Lockheed and Bigelow Human-Rated EELV deal

Lockheed and Bigelow Human-Rated EELV deal
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4823

"The companies expect an Atlas V 401 single-core configuration to be the
most likely launch vehicle. Lockheed Martin literature and graphics,
obtained by NASASpaceFlight.com, portray a wide, 8-person capsule atop a
combined abort and orbital maneuvering system in an Atlas V 401 stack. The
passenger vehicle itself could change to a different design."

So if NASA doesn't use Atlas for manned space travel, it looks like Bigelow
might.

Other interesting points include:

"The reason for the NASA ESAS man-rating concerns was due to the 25mT
CEV mass requirement, which ESAS maintained could not safely even be met by
the massive Atlas V Heavy variant. According to a Lockheed Martin paper
unveiled this week at the Space 2006 conference, the basic Atlas V 401 can
meet FAA and NASA man-rating requirements with little modification with a
much smaller capsule mass of 20,000 lbs.

At 20,000 lbs, there is enough margin in the Atlas V 401's flight envelope
to allow the crew to safely abort at any time during launch, closing all
unsafe 'black-zones'. Also, at 20,000 lbs structural loads on the vehicle
are decreased enough so that a detailed Lockheed analysis indicates that all
primary structures meet NASA 1.4 Factor of Safety margins."

"The paper emphasises 'maximizing the synergy' between capsule and
launch vehicle requirements, and clearly begs the question as to why NASA
stuck with such strict CEV and Lunar mission requirements before launch
vehicle selection, resulting in the multi-billion dollar Ares I development
effort."

Well, duh! It's because they want to preserve the Saturn/shuttle
"infrastructure", which really means jobs at NASA and the existing shuttle
contractors.

And finally:

"Meanwhile, the NASA COTS program is attempting to foster drastically
lower cost ISS resupply and crew rotation missions with the granting of $500
million to the two 'New Space' companies SpaceX and Rocketplane-Kistler.
These companies are being asked to find significant private funding to
supplement the NASA COTS award, with the vague assurance that if they
succeed in flying safe manned vehicles that they would then be eligible to
bid on competitive ISS resupply contracts.

Again, the Lockheed Martin/Bigelow agreement could drastically change the
ISS resupply equation. A man-capable Atlas V with capsule and docking
hardware could threaten direct competition with any successful COTS winner
on competitive ISS crew rotation contracts."

It appears the startup launch providers could be threatened by a big
government contractor coming in and taking over the potential ISS resupply
market. :-(

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Wow! I guess Mr. Musk & Company may be pushed to the wall. Looks to me
like the big boys have finally woke up, and are spaying there litter
box. The only problem I see with this is, the lack of booster reuse. It
seems that the high flight rate must be the answer to opp. cost. Well I
wish them luck. It is going to be a interesting few years ahead!!

Carl

wrote in message
oups.com...
Wow! I guess Mr. Musk & Company may be pushed to the wall. Looks to me
like the big boys have finally woke up, and are spaying there litter
box. The only problem I see with this is, the lack of booster reuse. It
seems that the high flight rate must be the answer to opp. cost. Well I
wish them luck. It is going to be a interesting few years ahead!!

If their capsule holds eight people and there are seven paying passengers at
the Russian's rate of $20 million per person, that's $140 million per
flight. Perhaps Bigelow's space station will allow the visitors to do more
than the limited activities allowed on ISS, so they'll be able to charge a
higher price per flight? I'm guessing one of the points of this agreement
to is to find out how much it's going to cost per flight. If anything, the
results of the study would give the startups a clear price goal for their
launch vehicles.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:11:00 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


wrote in message
roups.com...
Wow! I guess Mr. Musk & Company may be pushed to the wall. Looks to me
like the big boys have finally woke up, and are spaying there litter
box. The only problem I see with this is, the lack of booster reuse. It
seems that the high flight rate must be the answer to opp. cost. Well I
wish them luck. It is going to be a interesting few years ahead!!

If their capsule holds eight people and there are seven paying passengers at
the Russian's rate of $20 million per person, that's $140 million per
flight. Perhaps Bigelow's space station will allow the visitors to do more
than the limited activities allowed on ISS, so they'll be able to charge a
higher price per flight? I'm guessing one of the points of this agreement
to is to find out how much it's going to cost per flight. If anything, the
results of the study would give the startups a clear price goal for their
launch vehicles.

There are a number of ways that they could differentiate it (not
having to do a lot of training in Russia, for one thing).

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:11:00 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Perhaps Bigelow's space station will allow the visitors to do more
than the limited activities allowed on ISS, so they'll be able to charge a
higher price per flight?

There are a number of ways that they could differentiate it (not
having to do a lot of training in Russia, for one thing).

Along the same lines is not having to learn any Russian. I suppose anything
that saves time equates to money when you're a busy multi-multi-millionaire.
;-)

Getting away from ISS would enable you to do "stunts", like EVA, that would
otherwise be difficult to arrange on ISS.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Jeff Findley wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Wow! I guess Mr. Musk & Company may be pushed to the wall. Looks to me
like the big boys have finally woke up, and are spaying there litter
box. The only problem I see with this is, the lack of booster reuse. It
seems that the high flight rate must be the answer to opp. cost. Well I
wish them luck. It is going to be a interesting few years ahead!!


If their capsule holds eight people and there are seven paying passengers at
the Russian's rate of $20 million per person, that's $140 million per
flight.


Why not undercut the Russians? Even if only by half?

And if not...hmm. The first case of off-planet price fixing?

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking