iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Space Station Taxis Proposals Sought By NASA

Space Station Taxis

First Posted: 02/ 7/2012 4:44 pm Updated: 02/ 8/2012 10:08 am


* U.S. looking for firms to design orbital passenger spaceships

* Would break Russia monopoly on flying crews to space station

By Irene Klotz

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., Feb 7 (Reuters) - NASA is looking for at least two U.S. firms to design and build space taxis to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station, program managers said on Tuesday.

NASA plans to invest $300 million to $500 million in each of the firms selected under new 21-month partnership agreements, Ed Mango, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew program, said at an industry briefing at the Kennedy Space Center prior to the release of a solicitation on Tuesday.

The new program aims to build upon previous NASA investments in companies designing commercial passenger spaceships.

With the retirement of the U.S. space shuttles last year, Russia has a monopoly on flying crews to the station, a $100 billion orbiting laboratory for medical, materials science and other research.

China, the only other country that has flown people in orbit, is not a partner in the project.

Russia charges NASA about $60 million per person for rides to the station, which flies about 240 miles (385 km) above Earth and is staffed by rotating crews of six astronauts from the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada.

Winning firms would have until May 2014 to complete their integrated designs, with the intention, if funding allows, to test fly their spaceships in orbit by the middle of the decade, Mango said.

Goals of the demonstration flight include reaching an altitude of at least 230 miles (370 kilometers), maneuvering in space and staying in orbit for at least three days, Mango said.

The test ships should be capable of carrying at least four people, he added.

Since 2010, NASA has invested a total of $365.5 million in private companies, including $130.9 million in Boeing, $125.6 million in Sierra Nevada Corp and $75 million in Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX.

Boeing is developing a capsule, called the CST-100, which would fly on an Atlas 5 rocket. SpaceX, already selected by NASA to fly cargo to the station, plans to upgrade its Dragon freighter and Falcon 9 rocket to fly crew as well.

Sierra Nevada is developing a winged vehicle called the Dream Chaser that resembles a miniature space shuttle. Like Boeing's spaceship, it too would launch aboard Atlas 5 rockets, which are manufactured and sold by United Launch Alliance, a Boeing-Lockheed Martin partnership.

NASA has $406 million to spend on commercial crew programs for the year that began Oct. 1. Mango said about 75 percent of that money is available for the next phase of the program, with awards expected in July or August.

Because of future funding uncertainties, NASA is asking its potential partners to propose how they would proceed with flat funding of $400 million a year after 2014, as well as how much they would need to get to a flight demonstration.

"If we have multiple partners, we think the most we might be able to give them in the long term might be something along the lines of $400 million per partner," Mango said.

NASA hopes to be able to fly its astronauts on commercial carriers by about 2017.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SCIENCE

By Irene Klotz CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) - NASA is looking for at least two U.S. firms to design and build space taxis to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space St...
By Irene Klotz CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) - NASA is looking for at least two U.S. firms to design and build space taxis to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space St...
Filed by Reuters  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 60
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:50 PM on 02/09/2012
The Dream Chaser, of course, is a foolish design. Wings are useless in space. They are the equivalent of racing stripes and a spoiler on a pimped out Toyota Tercel. It all looks cool... and none of it has any technical function. Like the spoiler, wings in space greatly increase fuel consumption, though. You have to launch them, you have to carry them around in space and you have to fear them on re-entry... wings in space kill... the shuttle proved it, twice.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FerrisValyn
05:15 PM on 02/09/2012
They allow you a greater cross-range, and potentially a more gentle method of landing.

Its not a clear cut "this is always better" as you claim.

BTW, your shuttle comment is blatantly wrong. Certainly for Challenger. Arguably for Columbia
03:01 AM on 02/10/2012
They can't even seem to specify the payload... with some rumours that it will be close to negative unless they can procure some unobtanium. I am less pessimistic about that... but it is disconcerting that they can't tell you, this late in the design, what the design can do.

The "cross-range" argument is somewhat of a problem, as a capsule can land a hundred miles off target and it's fine... but a plane has to hit the runway or it's a catastrophe.

"BTW, your shuttle comment is blatantly wrong. Certainly for Challenger­. Arguably for Columbia"

How so? Take the wings off, put the spacecraft ON TOP of the rocket and neither accident would have happened in this way. LOM in case of Challenger, but no LOV/LOC. Neither in case of Columbia.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
behavingbadly
lovingly crafted artisanal comments
06:58 PM on 02/08/2012
The space elevator idea—a capsule traveling up to orbit along a cable built from carbon nanotubes—lacks only a few technological/manufacturing breakthroughs. It's elegant and doable.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FerrisValyn
10:07 PM on 02/08/2012
Lacking "only a few technological/manufacturing breakthroughs" means its NOT doable.

These are not small leaps. This is a massive technological jump
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
behavingbadly
lovingly crafted artisanal comments
07:10 AM on 02/09/2012
I said "few", not "easy". Where some see roadblock, others see challenge—it's all a matter of attitude.
03:55 AM on 02/09/2012
People haven't stopped laughing, yet.

The space elevator idea is great... for Mars. Possibly for a number of moons in the outer solar system. Earth is borderline, and in my opinion on the impossible side.

The space elevator is not a harmless design, by the way... it merely replaces the chemical energy in a rocket with a similar amount of mechanical energy in a wire or band. If something goes wrong, it will go fatally wrong with either technology.

The more likely use of space elevator technology are tethered ascent devices, which basically use a hypersonic vehicle to get the payload above the atmosphere and then pick it up with a long tether that is powered by a large vehicle that can pull the payload into orbit while accelerating it to orbital velocity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
behavingbadly
lovingly crafted artisanal comments
07:24 AM on 02/09/2012
It took me a while to stop laughing after reading that. Even if the space elevator idea were practicable—which it may or may not be—if we haven't already have found better solutions by the time we've reached the moons of Saturn or Jupiter, then paradoxically, we will not have reached the moons of Saturn or Jupiter and the whole scenario is void.
03:00 PM on 02/08/2012
It might save NASA a bundle of money. Capitalism in space is about to become reality.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
behavingbadly
lovingly crafted artisanal comments
06:58 PM on 02/08/2012
Sure, NOW.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:57 PM on 02/08/2012
And here we go polluting the atmosphere more and more , good ole NASA , the polluter of the upper atmosphere .
Where is Green Peace when you need them ?

STOP ROCKET LAUNCHES THEY ARE POLLUTING THE ATMOSPHERE !
CUT NASA SAVE MANKIND !
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FerrisValyn
03:09 PM on 02/08/2012
Space development is vital to saving mankind.
03:57 AM on 02/09/2012
Saving mankind from what?

So far you were merely unrealistic... but you are beginning to sound a bit out of there now...
02:53 PM on 02/08/2012
The development of the SpaceX Dragon passenger spacecraft is going very well. Just nine months in, SpaceX has already completed a static test series on the brand-new SuperDraco engine:

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

The SuperDraco is a pressure-fed, hypergolic rocket engine optimized for extremely high thrust to weight ratio at low altitudes and capable of deep throttling to lower thrust levels. Eight SuperDraco engines built into the sides of the Dragon spacecraft would produce 120,000 pounds of thrust for five seconds to separate from the Falcon 9 launch vehicle in an emergency situation.

Dragon will be the first spacecraft with a built-in launch escape system. Previous spacecraft have used escape towers which have to be jettisoned at a certain point during the launch. The danger of these systems is that a failure to properly jettison the escape tower is likely fatal for the crew, even if the flight had been proceeding flawlessly to that point.

An additional advantage of the built-in launch escape system is that when it isn't needed during launch, it remains available during reentry. In the future, the SuperDraco engines will be used for pin-point vertical soft landing without parachutes.

The final clever part is that the SuperDraco engines are fed from a common set of propellant tanks which also feed the much much smaller Draco maneuvering thrusters. So Dragon doesn't need one drop of extra propellant for launch escape capability. The propellant which would otherwise be used for maneuvering on orbit is instead used to blast the spacecraft away from the rocket.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fhmjam
02:40 PM on 02/08/2012
Gore will be against this as it will contribute to "global warming", "climate change" or whatever the latest buzzword the chicken littles use now to alarm people.
edtheengineer
Retired engineer with 40 years experience.
05:55 PM on 02/08/2012
Climate change is real. Educate yourself by reading some peer-reviewed science and stop with the juvenile posts about the "Gore boogey man".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fhmjam
08:52 PM on 02/08/2012
It real enough that data was changed in Europe last year to make it real. How else would the glaciers receed from Illinois thousands of years ago? We've had records for, oh, about 150 years and the earth has been here for millions, so there's a random sample for you. Thank you for letting me come to my senses. It explains the meteorite crashing into Arizona that may or may not have done away with the dinasaurs and the volcanoes that your idol Gore can't stop. You're a plethera of (false) info. Thanks for the help. I see the errors of my ways now......lol
02:29 PM on 02/08/2012
Newt Gingrich would certainly hope so!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mike711l
The universe is laughing at you behind your back
02:15 PM on 02/08/2012
There is nothing about space exploration that does not excite me with the exception of hearing Newt talk about his moon-base. He is so insincere that I just can't take anything he says seriously. Let the Chinese go to the Moon before we go back, who cares as long as someone does it. In the long run we are one planet and as some point everyone is going to have to work together if we are to survive as a species.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FerrisValyn
02:31 PM on 02/08/2012
In this case, I'd actually be a little more generous to Newt - he does actually have a long history with Spaceflight. He's written multiple articles/op-eds in support of spaceflight, and he help restart the Congressional Space Caucus.
04:02 AM on 02/09/2012
And when in Florida he will tell the space community what they want to hear.

And when talking to the tea party, he will tell them what they want to hear... which does not include an expansion of any science budget.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
behavingbadly
lovingly crafted artisanal comments
07:01 PM on 02/08/2012
His plan to be Emperor of the Moon is actually more realistic than his run for the White House.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mike711l
The universe is laughing at you behind your back
03:54 AM on 02/09/2012
Sure, if he can get there he can be Emperor, I don't have a problem with that. I'd even kick in a couple of bucks to send him now.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
10:16 AM on 02/09/2012
Bravo Newt. The house recognizes Governor Lunatic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mike711l
The universe is laughing at you behind your back
02:11 PM on 02/08/2012
I'm glad to see NASA taking the lead in space exploration again. Partnering with private industry is definitely the way to go to ensure the future of our space program. One day regular people will be able to afford trips into space and I hope I live to see that day.
01:49 PM on 02/08/2012
the real problem is going to be will they make pick ups in harlem
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fredfellon
02:14 PM on 02/08/2012
I live in Malta europe , I hear East New york is worst than Harlem..... But I can not wait to move back to the City .
03:17 PM on 02/09/2012
cant wait until you come back
photo
ycplum
Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves try in Vain
01:42 PM on 02/08/2012
I say DARPA should post a $100 million prize for anyone who can develop a system compatible with the space station, lift four passengers, repeat the process again in 30 days, and cost less than $10 million per trip (subject to GAO audit).

Forget the funding of designs. That is subject to so much pork. Once they have a working prototype, then they can get funding.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mike711l
The universe is laughing at you behind your back
02:12 PM on 02/08/2012
Worked with the X prize competition!
02:22 PM on 02/08/2012
No takers. It would cost $100M just to conduct a single demo flight. SpaceX expects to spend at least $800M to develop the passenger version of the Dragon spacecraft. A great deal of that is the cost of testing the launch escape system in the transonic regime.

This is still a departure from traditional NASA procurement. In the past, NASA would issue detailed specifications, and the contractors would execute to those specifications, charging whatever it cost to service the contract, including any change orders, plus a built-in profit margin.

In the commercial crew program, NASA is issuing mission requirements, and the contractors are proposing competing designs to meet those requirements. NASA is not responsible for the cost of design changes and is not obligated to pay for cost overruns.
photo
ycplum
Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves try in Vain
05:39 PM on 02/08/2012
I can't argue with the cost, but many went for the X Prize and similar other prizes for the prestige (and associated cache for soliciting further investment and/or contracts). Maybe the winner will be a joint industrial-academic team.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Baker
President:Common Ground-NYC;NYS Coordinator:PBI
11:01 AM on 02/08/2012
Finally! NASA is getting smart about building space vehicles that will transport people out of Earth's gravity well - so they can go on to much farther points - the Moon, Mars, etc. The gravity well is by far the biggest drain on fuel supplies, weight and limits all space missions to near Earth. The old Saturn Five was essentially a fuel transport vehicle, with a teeny payload for cramped astronauts on top. We never should have ditched the shuttle without a replacement, but now that we have we need to seize the opportunity to use the Space Station as a launching point to the inner solar system.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
12:35 PM on 02/08/2012
The shuttle was a hugely expensive, almost murderously dangerous vehicle. As to whether a replacement should have been procured earlier, that's a good question - the waste of huge amounts on the pork-fueled Ares, and now the pork-on-stilts-fueled SLS have not helped that process.

The space station may be a staging point, but taking large-fuel-volume rockets from there entertains enhanced risks for the occupants.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Baker
President:Common Ground-NYC;NYS Coordinator:PBI
05:32 PM on 02/08/2012
Clearly the ISS will have to be enhanced. Well, they did it on Star Trek - where the Enterprise never landed on a planet voluntarily. We need to move toward that model.
edtheengineer
Retired engineer with 40 years experience.
05:51 PM on 02/08/2012
The shuttle was a kluge of 70's and 80's technology which was both obsolete and had been found to have dangerous attributes. People always forget that space exploration is, and will be a highly risky enterprise for the forseeable future. It is not an indictment of NASA that problems were found with the shuttle. Instead, the criticism is directed at that agency for denying the apparent problems for too many years and failing to take reasoned and thoughtful steps on to developing the next generations of heavy lift technology during those years.
01:59 PM on 02/08/2012
The problem with using the ISS or other LEO assets as a staging point for exploration spacecraft is that there is no simple or inexpensive way for spacecraft to return to LEO without direct reentry at the end of the mission. LEO is good for departures only. Arrivals are *very* difficult to support.

So while it could make sense to have an intermediate staging point for propellant in LEO (since propellant is consumed during the mission), any hardware which we might want to reuse for future missions should be staged up on the rim of the Earth's gravity well: at the first or second Earth-Moon Lagrange points. Returning spacecraft can easily park at EML1/2, and EML2 offers unique advantages for storing cryogenic propellants since it is permanently shaded by the moon.

Looking further ahead, the EML gateway architecture would allow future missions to source propellants (oxygen and/or hydrogen) from water ice on the moon with a minimum of overhead.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
10:21 AM on 02/09/2012
If you must enter low earth orbit, you can always use atmospheric braking and then climb back out.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
10:28 AM on 02/09/2012
Sun-Earth L2 isn't fully shaded - the earth subtends a small angle there than the moon does at the earth. Earth-Moon L1 and L2 aren't shaded at all, apart from part of one day a lunar month - when you get an Earth eclipse - for L2 and a couple of days a month when L1 is shadowed by the moon.