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.



Space-race countdown

Posted: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:10 PM by Alan Boyle

It's down to the home stretch for NASA's $500 million version of "American Idol" for private-sector spaceships - otherwise known as the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or COTS. The space agency says it will announce the winners of the competition at 4 p.m. ET Friday. So far, no one in the know has signaled who will be getting the money, but there are clear front-runners and dark horses.

NASA's announcement will set the clock ticking for the development of new spaceships capable of transferring cargo and crew members between Earth and the international space station, starting in the 2010 time frame.

In the past, NASA has paid the full cost of creating space transportation systems, and it will still work that way for the Constellation program that is supposed to bring Americans back to the moon. But the COTS program works differently: The agency would dole out comparative dribbles of money for companies to demonstrate flight systems created primarily with private backing.

If the systems work, NASA would buy services from the spaceship companies - kind of like paying cab fare rather than having a car custom-built for your use.

Six finalists were named in May, and since then, NASA has been getting more detailed information about how those six intend to come up with the goods.

About the only way to handicap the field at this point is by assessing the public statements and coalition-building being done by those six finalists - and the most frequently mentioned teams are led by California-based Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX; and Oklahoma-based Rocketplane Kistler.

Why those two? Money has a lot to do with it. Both teams have signaled they're ready to put tens upon tens of millions of dollars into their respective systems: the Falcon rocket and the Dragon capsule for SpaceX, and the Kistler K-1 launch vehicle for Rocketplane Kistler. Both teams say their systems would provide an end-to-end solution for bringing cargo as well as crew to the space station.

Both teams also have brought in partners that have dealt with NASA in the past and can ramp up quickly to get their projects off the ground: SpaceX's partners include Spacehab, which is also a COTS finalist in its own right, while Rocketplane Kistler has Orbital Sciences and Lockheed Martin in its corner.

To be sure, there are cons as well as pros for both teams: SpaceX's first attempt to launch a rocket failed, apparently due to a corroded nut. Rocketplane hasn't really launched anything yet, and it could face a challenge in taking advantage of the assets from Kistler Aerospace (which it acquired just this year) and Orbital Sciences (which it teamed up with just last month).

So don't count out the other finalists: Andrews Space, SpaceDev, Spacehab and t/Space. Who knows? The players in the SpaceX/Spacehab team could even be shuffled around to cover different positions.

And no matter what happens, other competitors in the private space race - such as Constellation Services International and PlanetSpace - will press on in hopes that the leaders will falter and leave the field open for a dramatic comeback. Seen in that light, Friday's announcement may well be more like the starting bell than the final gong.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Let's hope that NASA's evaluation criteria and final selection is based more towards the company's past performance/ proven ability to perform technically and manage program(s) that are on-budget and on-schedule (you know, "Old Space" style).  Let's face it, PowerPoint presentations and deep pockets can only get you so far (about 40 seconds of unsuccessful/un-guided flight I'm told).
To be fair, during the 40 seconds of Falcon 1's flight it was fully under control with avionics, pumps, gimbals, engines and everything else performing nominally until the engine was shut down because of a leak at a sensor port. There is nothing unusual about an unsuccessful first flight of a vehicle.

Kistler, on the other hand, has not launched anything and bringing in Orbital Sciences and Lockheed Martin at the last moment is not exactly going to sprinkle any magic dust over the dusty hardware they have in storage. It's very difficult to restart a project when not all the engineers are still around and the bureaucracies of two space industry behemoths are trying their best to become "useful". But the familiar names may still sway NASA decision makers in this direction anyway.
You are told wrong. The flight was perfectly guided. The avionics worked well until the impact despite being engulfed in fire that broke seconds before launch.
This is one of those 'critical moments' for NASA, the NewSpace or Alt.Space industry and the nation's spacefaring future. Let us hope that NASA's administrator stays the course with the pledge to supoort a COTS supply to ISS. If so, and successful, our nation will benefit will a more dynamic program.
By which of course you mean, 40 seconds of flight in which everything except a corroded nut was working perfectly.  And I note that that was 40 sec more than the rest of them have.
.

I think it's nonsense and unrational to develop (both) private rockets and capsules

I suggest companies like SpaceX to spend their funds ONLY to develop the CAPSULES and launch them with a ready available rocket (that need only to be manrated)

this way they can launch soon their manned capsules that (despite the costly Delta or Atlas) will be 10 times cheaper that the (exected) cost of a CEV/AresI launch!

if they try to do both jobs they risk to fail or have very long launch delays

-----------------

PS - now there is a link to your Blog on my website:  www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/articles.html

.
The entire purpose of COTS is to end-run "Old Space."
I don't like the idea of handing someone hundreds of millions of dollars without so much as a demonsration flight. Even the Wright Brothers had to demonstrate the aircraft to the Army before they got any money. I am still steamed about all the money given to Lockheed for the X-33, with nothing to show for it. They always seem to get a pass. Do they own Washington, D.C. or something??
Actually, the whole point of COTS is that NASA would be paying for demonstrations rather than paying up front for development ... As Clark Lindsey notes here:

http://www.hobbyspace.com/
nucleus/index.php?itemid=2108


The winners would be paid incrementally, based on how they reach certain milestones. I've heard tell that there is a 90-day ramp-up period where the companies would basically have to get started on the project on their own. I'm sure more details will come out on all that after the announcement is made, but I do hope NASA has learned lessons from the X-33 experience.
LEO will be brought to you by the letters T&X.
I've got to admit that 40 seconds of (albeit guided) flight right smack into the roof of a machine shop was pretty spectacular.  And I'm sure that the Air Force and the NRL was very understanding and sympathetic of the fact that the vehicle woulda, shoulda, coulda been a success if it weren’t for that (fill in the blank).   After all, launch was only delayed for what, nearly two years? What a shame.  Also, despite what you think, it is rather common these days for a new launch system to be successful on their first flight.  Look at Delta IV, Atlas V, Taurus, Pegasus, Minotaur....not to mention several of the newly developed boosters for GMD (maybe there is something to that magic dust!).
I have some cherry bombs and a trash can how much money can I get???
Why are we still developing expendable space travel systems. Why don't we build a reuseable system that stays in orbit much like the ISS does.

We could build a reuseable system in much the same way that we built the ISS, in sections. Maybe they could utilise some of the inflatable modules currently underdevelopment for habitat modules.

I envision a spaceship that could be used and reused to ferry people back and forth to the moon or even on longer trips like to Mars. The only limiting factor would be fuel and supplies. Capsules should be used to transport people up into space and not on long journeys. Why are we so eager to redo what was done with the Apollo mission. Let's move onto something a lot more ambitious.


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=2035

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

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