Recent Posts
- Robot leaves the International Space Station (ISS) on board Soyuz MS-14
- Belated news: Our Apollo 11 crossword is now corrected…and we also publish its solution…
- Momentus orders Terran 1 spacelaunch for its Vigoride Extended GEO spacecraft delivery tug
- China’s Long March 4B launches three sats from Taiyuan
- Pad fire delays H-2B launch of HTV-8
Cookies & Privacy
Click here to read about use of cookies on the website
Categories
Archives
Tags
nasaecoreviewsspacexesavideoiss25Arianespacevirgin galacticchinaDGAaviation weekULAaresIGTRoscosmosBeidouawardssoyuzspaceSatellite broadcastingCargo Return VehicleresearchmoonmarsblogInternational Space Stationfalcon 9russiaimpacthyperboladelaydemocratobamaspaceshiptwohypertextrocketgoogle lunar prizelunarspacewalkorionboeinglaunchtourismbarack obamanorthconstellationfiguresspaceflightmarsnode 2fundedISROevajaxaRaymond LygoVegarome2009Express MD-2ss2dassault aviationAirbus DSwk2aviation2008LucySESradiomissiletestexplorationdocking portBlue Origininternetsuborbitaluksts-122China Manned Space EngineeringflightExpress AMU 1Atlas VAriane 5Elon Muskspaceportnewspapermissile defense2010cotsProton MsstlaltairEutelsatbuildshuttlespace stationIntelsat 23scaled compositesgalileoCosmosinternational astronautical congressspace tourismEuropean Space Agencyruleshanleynew yorkbudgetshenzhouspace shuttleatvVietnamOrbital ATKMojaveSLScongressboldeniacthales alenia spaceLockheed MartinGuiana Space CenterIntelsatlawsSpace Systems/LoralkscprotonILSAriane 5 ECAUK Space AgencydragonTalulah RileySkylonastronautAstriumcnespicturebaselanderSSLusaApollofiveInmarsatAriane 6eventeufalcon50thSea LaunchWednesdayinterviewAprilUS Air Forcesuccessorcustomeratlantis7linkSNCenergiarecycleOneWebnewshumanadministrator201115orbiternational space symposiumconferenceJFKkoreaUnited Launch AllianceLong Marchcstson its launch padcommercialOctoberpresidentgriffinreport
That’s a bit harsh, Armadillo is flying subsystem testing vehicles, Pixel etc, its aiming to build something more substantial soon while an engine its designed has powered a Rocket Racing League prototype, as has Xcor and that company continues developing its Lynx suborbital vehicle’s engine the 5K18 and has private funding in support of that, while Rocketplane has had its ups and downs but it has done wind tunnel testing in the past among other things. So they are not just powerpoint jockeys.
The biggest problem has not been management but Industry and Govt. door slamming. It is a story in COMPLETE contrast to SPACE X which got USAF backing and launch facilities virtually gratis with nothing more than a basic concept, super-hype, but NO hardware which in term enabled them to get orders from commercial customers with NO TRACK RECORD. No financial restrictions were placed on SPACE X COTS contract that have been mentioned – officially of otherwise. Whereas with Kistler…lets hope they can weather the storm and prove THEY have the answer: something I’ve been convinced of since discovering the K-1 on the web over 10 YEARs ago.
I think you’re being a bit harsh on SpaceX. Yes they did a good job of convincing the USAF that they had the operationally responsive space launch answer and yes that did mean they got lots of support – a story that has yet to be written IMHO – but they have had to demonstrate that they can do it. Whether you think four launches to reach orbit is good or bad. Kistler Aerospace is a sadder stopry where they decided to use the space primes as their supply base and that was never going to work out well simply because the primes’ cost base will always ensure that your budget is going to have to be big. SpaceX’s decision to bring virtually everything in-house enabled them to control their costs. Whether COTS-D or even CRS ever happens NASA has got its Delta II replacement with Falcon 9 and my conspiracy theory about all of this is that that was what all of this commercial space guff has been about from the start.
Until Falcon 1/9 are operational with at least 3-consecutive successful launches each, I think the verdict is out on the “Delta II replacement” frankly.
I’m rather curious that there’s no apparent utilisation of SRB’s OR a Falcon 1(Heavy) using the triple stack design we were first to use on our Europa III(cancelled of course!) concept. On the other hand, SPACE-X has listed the NASA standards that their vehicle and Spacecraft are designed to meet. Let’s, for the Astronaut’s sake, hope this is true!
On the other hand, I approve of their keeping it as simple as possible approach, although the use of 27 engines firing simultaneously,for Falcon 9 Heavy lift-off almost approaches the ill-fated N-1 with 30!
Ha,
just discovered that the original ’06 Kistler COTS-D contract was actually with ATK who was the prime Contractor for the K-1 vehicle. RpK was classified as a subcontractor! Strange,because that being so, ATK should have come up with the $500M Kistler was required to obtain, and NOT Kistler. Why didn’t they? Perhaps ARES contracts had something to do with it. SPACE X independence from the Aerospace “Octopus” becomes more and more justified. clearly though that limits their technology base.