Slashdot Mirror

The T-space consortium already proposed this in their bid for the CEV program. NASA should concentrate on ideas that haven't already been given to them.

http://www.transformspace.com/

There's an interesting post over on Clark Lindsay's RLV and Space Transport News, part of which I've pasted below:

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid =894

* Florida Today points out that "In the past three years, Congress has given the [Shuttle] program $13 billion, and all that money has resulted in just two flights". Sword of Damocles: NASA must safely launch the space shuttles this year, or the program wont survive - Florida Today - Feb.5.06.

To put that into perspective:

* Elon Musk has spent about $100M so far on developing the line of SpaceX Falcon launchers. The first Falcon 9 launch is scheduled for 2007. He hasn't said how much more money it will take to reach that launch but I doubt it could be more than another $100M.

* Kistler says it needs a few hundred million dollars to finish its fully reusable two stage K-1 vehicle.

* T/Space said it can build a CEV system capable of taking crews and cargo to the ISS for around $500M.

* LockMart once promised to build the VentureStar for $6B. If they had a 100% overrun that would still be less than $13B.

My statement is true. Sure, it sounds like a PR blurb, but I'm basing it on the results of the study that I linked to. The study uses standard cost-estimate techniques and is based on sound data. Now, personally, I think that T/Space's plan is much more cost effective (and therefore more desireable, since it could allow for like 10 times as many missions for the same cost, but most likely would have same missions but less cost), but my statement was contrasting NASA's current plan with the Shuttle and Apollo missions.

Simply using a top-mounted capsule design with a launch abort system (the little rocket that you see atop the Apollo capsule during launch) provides at least ten times the launch safety of the shuttle. The overall cost of the lunar program will be much less than what the Apollo program cost (because of less need for new R&D and significant advances over the last three decades in productivity and technology), according to Figure 12-4 found in the Cost Evaluation section of the NASA report. The lunar program is designed to have greater capability than the Apollo program (for instance, longer lunar surface duration and larger crew, not to mention the moon base). All along the design process, the future Mars mission is in mind during the design of propulsion, the CEV capsule, the heavy lift (125 ton to LEO) CaLV rocket, and other system components. This allows the same infrastructure to be used for the Mars missions, thus reducing costs and increasing confidence and understanding of the Mars mission components. By ensuring that only minor changes are needed for the most important components of the different missions, safety is enhanced and R&D expense is reduced (i.e. you don't need to reinvent the wheel... or, say, a space wrench).

NASA is learning a lesson from the Russians here. Soyuz rides on mostly the same basic rocket design as the first ICBM and the artificial satellite (Sputnik), which is largely why the Soyuz is so cheap and reliable (it's the most mature launch system by far). (BTW, isn't that weird that the first stages of the only manned rocket system in regular service today is based on a rocket design that has been launched for almost 50 years?)

The first application that came to my mind after reading their site was air deployed rocketry.

I'd be interested to see the numbers for cargo tonnage carrying capacity and max altitude of a full size (~1000 ft) freighter craft.

Combine this airship with t/space's air-launched lanyard rocketry, and there is an awesome potential for large tonnage air launched private spacecraft.

http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction =projects.view&workid=EE0A866A-F1C1-C18B-7D3CB327B CAF3542

The CXV being tested by t/Space has a lot of promise too. It is less capable than either the CEV or Kliper, but will probably get to production a hell of a lot faster and can do the job the Shuttle is mostly doing now - transferring personnel back and forth between the ISS.

http://transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pro jects.view&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B8 3AA

A proposal to use an air-launched booster, possibly the SpaceX Falcon V, to launch an Apollo-type four man capsule that can reach the ISS.

Note to all the Rutan freaks out there: if you can do this was less than $60 billion, feel free to try. Even better, volunteer to be a test pilot...

I'm sure he could.

http://transformspace.com/

By putting the CEVs permanently in orbit, and putting permanent tankers in orbit, you reduce overall cost. You put the infrastructure up ONCE, and reuse. The rest is crew and supplies, and extra goodies like moon base infrastructure.

This is really the most unimaginative proposal NASA could come up with. $104 billion for Apollo II? Come on.

"That said, so far he has basically flown a rocket plane really high.:"

Rutan and T/Space are hard at work on orbital vehicle on a below the radar NASA contract called CXV.

They have come amazingly far, amazingly fast on $6 million dollars. They have drop tested a 23% scale model of the launch stack and done a parachute test for the capsule. They are taking advantage of a new low cost, ultra reliable Air Force developed launcher and a proven capsule desigh used to recover film from spy satellites. It looks to be a great can do kind of program though it has a long ways to go.

Compare this to CEV, where Boeing and Lockheed are spending $52 million dollars in the same time frame and doing nothing but generating paper and preparing for a design review meeting in 2006 when they MAY settle on a basic concept for a launch vehicle and have so far not gotten past artists conceptions.

"Also, where do you think he got his start in aerospace? NASA!"

Actually he started out working at Edwards Air Force base for the Air Force, maybe you should read his bio. He has worked on NASA projects off and on over the years but you are totally mistaken to paint it like he owes his existence to NASA.

t/Space has asked for $400 million to develop this system, to be completed by 2008. After that, it would cost about $20 million to launch a mission. This date is far in advance of the 2014 date (or the 2010 date) proposed for the CEV.

Given that a space shuttle mission costs over $800 million, this seems like a great idea for a human-only shuttle. It would be inherently more reliable than the shuttle, much less expensive per launch, and really open the doors to private sector investment in space since NASA would contract t/Space for each launch. Cargo could be sent up separately on a heavy lift rocket that need not go through the enormous expense of human rating it.

Stephen

t/Space has asked for $400 million to develop this system, to be completed by 2008. After that, it would cost about $20 million to launch a mission. This date is far in advance of the 2014 date (or the 2010 date) proposed for the CEV.

Given that a space shuttle mission costs over $800 million, this seems like a great idea for a human-only shuttle. It would be inherently more reliable than the shuttle, much less expensive per launch, and really open the doors to private sector investment in space since NASA would contract t/Space for each launch. Cargo could be sent up separately on a heavy lift rocket that need not go through the enormous expense of human rating it.

Stephen

t/Space has asked for $400 million to develop this system, to be completed by 2008. After that, it would cost about $20 million to launch a mission. This date is far in advance of the 2014 date (or the 2010 date) proposed for the CEV.

Given that a space shuttle mission costs over $800 million, this seems like a great idea for a human-only shuttle. It would be inherently more reliable than the shuttle, much less expensive per launch, and really open the doors to private sector investment in space since NASA would contract t/Space for each launch. Cargo could be sent up separately on a heavy lift rocket that need not go through the enormous expense of human rating it.

Stephen

t/Space has asked for $400 million to develop this system, to be completed by 2008. After that, it would cost about $20 million to launch a mission. This date is far in advance of the 2014 date (or the 2010 date) proposed for the CEV.

Given that a space shuttle mission costs over $800 million, this seems like a great idea for a human-only shuttle. It would be inherently more reliable than the shuttle, much less expensive per launch, and really open the doors to private sector investment in space since NASA would contract t/Space for each launch. Cargo could be sent up separately on a heavy lift rocket that need not go through the enormous expense of human rating it.

Stephen

I'm under the impression that the direct speed/altitude benefits are fairly small. Rather, the main benefits are from safer abort methods (you can parachute back down if your engines fail) and being able to build an engine optimized for the upper atmosphere and space. You also don't have to pay launch site fees, and liability insurance becomes easier to deal with. Here's a relevant quote from t/Space's site:

http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction =projects.view&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270 F2B83AA

The major benefits of air launch come in safety, simplicity and flexibility. Crew safety is enhanced because abort-at-ignition is easier when the capsule already is high enough for parachute deployment, vs. the on-the-pad challenge of releasing sufficient energy in the correct direction to send the capsule high enough for the parachutes to deploy. Public safety is enhanced because the launch takes place over open ocean, well away from any populated areas.

Air launch also allows simpler engines, which don't need to be designed to operate at both sea-level air pressure and at altitude. The "all-airborne" operation also reduces the performance penalty of using inexpensive low-pressure tanks and engines.

Flexibility and responsiveness is greatly enhanced by air launch. Most winds and precipitation at the airport runway -- launch site -- don't delay a launch; the carrier aircraft simply flies to clear weather. In addition, responsive launch often requires matching a particular inclination and orbit phasing. The carrier aircraft over open ocean can launch the CXV to any azimuth, and by flying across longitudes, can quickly match a desired orbit phasing.

The t/Space version of air launch provides only modest performance gains, in the 10-25% range, compared to a ground launch. It does not attempt technically difficult challenges such as accelerating the launch aircraft to supersonic speeds, or reaching very high altitudes.

Thats the thing I like about Rutan most. He bends metal and tries stuff instead of producing endless studies, artists conceptions and expendive half hour animations like NASA and its behemoth contractors. If you watch NASA TV they seem to have a penchant for expensive CG videos about how cool it would be if they did all this stuff. They aren't going to actually get around to bending metal and actually doing it, but aren't our animations cool? I suspect NASA needs to fire everyone who produces these animations and hit them with a clue stick, bend metal and stop the mental masturbation producing animation.

Heh, very true.

Not that cool animations are somehow intrinsically bad. t/Space's video of their overall concept is pretty cool:

http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction =media_gallery.viewalbum&albumid=A1663F17-06A1-129 4-296BE5E624169B1B

What gets me is that they did this all for $6 million: paper studies, shiny animations and videos, a couple of drop tests, full-scale mock-ups, a new crew seat prototype, and more. Meanwhile, LockMart and Boeing have gotten $28 million each, and have still only produced powerpoint slides and paper studies.

CRX is essentially Burt Rutan's LEO successor to SpaceShipOne in partnership with Transformational space and under a small contract from NASA.

Don't you mean the CXV?

By the way, there's a rather good article over at Wired which talks about the CXV a little. It includes photos and video of their recent full-scale capsule drop test and water landing:

http://wired.com/news/space/0,2697,68528,00.html?t w=wn_tophead_1

There are some additional photos and videos here.

"But why does it have to be so big?"

I know this is rhetorical, but it ended up so big because of DOD requirements to win their approval and participation. They need a big cargo capability AND worse they demanded a 1000+ mile cross range landing capability to launch from Vandenburgh, do 1 polar orbit and land back at Vandenburgh. To do this the Shuttle wings had to be dramatically enlarged, which led to the whole thing getting much bigger. Since the $6 billion launch pad at Vandenburgh was abandoned after Challenger, in fact the DOD largely abandoned the Shuttle at this point, the irony is this cross range capability was never really needed.

"And also put that doohickey on the very top like with the Saturn V. What's it for? It's a little escape pod rocket and parachute to get the people the fuck away from the big explosive bits if something really bad happens."

Transformational and Burt Rutan's CRX design has a good point on this. They are proposing an air launch at 25,000 ft. The advantage is if there is a problem when lighting the first stage its easy to get the capsule away in any direction and there is plenty of time to open parachutes to soft land the capsule or even have the crew bail out of the capsule if there is a problem with the capsule chutes.

Its actually pretty challenging to safely get the capsule clear from booster if there is major failure on a launch pad, and get it high enough for the parachutes to safely deploy.

The problem with CRX is it takes a BIG plane, 747 class, to carry an LEO capable launch stack to 25,000 feet. On the plus side the mother ship saves 10-25% of the fuel needed to get to orbit versus a ground launch

The CRX URL above is a great read because its short, concise, innovative but more importantly you can see they are totally focused on safety, simplicity, low cost and reliability which is the antithesis of Shuttle thinking for the last 30 years.

"Only the engines are the big monetary per-launch loss,"

If you air launch at high altitude you can build a much cheaper engine. The Falcon/CRX VAPAK concept heats and presssurizes the Propane fuel so it pushes itself out of the tank. Couple this with high altitude and you don't need expensive turbopumps to pressurize the fuel. This dramatically simplifies and lowers cost of the booster. You can't do this with from a launch pad because the atmospheric pressure makes it harder to get the fuel out of the tank.

To get people in to space affordably I vote for either Kliper or CRX.

The Russians just announced the Kliper launch targets, 2011 first unmanned flight and 2012 first manned flight. It will carry six so if it works its the best bet to actually fully man the ISS. It can't be over 3 people now due to the emergency lifeboat limit which is currently a Soyuz. At a 3 man crew very little research or manufacturing can be done.

CRX is essentially Burt Rutan's LEO successor to SpaceShipOne in partnership with Transformational space and under a small contract from NASA. CRX is not as well known as CEV. Its intended to just get people to and from LEO and the Space Station reliably, safely and affordably. Its a leader, follower NASA contractor. If the leader, which is I think Transformational and Scale succeeds they stay the leader, if they fail the followers move up on the funding ladder. A real improvement in competition over NASA's usual approach which is just pick between Boeing, Lockheed or a consortium of the big names.

As for the grandparent's assertion that NASA's problem is not enough money THAT is absurd. NASA has squandered $100 billion and heading for $160 billion on the ISS by 2010. The Shuttle averages over its life $1.3 billion a launch. Its the most expensive launcher in history.

NASA's problem is waste not insufficient funding. If its budget is getting cut by the politicians its because they to waste much doing to little in their manned space program. Of course politicians in Florida, Texas, Utah and Mississippi, in particular, fan the flames by encouraging NASA to maintain bloated payrolls so they have lots of nice jobs in their states and districts. The Shuttle and ISS are great for a bloated payroll, jobs program. In that regard they will be missed. The danger is new programs like CEV will have to maintain the same bloated payroll to win political and budget support. If you keep the bloated payroll the bloated launch costs will live on.

Then maybe this would be more your style. Its the design for the CXV, a proposed crew transfer vehicle to to get 4 people to and from LEO and the ISS, also being worked on by Scaled Composites along with Transformational Space. Currently its under a small NASA contract, that is a lesser known little brother to the CEV, though you can tell this is intended to be the orbital successor to SpaceShipOne and they want to use it for private space travel. I'm hoping they can scrape together the funds to make it a reality.

They've drop tested a 23% scale model launch stack at Mojave, and dropped tested the capsule parachute system off Crescent City, CA.

The Airforce is funding the Falcon two stage launch vehicle under its QuickReach program. Its fuled by LOX and Propane. Its a VAPAK pressure fed system with no expensive turbopumps. You heat the fuel and build up pressure in the tank instead of using pumps. This isn't viable for launch for sea level but works great for air launches.

So of course this craft is also air launched like SpaceShipOne for a lot of reasons listed on the web site. A big challenge is they need either a very large new version of White Knight or a used 747 with major changes to the landing gear to accomadate slinging the spacecraft underneath it.

The capsule is based on scaled up version of the well proven Discover/Corona capsules used 400+ times to return film from spy satellites. The capsule is reusable with minor refurbishment between launches. It uses 2 layers of SIRCA thermal tiles developed at NASA Ames. It ocean lands with parachutes like Apollo, partially since this make it possible to safely land on 2/3rds of the Earth's surface in an emergency.

Your arguments are the absurd ones. It is already completely possible to go to Mars with the chemical propulsion technology we have. Are there problems to overcome? Yes, in particular dealing with the radiation exposure. Would it be nice if the trip were faster? Sure, but is it physically impossible? No, and you acting like it is, is the absurdity here. Travelling to another star obviously impossible until and unless there is a major breakthrough. Manned travel to the moons of Jupiter would be very challenging without some significant advances, but impossible, no.

"The costs for getting off-planet have not been significantly reduced in the 40 years since the Apollo missions."

This project almost certainly will if they can scrape together the funding.

The cost of Soyuz launches are already pretty cheap. The U.S. squanders the equivalent money in a day or two in Iraq.

Just because the Shuttle was an expensive disaster is no indicator of anything. To turn your own logic on you, past failure is no indication of future performance

All in all you are just such a downer I'm not seeing any point in continuing the conversation.

I am glad to say that Burt Rutan, Scaled Composites and Transformational Space are already working on for the LEO successor to SpaceShipOne and it looks to be a really promisign start if they can put together the funding. They are working on a shoestring budget from NASA for the CXV program, a lesser known counterpart to the CEV program. CXV is intended to develop a low cost, reliable, safe, launch vehicle to get crews to and from the ISS or elsewhere in LEO.

Like SpaceShipOne this vehicle is air launched though from a much larger mother ship so there is no expensive launch complex. The capsule is derived from the Discover/Corona capsules used to return film from spy satellites and is a very well understood design. It has an innovative new heat shield, will deploy parachutes and water land like Apollo. The capsule is reusable. It is very focused on safety, reliability and low cost which is exactly what we need at the moment for a manned vehicle.

They've dropped tested a 23% scale model of the launch vehicle in Mojave and a week or two did a first drop test of the parachute system off Crescent City, CA.

"Space offers extreme opportunities"

You are really overstating your case for things to do in space. Its really bad to undertake something as expensive as space exploration with naive dreaming about the payoff.

Their is a payoff in tourism certainly. Colonization on Mars has a payoff. Mining may eventually be worthwhile especially when Earth's resources achieve serious scarcity though that its a long ways off before the payoff justifies the enormous expense.

The one thing space exploration offers is somewhat intangible. Its a frontier to be explored which appeals to a certain type of person. Outside of the depths of the oceans the Earth is almost completely devoid of frontiers. Climbing Mt. Everest is no longer much of an accomplishment.

I am glad to say that Burt Rutan, Scaled Composites and Transformational Space are already working on for the LEO successor to SpaceShipOne. They are working on a shoestring budget from NASA for the CXV program, a lesser known counterpart to the CEV program. CXV is intended to develop a low cost, reliable, safe, launch vehicle to get crews to and from the ISS or elsewhere in LEO.

Like SpaceShipOne this vehicle is air launched though from a much larger mother ship so there is no expensive launch complex. The capsule is derived from the Discover/Corona capsules used to return film from spy satellites and is a very well understood design. It has an innovative new heat shield, will deploy parachutes and water land like Apollo. The capsule is reusable. It is very focused on safety, reliability and low cost which is exactly what we need at the moment for a manned vehicle.

Rutan and friends have set up a new company called t/space that's working on a spaceship that would be capable of reaching LEO. It basically looks like a traditional cylindrical rocket with a capsule for 4 guys that is launched from an aircraft. See here.

One neat thing is that they are using a small parachute to turn the rocket vertical after the plane drops it and just before the rocket engine fires. That way they can get rid of wings, saving weight.

Given that the shuttle fleet is nearing obsolescence and that it is a 30+ year old design, it's a good idea to move on. And why not use components that have been proven to work already? It simplifies the engineering needed to construct the new vehicle.

Then there is the private option, one that includes efforts from Burt Rutan, lately of SpaceShip One: Crew Transfer Vehicle (CXV). These guys say that they can fill in the gap during the time it takes for NASA to design/contract/construct a new vehicle.

Interesting choices lay ahead.

t/Space recently released a paper with more details of the air-launch method and the flight tests here:

http://transformspace.com/document_library/media/t LAD_Test_Program.pdf

So what? Griffin restates the VSE goals at an Air Show in Paris.

NASA downselect for CEV was indeed announced Monday, as the article says could happen.

Photos of t-space testing a new Air Launch method for rockets.

See http://www.transformspace.com/.

* LockMart CEV proposal

* Big Gemini

* X-20A Dynasoar

* Russian Kliper

Of course, reusing good ideas is a good idea, IMHO. Still, even though the sexiness of wings certainly looks nicer, I'm thinking that the capsule-based proposals by Boeing/Northrop-Grumman and t/Space will be more cost-effective and reliable. Spacecraft need wings about as much as an aircraft needs to float.

For a good overview of the Rutan proposal, check this pdf at their website. It's a heckuva read...they advocate building a real frontier which ultimately generates tax revenues. They want to use flotillas of vehicles for redundancy, and keep it simple...eg., to land on the moon, just burn more fuel and land the whole vehicle, instead of just a separate lander. Less development time, less to go wrong, and for the first 20 to 40 flights it's cheaper that way. They also ding NASA for micromanaging...they say engineers should question everything, and you can't do that if you have to justify every deviation from the written plan to NASA's managers.

NASA becomes the first bold customer for commercial services.

Americans need a frontier, not a program.

Incentives open frontiers, not plans.

If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies, projections and policy recommendations, it must hear this message. A reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a world, a nation and as individuals.

In any case, Rutan, Elon Musk, and others are working on designing spacecraft to reach orbit and eventually the moon. They're currently under contract from NASA to develop the plans, but even if they don't get the final VSE contract, I don't see any showstoppers preventing them from being privately funded.

I don't think you've considered the possible real motives behind this initiative:

A) To lock up crucial votes in Florida and the space coast of Florida in the 2004 election, which happened nicely. You can be sure everyone in that area is going to vote for a President promising them years of lucrative employment and a strong local economy. To Florida as a whole space program is prestige so they like politicians who pour money in to it D or R.

B) Distract all the space advocates, lobbyists, contractors and politicians who represent the thousand places with NASA centers or contractors who dine from the giant pork machine that is NASA. While they are distracted with chump change for this new program, that will probably never make it to the bending metal stage, they quickly euthanize the Shuttle and ISS. Then around 2008 when this program starts sucking up real money one of two things happen:

1) The ISS model, they just pour money in to it forever, never enough to do it or do it right but just enough to keep all the pork addicted contractors and congressional districts in gravy

2) The Bush, I hate science and bureaucracy, model where some realist points out that with the U.S., which is running huge deficits thanks to privatizing Social Security, more tax cuts for the rich, and maintaing occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria, just can't afford it. The program gets the axe, the Shuttle and ISS are long gone, and the U.S. has no manned space program and one giant bureaucracy many politician's hate dies a quick death. Ironicly everyone will be relieved by this because the current manned space program sucks so bad.

At this point we can only hope private ventures lead by Burt "Kelly Johnson" Rutan and Transformational Space, (a.k.a t/Space), will have grabbed the fumbled ball and ran with it. Would be way better than letting Boeing and Lockheed continue to screw up the manned space program in the name of profit

I've mentioned this company before, but I'm really hoping that t/Space will get a contract for the Vision for Space Exploration. t/Space is an exciting company which includes people like Burt Rutan (of Scaled Composites and SpaceShipOne), Elon Musk (of SpaceX), Red Whittaker (of the Red Team, which constructed an autonomous vehicle which competed in DARPA's Grand Challenge), and several of the new companies in the budding space industry.

According to their page: Our core mission requirement is to enable prompt, affordable, safe and sustainable lunar exploration and development by the largest possible number of Americans, both in person and via telepresence.

Under our approach, government incentives focus exclusively on top-level goals, with technology and operational choices left to the private sector. The government incentives will be matched to specific top-level needs, but the "invisible hand" of market forces will shape choices as they flow down multiple supplier chains. Incentives will be structured so that several companies in each major area have an opportunity to win this support. With this competitive industrial base, two major processes become possible:

* Market forces will continually launch new products that replace established goods and services (the "creative destruction" that Joseph Schumpeter [Austrian economist 1883-1950] identified as the key element of capitalism). Poorly performing systems will be killed off quickly via competition rather than via burdensome NASA reviews or Congressional intervention.
* Capability gap analyses will be performed by dozens and ultimately hundreds of companies on a continuous basis. As happens now in all competitive industries, the successful companies will be those who listen closely to their customers and accurately predict their future needs - in other words, capability gap analysis by multiple independent profit-seekers.

Commercial firms will create and own infrastructure that offers services that overlap in many cases. The overlaps found in a competitive private space economy will provide the resiliency now lacking in single-string solutions such as the Space Shuttle and Space Station, for which there are no ready alternatives. While functional overlaps are viewed as inefficiencies in centrally-planned systems, in a market-based system they drive costs lower (by reducing monopoly power and spurring innovation) and accelerate schedules (by eliminating single-point bottlenecks among suppliers and spurring competition).

If I understand correctly, tSpace's plan is to design an overall space architecture, and have companies compete for different components, whether they be launch vehicles, space station life support modules, or lunar landers. Many of these components will also be available commercially, keeping the price down and the reliability high.

I highly recommend reading through their presentation. The things they show in their are incredible. Here's a few of their points:

Safety results from design choices, not oversight
* Attempting to produce safety by inspection, quality control, documentation, meetings, etc., is ineffective and costly
* The right choices include a robust and resilient concept, vehicles with ample margins and reserves, and high flight rates using smaller vehicles
Flight history determines if a vehicle is "human rated"
* Requires hundreds of flights for statistical validity
* "Determination-by-analysis" is just an estimate
Cost is an object
* Expensive systems have too few units built to give resiliency to the architecture, and/or high operating costs lead to unsafe low flight rates.

Back in September, NASA selected 11 companies to conduct preliminary concept studies for human lunar exploration and the development of the NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle. Many of these are your typical aerospace dinosaurs, but a notable exception is t/Space, a new company which includes people like Burt Rutan (of Scaled Composites and SpaceShipOne), Elon Musk (of SpaceX), Red Whittaker (of the Red Team, which constructed an autonomous vehicle which competed in DARPA's Grand Challenge), and several of the new companies in the budding private space industry.

According to their page: Our core mission requirement is to enable prompt, affordable, safe and sustainable lunar exploration and development by the largest possible number of Americans, both in person and via telepresence.

Under our approach, government incentives focus exclusively on top-level goals, with technology and operational choices left to the private sector. The government incentives will be matched to specific top-level needs, but the "invisible hand" of market forces will shape choices as they flow down multiple supplier chains. Incentives will be structured so that several companies in each major area have an opportunity to win this support. With this competitive industrial base, two major processes become possible:

* Market forces will continually launch new products that replace established goods and services (the "creative destruction" that Joseph Schumpeter [Austrian economist 1883-1950] identified as the key element of capitalism). Poorly performing systems will be killed off quickly via competition rather than via burdensome NASA reviews or Congressional intervention.
* Capability gap analyses will be performed by dozens and ultimately hundreds of companies on a continuous basis. As happens now in all competitive industries, the successful companies will be those who listen closely to their customers and accurately predict their future needs - in other words, capability gap analysis by multiple independent profit-seekers.

Commercial firms will create and own infrastructure that offers services that overlap in many cases. The overlaps found in a competitive private space economy will provide the resiliency now lacking in single-string solutions such as the Space Shuttle and Space Station, for which there are no ready alternatives. While functional overlaps are viewed as inefficiencies in centrally-planned systems, in a market-based system they drive costs lower (by reducing monopoly power and spurring innovation) and accelerate schedules (by eliminating single-point bottlenecks among suppliers and spurring competition).

If I understand correctly, tSpace's plan is to design an overall space architecture, and have companies compete for different components, whether they be launch vehicles, space station life support modules, or lunar landers. Many of these components will also be available commercially, keeping the price down and the reliability high. I suspect it's going to be difficult to keep from being eaten alive by the huge aerospace companies (Boeing, Lockheed, etc.), but I have a hope that they'll somehow end up getting the contract and end up completely reforming our approach to space.

I highly recommend reading through their presentation. The things they discuss are quite insightful, and they have some incredible ideas. Here's a few of their points:

Safety results from design choices, not oversight
* Attempting to produce safety by inspection, quality control,