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.



New vs. old space

Posted: Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:15 PM by Alan Boyle

Space entrepreneurs like to draw a line between "old space," referring to established aerospace firms such as the Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin; and "new space," referring to themselves. As we found during last weekend's NewSpace 2006 conference, the pioneers of new space are trying to push the envelope - and get a piece of the old-space pie in the process.

But the line between the two is getting fuzzier, thanks to alliances like the one announced this week between Orbital Sciences ("old space") and Rocketplane Kistler ("new space").

The "strategic relationship," announced Monday, was forged to support Rocketplane Kistler's bid for NASA funding under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or COTS, which sets $500 million aside through 2010 for the development of new ways to transfer cargo and crew to the international space station.


Rocketplane Kistler

Artwork shows Kistler K-1 rocket.


Rocketplane Kistler is offering the Kistler K-1, a rocket that Kistler Aerospace had under development for years before that company was acquired by Oklahoma-based Rocketplane. About $600 million was put into developing the K-1 launch system as a means of delivering payloads to the space station, but the funds for the project dried up. As a result, the K-1 never got off the ground, even though the rocket is considered well more than halfway along the path to deployment. 

If Rocketplane Kistler is awarded some of the NASA money, Orbital will provide program management and systems integration services for the K-1 project. Orbital, which is best-known for its Pegasus air-based launch system, also would be making a "strategic investment" in Rocketplane.

"We are excited to have the opportunity to join a program that could revolutionize space launch services," David Thompson, Orbital's chairman and chief executive officer, said in Monday's news release. "Having studied the substantial amount of work that has been accomplished on the K-1 program and the planning that is already in place, we are convinced that it can be operational in a relatively short period of time."

Rocketplane Kistler and the other COTS finalists - Andrews Space, SpaceDev, Spacehab, SpaceX and t/Space - are waiting to hear by September which of them will be receiving millions of dollars from NASA for demonstrations of their flight technologies.

George French, Rocketplane Kistler's chairman and CEO, told me that Orbital's involvement should help his company hit the ground running if NASA green-lights the K-1.

"They're giving us their 'A Team,'" he said.

Orbital's know-how would also benefit Rocketplane's development of a suborbital spaceship known as the Rocketplane XP, he said. In fact, French hopes there will be more and more interplay between the suborbital and the orbital ventures - with the moon ultimately in his sights.

"For both our team and their team, COTS is the beginning, it's not the end," he said. "It's the dawn of a space program. And if we're successful, we'll give the United States a cheap, versatile launch vehicle that can launch satellites, that can send up free-fliers, that can dock with the space station and take payloads to the moon."

He made a point to mention that the Lunar Research Institute's Alan Binder, who was the principal investigator for the Lunar Prospector mission, was on Rocketplane Kistler's team. Other teammates listed in the company's presentation materials include Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, two old-space mainstays that are competing against each other to build NASA's big-ticket item, the multibillion-dollar Crew Exploration Vehicle (a.k.a. Orion).

French said it made sense for NASA to fund the COTS program as well as the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

"They're not giving as much money, so they're not going to get a Cadillac, but we will be able to drive, we will be able to go," he said.

In fact, some folks - at the Space Frontier Foundation and elsewhere - would rather see NASA rent the outer-space equivalent of a Ford Escort fleet than pay to have some Cadillacs custom-built for space exploration. Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.

Looking ahead, I'll close out this month's summer space tour on Friday by revisiting the subject of sex in space. If you have any observations to help launch the discussion, go ahead and drop me a line.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

How many people will the rocket plane hold?
I'm sure a private company could make a usable space vehicle and lease it to NASA for a lot less money than NASA would spend developing their own.  I'm not sure if this is correct, but it costs NASA around $500 million each time the shuttle launches.  I'm no rocket scientist, but give me half a billion dollars to throw at the problem and I'll hire a few and we'll come up with something that works!
Wasn't that the NASA strategy behind X-33/Venturestar? Firms like Lockheed were suppose to use private capital to build the shuttle’s replacement and then NASA would purchase launch services. However when Lockheed couldn’t raise the money in capital markets, and faced having to invest additional money to solve a development problem with the new fuel tanks, the project was scrapped and NASA was left with the aging Shuttle as a result.  How is COTS different? What’s to prevent a similar problem this time around?

America needs a Shuttle replacement and they need one now! And the only sure way to get one is if NASA builds it. Sure it will cost money, spaceflight isn’t cheap.  But it’s a far surer strategy to have NASA build it directly, just as NASA did with Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Shuttle, then keep experimenting with private providers like its has been doing for the last decade.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Ben Franklin
NASA is going to make bureaucracies out of all these promising start-ups.  The seed money sounds good, but no 'start-ups' made it this far anyway.  Everyone here was well on their way to space without this headache.  If you want orbital expertise, hire it.
Let NASA work on interplanetary craft.  Orbital stuff is commercial now, and the government is never able to compete with private enterprise on efficiency.
Wow!  September 2, 1986 I walked into the 10-office suite that housed Orbital Sciences Corporation; I was the 20th employee, counting Dave Thompson and the receptionist.  April 5, 1990 we flew a completely privately-funded space launcher (and made it to orbit on the first try, I may add) called Pegasus (no, DARPA did NOT pay for its development).  A few short years later, we were the first company in the U.S. to launch on our rocket a satellite also built by us.  To this date, we build dozens of small launchers and satellites a year with less than 3,000 employees... and we are "Old Space"???!!!  Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites was more than twice our size in 1986!!!... is Burt "Old Aerospace"?

Let me see... where did I leave my bottle of "Grecian Formula"?...
Heh, that's a point well taken, Antonio. Guess it goes to show that the line is even blurrier. I know the "new space" proponents will want to chime in with their distinctions (cost-plus basis vs. pay-for-services basis, radical reduction in launch costs, emphasis on wider space applications such as tourism, etc.), but there is definitely a spectrum of aerospace companies rather than a hard line between new and old. Some might even say "old space" companies are simply the companies that can support themselves the old-fashioned way, through traditional capital markets. Those gray hairs don't make you look old ... just distinguished.  ;-)
Antonio: I've asked some of the most outspoken New Space advocates why *they* don't talk about OSC (or at any rate, not 1/10th as often as they extol the prospects of startups that have yet to launch anything.)

As I haven't received an answer that makes sense, I can only conclude that you're disqualified because you launch real hardware, not PowerPoints... in a real marketplace, not the far bigger, far lower-cost marketplace that's just about to appear (and has been since I started covering space 30+ years ago).

Get over that, and you too can be in the vanguard.

Alan, I think you're correct to call OSC Old Space. From a 1990 book called Space Enterprise Beyond NASA by David Gump:  "...several private rocket companies aren't  promising low costs per pound.  [...]  The Pegasus project became public in 1988 when OSC won a DARPA contract for $6.3 million.  The cost per pound was $10,000, triple the cost of a large Titan or Atlas booster.  OSC hopes Pegasus can win customers on convenience rather than per-pound efficency."

New Space companies are the ones that bring down the cost of getting to orbit.  Anyway, that's my definition.
Robin: Thanks for illustrating my point by citing a 16-year-old (!) prediction that cost to orbit would drop Real Soon Now. Similar expectations had been expressed over the decades before *that* by Truax, Kayser, Hudson et al.

I respect the expertise and ambition of many of those involved in the New Space startups. What I'm objecting to is the attitude (more common among "fans" than among those in the trenches) that big breakthroughs are just around the corner, blocked only by inefficient NASA or stodgy Big Aerospace.

In fact, the obstacles to cheaper access to space are a gnarly combination of engineering *and* economics *and* public policy. They're going to be overcome slowly, in small increments, not by any silver-bullet breakthrough.      
Well Nancy, Bigalow's on the right course.


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=1486

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

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