percent figure would indicate," he said. Musk noted that NASA Administrator Mike Griffin has been "fighting hard" for COTS - "and he's not fighting hard merely to placate the entrepreneurial sector."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Nasa is wasting its time and money. We need more than the CEV. The plan is to eventually build a base on the moon and then head to Mars. While the moon may not have an atmosphere Mars does and we have decades of current experience with the shuttle. We need to scale the shuttle up and mount it to the top of a rocket like the apollo capsule and launch it like that. then we wouldn't have to worry about anymore foam hitting the ship. 1 ship that can perform Scientific, civilian and hopefully never needed military needs. Think the shuttles from armaggedon but on steroids. Help the private space sector if you want but build a ship that can do more than go to the moon.
Sure, D.C., you can get a shuttle like that. All it's going to cost is fifty billion dollars minimum.

You can get any of these for a fraction - and adapt them to other roles too.
'Can you imagine U-Haul making a profit on government business alone?'

U-Haul and government contracts? LOL. You obviously haven't done price comparison for either circumstance.
... Somebody needs to define just what we want in orbital, and beyond, vehicles.  If you want to go to the moon, von Braun had it right.  You don't need streamlining and similar weight.  If you want to plunk down, you don't need wings.  If you want precision landings, then you either need wings or the ability to tail-sit.  See von Braun/Ley/Bonestell of the 1950's or any of many 1950's SciFi spaceships.  If you want re-use you will have a problem with plunk-down spam-cans.  Relatively light flight structures don't react well to impacts.  Therefore, you must have redundant impact reduction devices which add weight, requiring larger launchers, reduced weight to orbit or both.

Tailsitters have to have fuel for landing, unless you want to go the tribfluegel (convert to a helicopter mode) which requires weight, controls and the joy of laying on your back and setting down backwards.  See the reports for the Navy tailsitters of the 1950's.

Leads to a winged vehicle, eh?  The penalty here is the weight of the streamlined structure, wings and landing gear.  At least you don't have to have a recovery fleet chasing around the ocean yelling "I've got it!".

The logic is:  Design a vehicle to meet a purpose.  Don't ry for an all-singing, all-dancing aberration that carries all the penalties with few advantages.  And shall we try to eliminate the throw-away devices, hmm?
A while back someone was pointing to budget cuts at NASA as a sure sign that Republicans were waging a war on science. One of my rebuttals was that it is Republican to encourage the private sector to do what
The shuttles should have been retired and replaced years ago. As far as technology goes, they are flying dinosaurs. I never understand why the government is so hesitant to give NASA more funding, they work on the absolute cutting edge of technology and the things they create for space travel more than often lead to new or improved products and materials that everyone can use. I can understand that it might be better for now to focus on trying to fix the problems we have here on Earth before we go populating Mars, but if the government claims to be commited to going to the moon and Mars, they should act like it, and stop forcing NASA to aim for the bare minimum due to funding and time constraints.
These ideas feels like the saying, "Two steps forward, one step back."  It is nice that NASA is trying to get private ships, but semi or not reusable seems so 'old school'.
Some of the test ships from a few years back would have been great.  That vertical take off and landing one would have made a nice lunar lander (no junk to leave behind).  They need a ship that will be built in space and "travel" to the moon or to Mars and something else ferries the crew up from Earth and down to the planet/moon.
Being inexpensivie is nice.... but....
NASA will still have its place but its high time for private industry to get a share in the pie. There are some exciting things afoot with companies like SpaceDev, Bigelow Aerospace and Virgin Galactic.
> These ideas feels like the saying, "Two steps forward, one step back."  It is nice that NASA is trying to get private ships, but semi or not reusable seems so 'old school'.

John, old school got us to the moon, and we've been d**king around in low orbit ever since we implemented new school.

I'd *love* to go back to the old school if it means more Apollo and Voyager style missions and fewer "hey let's take some photos of Hawaii" ones.
The whole problem with current space flight is that all we are doing is making bigger and more expensive ways to send miniscule payloads into the near regions of Space. If the dream is to eventually explore the planets, we are not going to be able to do it with any practical application of chemical rockets. I'm sorry, but the real money should go into alternative propulsion systems. Trying to spend years of astronauts lives just roaming around in space with chemical rockets is like building another coal powered electric generator. Put money into NEW technology, not just trying to find yet another way to adapt old technology. We need basic research !
The goal of creating a space faring society will require a long term commitment by the government for permanent manned bases on the moon, mars, and orbital space, as well as a doubling of annual funds for robotic probes.  Have the private sector compete for the business to provide the transportation.  Create large financial incentives for private investment in transportation, energy and resource production in space, and habitats.  Do it as quickly as possible to lower costs and get results.  The go slow, one step at time approach, while depending on a government designed, do-it-all vehicle will get us nowhere and waste billions (and lives).  We already did this with the shuttle.  We can make it so, but it won't be cheap, quick, or easy.  The public needs to understand the economic, environmental, and energy benefits that would accrue from a sustained commitment to conquer space.
Considering all the possibilities of future space exploration/colonization/commercialization and reading all the commentary regarding where NASA should spend their time and effort, reinforces my stance that space ventures should be more a function of the private sector than government funded. NASA ought to be geared more toward space defense, and other applications directly related to Government interests.
I remember as a child of 6 years old watching the first moon landing. Over forty years from that date, we will still be doing low orbit wasting of money. Get on with exploration!! As for COTS, from what I can tell, the most exciting prospect is coming from the OK based, Rocketplane.
I approve of large numbers of corporate space vehicles.  Can you imagine the trouble the crew of ISS would have been in if both the Shuttle and the Soyuz had been grounded?  But as usual, it's hard to get investors that lack imagination to see the ultimate benefits.  One of the fallouts of our "instant gratification/pay-off" society.

As for put-putting around on chemical rockets, I agree that more research needs to be done, but that will require a dogmatic shift in the science community, because anybody who dares to suggest a way to do anything "outside the box" is relegated to the lunatic fringe and is never given the funding to continue their research.  I'd hate to say it, but I'd rather give 1 billion to a scientist who says he's figured out how to build a warp drive and have it fail and learn something from those experiments than just look at him like he's crazy and spend that billion making a slightly better version of what I already have.
Don't understand why the government keeps cutting funding?

Try the reasoning that it's a horribly managed bureaucracy who spends $250 on a pencil.

I trust the private sector to manage what is done with their money a lot more then I trust NASA with mine.
These private companies are truly the future of the space industry.  NASA having to "baby sit" the shuttle program, plus the budget cuts and inadequate funding, have severely slowed down true space exploration.  Now that the shuttle is being retired, NASA finally has the chance to go after planets again!  There are lots of people who have money that WANT to invest in space, and these companies finally have the chance to let them with NASA's blessing and a bit of seed money to get them started.

And watch out!  When NASA finds that the new CEV & CLV are more expensive than they can afford (Doing more with less $$--um, I don't think so...) some of these companies will be prepared to scale up and take us back to the moon!  Yee-haw!
It's about time NASA finally gives private industry the keys to low Earth orbit.  In order for COTS to be successful though, the NASA needs to avoid a sole-source situation, which would prevent any cost savings.  Competition is the fire that drives us.
NASA will relinquish its role in space exploration to make way for the U.S. military's intended domination of space ("Take up Space" being one of their slogans).  Leave it to America to give up on exploratory science in favor of more aggressive hardware to threaten the rest of the world with.

At the current rate, we will never go back to our Moon, and we will never visit Mars, because the human race will have wiped itself out.  Exponential population growth, global warming, pollution of our air/water/soil, nuclear warfare...

The human race is no good at caring for itself as a whole; instead, we get the 1% of humanity who think that the world exists just to please them and let them live in decadent luxury.  This is not a recipe for a stable civilization, and that is why civilization as we know it will probably collapse.  

Humans are clever at making new gadgets, but we're pretty stupid at actually putting these gadgets to good uses that help everyone.  Instead, the prosperous few get mega-rich by exploiting the sale of such gadgets, vechicles, and weapons, and the rest of us kiss our taxes goodbye to fund projects that only benefit the elite ruling class.

So don't expect to hear anything about NASA doing great work for humanity--those dreams are over.  The dawning age of space is one centered on space-based weapons, military satellites, and military space vehicles.  The people running the show don't even care to know very much about global warming, so what makes us think that they have some deep desire to know what Mars is like?  Money is the only thing that matters to groups like NASA anymore.
I think we had the right idea with the space station.
We should be more aggressive in how to build and maintain our space vehicles in earth orbit. Our transports between earth and moon could then be
larger, more complete vehicles more adept at interplanetary travel, with only the need for smaller ships to resupply this effort. You can only maintain a sustained effort with reusable infrastructure to make this effort cost effective. All business knows this and they will proceed in this manner, letting NASA bite off the new frontiers and grandiose exploration. All business is bottom line driven
What i have seen in these messages is that people think that the private sector should be allowed to send shuttles, or make their own craft for their business to further the plane of space exploration, and even inhabitance.

The fact remains that the private sector relies on profits from the masses to further their research and testing. The problem with that is, I don't know about you, but I don't want, and can't afford to put anything useful in space.
I suggest everyone look at the tremendous leaps in technology that have allowed us as HUMAN beings to reach the moon and send landers/rovers to Mars and satellite probes beyond...in a historical perspective.  It was several hundred years after America "the new world" was successfully landed on and returned safely from before colonization of this new hostile land was successfully undertaken.  This was a giant leap forward for HUMANS in our native atmosphere.  This was also a joint effort of independant /private organizations and national governments.  The conquest of the extra-terrestrial inhabitation will take steadfast determination measured in bold leaps forward and recovering from setbacks and failures accross multiple generations...in other words patience.  True entreprenuers who are willing to sacrifice now for future genrations benefit.
This section provides detailed discussions of spacecraft by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Hermann Oberth, Eugen Sänger, Chesley Bonestell/Willy Ley, and Von Braun. Although the book provides a great deal of historical information, it does not represent a comprehensive history since the book, by design, only covers theoretical rockets and spaceships. Although this section is dominated by Von Braun, it only covers his theoretical works - you won’t find a V2 in there. As it turns out, Von Braun did a good deal of work for television shows produced by Walt Disney. Although developed for the early entertainment industry, these were backed up by some level of actual engineering thought. They thus fit nicely in this section, while providing a perfect transition to the next…
============================
mike
========================
[url=http://www.babyfurniture365.com]Baby Furniture[/url]
sir i want to built a spaceship which speed is amazing,powerr is enormous,please sir i wantone chance to bulit this type extreme spaceship.i am promising that i alone built a spaceship just one chance give i help you to you succed in your dream.i alone built the spaceship sir i have some spaeship-what are the powers etc-i have breif descritipons about this just give me one chance
sir i am asking one chancei prove my mind, you give small support.
please i really requesting to you
please contactme-09851259009
living-india
state-west-bengal
i built your spaceship according to-power,intensity.etc
in future this spaceship known for his speed,power etc.
please contact-today evening-8.pm
i tell you my planning,my spaceships pfofile.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=618

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google