Strange space bedfellows

Chris, Ontario Canada — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:35:25 GMT

Mr.Boyle, how come you are not willing to ask the tough questions?
Contrary to what Kathuria is saying there is no indication that Planetspace has met any milestones what so ever. Skepticism is required for certain companies, especially those that have never produced any real hardware or results.
Keeping in mind that the only technology PlanetSpace has ever produced was developed by the firm it dissolved, Canadian Arrow.
Kathuria's statement about meeting the first 5 milestones, would also suggest that they have missed September and maybe even December milestones.
Milestone five as defined by their Unfunded NASA SAA states that:
Milestone 5: Select Launch site in Nova Scotia
Description: Selection of actual real-estate for development as a Nova Scotia launch site.
Success Criteria: Executed document showing title to parcel of land in Cape Breton for orbital launch complex

And according to the Globe and Mail no such agreement or title has been given to Planetspace.

Good Journalism requires good objectivity.

Strange space bedfellows

Bill — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:44:53 GMT

Ya know i find this all too funny...cuz i really think the u.s. government already has space ships that can do far more than the average citizen even dreams about.

Strange space bedfellows

BILL — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:52:14 GMT

IF YOU LOOK AT THE FACT WE ALREADY REACHED THE MOON BACK IN KENNEDYS' DAY...WE SHOULD BE MUCH FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD IN SPACE EXPLORATION NOW. I THINK WE ARE BUT THE PUBLIC WILL NEVER BE INFORMED. THEY HIDE EVERYTHING UNDER THE BLANKET OF NATIONAL SECURITY.I HEARD EVEN A PAST PRESIDENT WAS TOLD IT WAS ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS AND HE DIDN'T NEED TO KNOW,AND THAT WAS A PRESIDENT FOLKS.

Strange space bedfellows

John J. Corbin, Fort Worth, TX — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:50:04 GMT

whatever happened to the concept of using the space station as a launching platform for manned or unmanned missions to other planets?

Strange space bedfellows

Michael Kampe, Eau Claire, WI — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:40:58 GMT

Ha!

Lockheed is finally realizing that Elon is about to start eating their lunch... and they don't even have a plan for slowing him down, let alone stopping him.
The aerospace fat cats (Lockheed, ATK) are too used to their high-margin government jobs- Air Force generals don't mind paying huge amounts of money for expensive toys (missiles and launch complexes)- as long as the toys are shiny and pretty and as long as the toy manufacturers spring for junkets and perks...
Lockheed makes nice stuff- bleeding edge tech that work well, but they really have no experience at making delivering a product at the lowest cost possible. Same goes for NASA, although the Sojourner, Spirit, and Pathfinder missions have given them a little experience in this regard. Let's hope Elon can be the Henry Ford that the Aerospace industry so desperately needs.
I wish good luck to PlanetSpace- but my money is on SpaceX.

Strange space bedfellows

Tim Tacoma, WA — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:59:04 GMT

I'm wondering if any of the designs might be completely self sufficient? I would be happy with a reusable vehicle to piggyback the spacecraft to an altitude high enough for final launch. Making sure the final device used to propel the vehicle into orbit is reusable.

I'm looking for Star Wars here, and I'm sure others are also.

Strange space bedfellows

Alan Boyle — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:15:14 GMT

Chris, Kathuria read me a document from NASA acknowledging completion of those five milestones ... including specifically the selection of the launch site. He said that he received that document the previous week, but I will circle back and make sure the documentation is in order.

I also asked Kathuria as well as Simpson about the Canadian reports, and they said those reports were not quite right. They said the activities involved in the Nova Scotia deal with the Canadian government were not related to space tourism, and if you read the Globe and Mail "shoot-down" report closely, you'll see that the denials are focused on the space tourism angle. If you'll recall, the shoot-down report in The Globe and Mail came two days after that same newspaper reported that millions of dollars in Canadian federal money would be going to a "space tourism project." I think that's the part that raised some hackles.

Putting 2 and 2 together, I'm guessing that Lockheed Martin is talking about money that would be spent on orbital vehicle development in Nova Scotia, in accordance with the COTS plan ... and the reason the deal is still in flux is in part because the outcome may depend on how COTS turns out. That's purely my surmise, however; PlanetSpace and Lockmart are not talking about the specifics of that Nova Scotia deal.

The interplay between the orbital and suborbital operations certainly looks to be complex, as do the roles for Ohio, Florida and Nova Scotia. I get the impression that there will have to be a lot of finessing here to put the operation together.

Which brings us back to the next couple of months as key for whether all these plans move forward. Sorry if I didn't spend as much time tracking down the Nova Scotia angle (which is a secondary theme in the item) as I should have.

Strange space bedfellows

Dave C, Wichita, KS — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:54:56 GMT

I hate to be a conspirosy theorist, but, IF we ever went to the moon, why has NASA not been able to duplicate the moon lander? They have set up a prize for new landers, and no one can do it, NASA does not even have the plans that made it possible to do it 40 years ago. The other problem with the space program (and every other US program) is cost. Americans want more money to do everything. Americans are too proud to do work for the country for a decent paycheck. Companies know that the government will pay absurd prices and they exploit it, while other countries like Japan build huge bridges for a fraction of the cost, all out of National Pride. If the US is going to survive the next century, or even the next decade, there has to be a huge shift in the way people think about national pride, and what you think is a decent living. Untill poverty in the US is less than 1 car, 2 tvs and food in the cupboard, then we will not be able to be competitive on the world market. That means, everyone is way overdue for a pay cut, esp big businesses.

Strange space bedfellows

Stewie — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:48:52 GMT

This may not be all bad as the LM cargo vehicle could be a good test mule for the silverdart allowing any bugs in the TPS to be worked out before the nova booster is ready.
Also the Athena booster though a little under powered only 8,057lbs LEO payload "upgrades might get it to delta II maybe even soyuz specs" it can do fast response missions.

Strange space bedfellows

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:17:14 GMT

Alan - As I recall, perhaps vaguely, Nova Scotia has always been a prime alternative site for space development, specifically the Cape Breton area.

After inventing the telephone near Brantford, Ontario, then transferring its development to the States, Alexander Graham Bell established a summer home in Cape Breton from where he was very active in working with the deaf and hard-of-hearing. He also invented Canada's first airplane there, which he named The Silver Dart, shortly after the Wright Bros. flew in Kitty Hawk.

If Bell was still around, I'm sure Sheerin would have launched successfully long ago in spite of all the naysayers and nitpickers.

Strange space bedfellows

Alan Boyle — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:31:29 GMT

I've seen additional documentation indicating that NASA has concurred with PlanetSpace's view that the first five milestones were met as of Sept. 1. As to the Nova Scotia deal, it sounds as if things are in process. As is usual with these sorts of deals, there is more than one level of agreement that the parties have to go through. Stay tuned. ...

Strange space bedfellows

Todd, Billerica, MA — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:34:39 GMT

Dave C.

There is a huge difference in government funded development, and commercially funded development.

The reason no one can win the lunar lander prize is because there is zero government money flowing into the teams competing. The government gave contractors billions of dollars back in the 1960's to develop the vehicles. Commercial entities are spending millions of dollers to try to duplicate it. Can you see the huge difference? (Billions vs Millions and this is Billions in 1960's so inflate that to today vs millions today)

Strange space bedfellows

Need to know basis :-) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:15:54 GMT

As a past employee of a Boeing subsidiary, I was taught ethics the whole time I was there. One thing that strikes me is that you have Lockheed-Martin in a situation that creates ethical dilemmas. Here they are "two space heavyweights. Lockheed Martin and ATK are the leading players in NASA's effort to build the multibillion-dollar successor to the space shuttle - but at the same time, they're the junior partners in a bid to build a low-cost alternative to that successor". This appears to be a conflict. How can they be both a paid contractor and one that is competing for money elsewhere? All they have to do is hinder the latter to make the former more profitable. If this isn't a conflict o interest or an ethical dilemma, I don't know what one is!

Strange space bedfellows

Michael ,Kent Oh — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:43:46 GMT

What I would like to see is an analysis of how much it would take to update the apollo casule to modern standards. The fact is,soyuz was designed at the same time by the russians and has been updated over the years and worked well. The simple casule design seems to be one that really works. Im all for new technology,but you have to ask if we are reinventing the wheel.

Strange space bedfellows

steve smyth lynn ma — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:56:29 GMT

It's pretty discouraging when Alan takes time to report on the whole spectrum of Space Development...good, bad, or otherwise...and with few exceptions, responses, including my own, continue to focus on the downside...way more than 50% of the comments always end up being negative addendae to the piece Alan has presented.
Whassupwidat?
What's wrong with the picture?

Strange space bedfellows

Doug Fingles, Warner Robins, GA — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:54:37 GMT

Dave; There is a considerable difference in requirements for the new versus 1970's moon landers. The new landers will have to transport 4 people for an extended stay, versus two people for 2-3 days. It's not something that can just be scaled up--the weight alone would be too costly. Plus, the original landers, while serviceable, were a compromise on weight and safety. Frankly, we just got lucky that no solar flares or storms hit during the stays on the lunar surface as the "skins" were paper-thin. In addition, the short duration stays of the 70's showed that moondust can be hard on seals and equipment over longer duration stays, so future landers will have to have a better system to clean/seal against the dust.

Strange space bedfellows

Need to know basis :-) — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:47:38 GMT

steve smyth and others. My diatribe about Lockheed and ATK may sound bad. Unfortunately, it is. I am sorry about that, but you and everyone else needs to understand that this will end up killing the lesser program. Lockheed and ATK already have BILLIONS in lucrative contracts with NASA and the Feds. They will do things like this to make them look good... they will even actually help Planetspace's cause just enough to make it look like they are really trying. The reality is they will never let anything get in the way of those lucrative contracts. Therefore with Lockheed's and ATK's involvement, Planetspace is doomed to ultimate failure. This is precisely how and why we pay $300 for a hammer and $2000 for a toilet seat. The best thing for Planetspace IMHO is to get away from these big contractors and go it alone or with others with a similar grassroot cause. And before you ask... How do I know this?? Well, I don't with 100% certainty, but I have seen this happen both when I was in the Military and as a contractor for that Boeing subsidiary... Thanks for the space to rant Alan!!

Strange space bedfellows

steve smyth — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:30:20 GMT

need to know...you needn't pitch such to me...nor apologize...no disillusionment here, Son...we are still developing projects, with this sort of entanglements, that began in the 60's...same vision...better toys...eh?
besides, even if you are making it up, and have some axe to grind, you are right.
my question was intended to lead to a solution, not more in depth analysis of the problem...we have way too muckin' futch of that already...muddying the waters...

Strange space bedfellows

Tom Carter — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:35:30 GMT

I think everyone needs to take this whole partnership with a big dose of "it depends".

First, the heavy lift system and the station resupply system are rather different in scope and both make sense in their own ways. Why send a semi when a pickup will do? NASA certainly won't be sending up half full heavy lift craft if they can send a little resupply craft.

Second, this could be a really good intellectual and supply partnership for Planetspace. Lockheed and ATK have been putting stuff into space for years, if Planetspace can pull parts and plans from the big companies it'll save them from having to develop these parts themselves in house. I can see this as economical in terms of both development time and money.

Finally, a bit of perspective is needed when talking about modern space hardware. What we were putting into space in the 60's is like a model T, it had wheels, an engine and a body, and did most of the same things that a modern car does but no matter what, a brand new BMW does it all better now. This of course comes at the nessecery increases in engineering complexity but giving increased safety and functionality.

The shuttle was a good interim design because it combines the ability to carry cargo into space and stay there with enough of a crew to do something with the cargo. Now, however, it might be time to think about the benefits of actually constructing things in space. The ISS, with all it's problems, has been a tremendous testbed for orbital construction and the seperation of earth to orbit lift capabilities and of in orbit capabilities. I think it's only a matter of time before we start to see an orbital transfer/shipyard that will interface heavy lift/return/construction services with intraorbital capabilities due to the rather drastically differing design requirements for these diciplines.

Strange space bedfellows

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:27:39 GMT

"whatever happened to the concept of using the space station as a launching platform for manned or unmanned missions to other planets?"

The orbital inclination of ISS doesn't lend itself to that. But a lower inclination would've been impossible for Russian launchers to reach (at least with useful payloads).

ISS was as much a political compromise as a technological one...

Strange space bedfellows

Chiya P. — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:05:45 GMT

What happened to PlanetSpace & Cape breton... are they still going to be doing that? I'm canadian and I think that would be great, instead of people having to move to the US

Strange space bedfellows

Vladislaw — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:15:58 GMT

The Lunar lander prize is not for the production of the lunar lander that will be part of the constellation system, from my understanding. It is for lunar BASE operations and will be used to ferry astronauts up to the orbiting service module and down load new astronauts. This is nothing like the proposed 20 ton cargo lander NASA wants to build for constellation.