Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Awards Space Cargo Grant

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the fedex-unavailable-for-comment dept.

pha7boy writes "NASA has made a recent award of 171 million dollars to Orbital Sciences Corp. of Virginia in order to aid the company in developing a feasible space cargo delivery service. 'The US space agency intends to hold an open competition in the years ahead for actual space station cargo-delivery contracts, but Orbital of Dulles, VA, is one of two companies receiving financial help from NASA to develop their proposed systems. The other is Space Exploration Technologies of El Segundo, CA.'"

43 comments

  1. Amazing.... by stox · · Score: 2, Funny

    what those campaign contributions can do.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:Amazing.... by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I assume you're joking, but just in case anyone else doesn't know, the contracting approach NASA is using with the COTS cargo/crew delivery program is actually rather less vulnerable to corruption/politicking than the usual cost-plus contracts (see ATK and the Ares launcher)

  2. Can my dreams of being an astronaut come true? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can I just put in my application at UPS to be a cargo handler? :)

    1. Re:Can my dreams of being an astronaut come true? by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wasn't thinking of UPS, I was thinking of FedEx. In Michael Flynn's future history beginning with the novel Firestar , FedEx becomes a major investor in the private space industry because of the possibility of delivering something anywhere on Earth in just a couple of hours. Interesting how in real life this company hasn't yet decided to expand up into space.

    2. Re:Can my dreams of being an astronaut come true? by neumayr · · Score: 1

      "Alright, I'm a delivery boy!"

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    3. Re:Can my dreams of being an astronaut come true? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Mostly because the market for sending physical things long distances quite quickly died with the invention of the fax machine, and it's brief zombie form was given the silver bullet by the widespread adoption of the internet.
       
      Or, in short, there is simply no significant market for sending things around the globe in the a couple of hours. (At least not a market that would support the billions of investment required to create the infrastructure.)

  3. What's wrong with ATV? by sunbeam60 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought the whole idea of an *international* space station was that we didn't have to duplicate technology efforts between the partners? ESA developed the ATV for the express purpose of resupplying the ISS, so what's this duplicate piece of tech doing?

    1. Re:What's wrong with ATV? by PeterBrett · · Score: 4, Informative

      I thought the whole idea of an *international* space station was that we didn't have to duplicate technology efforts between the partners? ESA developed the ATV for the express purpose of resupplying the ISS, so what's this duplicate piece of tech doing?

      It's not duplicate of the ATV: AFAIK, it's intended for very urgent deliveries of small amounts critical supplies to ISS, where the ATV is designed for long-term scheduled deliveries of large amounts of day-to-day supplies.

      The two problems are similar, but complementary.

      --
      Pirate Party UK
    2. Re:What's wrong with ATV? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Wow, I was glancing around and there appears to be multiple duplications of effort here. The Russians have Progress, the EU has the ATV above, and the Japanese have the H-II Transfer Vehicle. These are all vehicles that already dock or are planned to dock with the ISS. My take is that the US needs something similar in order to reduce costs. The COTS program seems to be a rather effective way to do that. It doesn't replace any of the other vehicles, but it reduces dependence on them and that in turn reduces the negotiating power of the countries and saves NASA money.

  4. Superguns by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Superguns were the coolest idea I ever heard of for low cost launching systems. The cargo would need to be able to survive a 100G excelloration but that's not a problem with raw materials and even electronics can be hardened for that force. The cost would be a fraction of current rocket technologies and they could launch far more often. It's a brilliant system so I can't believe no one has pushed it since the inventor died.

    http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/gunnched.htm

    1. Re:Superguns by citizenr · · Score: 1

      >since the inventor died.

      Murdered, he was murdered. Propably Mossad or CIA.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    2. Re:Superguns by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Sure it's brilliant - but it doesn't actually work all that well. It turns out that orbital mechanics demands a largish second stage to circularize the orbit... And that strengthening that second stage to withstand the stress of the gun launch means you end up with something far more expensive than a conventional rocket. (The same is true of a linear accelerator BTW.)

  5. 1960s called they want their space program back by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $171 million to build and demonstrate a launch system capable of delivering cargo to the international space station.

    You mean they are getting paid to demonstrate something like the 42 year old Soyuz? And once we have a way of delivering something to the earth's orbit, we can get ready for the big push to fly to the moon over the next 20 years or whatever. If someone in the 1960 predicted this would be the state of the US space program 50 years later, people would laugh at how ridiculously pessimistic that prediction was.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:1960s called they want their space program back by Protonk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Soyuz is a great piece of engineering, and so are most of the other russian rocket systems, and the Airiane 5, and the Titan, etc. They aren't what this is for. OSC does novel, small payload, cheap LEO launch vehicles. This is something that NASA is looking for, a low overhead means to get supplies into LEO without sending an eleventy billion ton, 4 stage behemoth up there.

      Oh, and do I have to mention the CONSIDERABLE advantage that comes from not dealing with the russians?

    2. Re:1960s called they want their space program back by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, and do I have to mention the CONSIDERABLE advantage that comes from not relying on the russians? There's a (corrected) statement that I can agree with. Cooperating in our respective space programs is one of the most visible signs that the cold war is behind us (at least for now). While it may be a pain to work with them sometimes, I for one am very glad that our countries have reached the point where we do.
    3. Re:1960s called they want their space program back by Protonk · · Score: 1

      Take a look at my screen name. Dealing with the russians is a GIGANTIC pain in the ass. Relying on them is a related pain in the ass. Any plan that allows us to deal with the russians less in terms of putting launches up on their hardware is good.

      I'm glad we are at the point where we are. I'm glad that companies like SeaLaunch and ILS are there to broker private deals on russian launch vehicles. That doesn't mean that it is an unvarnished 'good thing' to deal with them.

    4. Re:1960s called they want their space program back by aix+tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, but the 60s were about faster!, higher!, stronger!

      Today it's about cheaper!, cheaper!, cheaper! (no matter what the cost)

    5. Re:1960s called they want their space program back by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      The point isn't to demonstrate some sort of fancy cutting-edge World of Tomorrow technology. Rather, the point is to make access to space more affordable. Right now exorbitant launch costs are the largest barrier to most in-space activities, and a big part of why many of the space-related predictions of the past never came to fruition. Personally I think the COTS approach is one of the best ideas NASA has ever had -- I only which they had done this decades ago.

    6. Re:1960s called they want their space program back by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      That's a sign that Disney hasn't been completely effective in turning the Russians into Americans by stealing their culture and selling it back to them in the form of animations and theme parks.

      Don't worry, with enough time we'll have people in Moscow going to a theme park where they can visit a fantastic land called "Russia."

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  6. Dominos Space Pizza by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anywhere in the world in 45 minutes or it's free.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Dominos Space Pizza by Kenoli · · Score: 1

      Anywhere in 45 minutes or it's free.

    2. Re:Dominos Space Pizza by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      They need to get earthbound delivery right first. I ordered from them last night -- it took them almost an hour to deliver, and I live less than a mile away.

    3. Re:Dominos Space Pizza by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Anywhere in the world in 45 minutes or it's free.

      And if you throw them down from the LEO, they won't cool on their way down. Coming to think of it: you could simply take the prepared raw pizza, throw it down, and let the heat of re-entry cook it. That's some time saved right there.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  7. Don't want to be a spelling nazi or anything by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    but the word is acceleration.

    And yes. Guns could be great for this.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  8. SpaceX by Eukariote · · Score: 2, Informative

    One would have expected NASA to opt for SpaceX http://www.spacex.com/ had they really been serious about engaging private space efforts. SpaceX has made lots of progress http://www.spacex.com/updates.php and has a range of boosters in the works including ones for heavy payloads http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php.

    But then, making a suboptimal choice seems to be in-line with NASA history. It is almost as if NASA is trying is doing its best to go slow and waste as much money in the process as possible.

    1. Re:SpaceX by khallow · · Score: 1

      SpaceX has yet to launch something successfully into orbit. Yes, I know a lot of people consider the last launch a partial success because they did to the second stage and test the entire system. But it failed to deliver the payload to orbit. As long as that remains the case, NASA can't use SpaceX. Incidentally, SpaceX has been promised $278 million from 2006 through 2010 by NASA. So NASA is taking the risk on SpaceX. But OSC has proven it can put payload in orbit. And it did so in a manner similar to SpaceX back in the 80's when NASA was pretty hostile to such activities (since they took market share from the Shuttle and later NASA's oligopoly of launchers). I think OSC is a good choice for NASA. They need another launcher and these guys are easily the only real US competition to the Falcon I.

    2. Re:SpaceX by Eukariote · · Score: 3, Informative

      OSC has proven that it can put small payloads into LEO using solid fuel boosters. For cargo delivery to the ISS, you need a system that can match orbits rather well. That means advanced avionics and more flexibility in the upper stage. For that kind of capability, SpaceX seems to be rather better positioned as their liquid-fuel engines have restart capability.

      Yes, the last Falcon I launch did not deliver payload to orbit. But the failure mode was fairly innocuous: slosh in the upper-stage fuel tank together with some positive feedback. Throughout the oscillating burn the risky parts of the system (pumps, engines, guidance) performed well enough to indicate that had the engine not run dry a bit too soon because of the propellant being centrifuged to the tank sides, the burn would have been complete and on target.

      The slosh issue looks like an easy fix: baffles in the tank and some changes to the thrust-vectoring software.

    3. Re:SpaceX by khallow · · Score: 1

      The more I think about it, the more optimistic I am. Orbital Science is a serious competitor. This looks to me like NASA is going to at least support COTS through the end of the Bush administration rather than let it wither.

    4. Re:SpaceX by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OSC has proven that it can put small payloads into LEO using solid fuel boosters. For cargo delivery to the ISS, you need a system that can match orbits rather well. That means advanced avionics and more flexibility in the upper stage. For that kind of capability, SpaceX seems to be rather better positioned as their liquid-fuel engines have restart capability.

      I'd put money on OSC's avionics. And the Minotaur IV and V use the axial thrust vectoring of the Peacekeeper missile. Frankly, if true, that'd make the Minotaur the best rocket on the planet for placing things accurately since the Peacekeeper remains the most precise ICBM ever built. Turning Peacekeepers into space vehicles has been tried before. E'Prime attempted that in the early 90's. They got blocked by US Congress, probably at the behest of competitors.

      Yes, the last Falcon I launch did not deliver payload to orbit. But the failure mode was fairly innocuous: slosh in the upper-stage fuel tank together with some positive feedback. Throughout the oscillating burn the risky parts of the system (pumps, engines, guidance) performed well enough to indicate that had the engine not run dry a bit too soon because of the propellant being centrifuged to the tank sides, the burn would have been complete and on target.

      While that is true, it is also true that SpaceX needs to put something in orbit if it wishes to stay in business.

    5. Re:SpaceX by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      It's a little confusing because they aren't often. Referred to by their full name, but SpaceX is just the abbreviated name for "Space Exploration Technologies," the company mentioned in the summary. They were awarded a NASA COTS contract a couple years ago, and have been steadily meeting NASA's milestones. Their competitor, Rocketplane-Kistler, didn't do such a great job meeting the milestones, which is why those funds were switches to Orbital.

    6. Re:SpaceX by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is the second part of the COTS contract. The first already went to SpaceX, while originally Rocketplane/Kistler won the second part, but failed to meet agreed upon fundraising milestones and lost the contract. Now they are reawarding that second part to Orbital Sciences, while maintaining SpaceX as the first COTS partner.

    7. Re:SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not quite correct, but it's close. The COTS-1 contract is for a demonstration of the ability to service the ISS, and allowed up to $500 million to be allocated as NASA saw fit. They split it between SpaceX and Rocketplane/Kistler (RpK), with SpaceX getting the larger share because they showed more promise and were planning a more capable system. When RpK missed their milestones, the money they forfeited was re-awarded under COTS-1. The competition was stiffer this time around, IMO, with Lockheed, Boeing, and ATK all partnering up with other companies to submit proposals.

      The COTS-2 contract will be to actually provide the services, not just a demonstration. It's value will probably be much higher, although NASA is under no obligation to choose a COTS-1 participant for COTS-2.

  9. Futurama by neurolux · · Score: 1

    Just call Planet Express!

  10. Toasty by Simian+Road · · Score: 1

    It gets cooked in flight too!

  11. Unbalanced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If a large projectile is being fired, and a "spin" isn't put on it (like with rifling) then wont the distribution of mass of the projectile cause it to veer off angle?

    In other words, the cargo inside the projectile would need to be balanced just right, or spun. Check out the rifling wikipedia article.

    1. Re:Unbalanced? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      They don't just fire stuff at ISS, there's a launcher and guidance systems

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  12. This is one of many by wasted · · Score: 4, Funny

    NASA has several grants for COTS technologies planned in this area. The one discussed in the article is the least specific, or the "General Grant". There is another payload specific version ("Carry Grant"), the supporting technologies version ("Foster Grant"), a southwestern cuisine delivery version ("Flay Grant"), a version to improve color definition in delivery vehicle cameras ("Hue Grant"), and probably many others.

    Okay, I'll stop for now.

    1. Re:This is one of many by mortonda · · Score: 1

      NASA has several grants for COTS technologies planned in this area. The one discussed in the article is the least specific, or the "General Grant". There is another payload specific version ("Carry Grant"), the supporting technologies version ("Foster Grant"), a southwestern cuisine delivery version ("Flay Grant"), a version to improve color definition in delivery vehicle cameras ("Hue Grant"), and probably many others.

      Okay, I'll stop for now. That was very punny, I'll grant you that...

  13. there are better by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    A much better one is in development (to a degree). Basically, a circular rail, to slowly accelerate the load, and then finally release it at high speeds. Then you combine that with a small rocket. Far less G forces on it, and cheap.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:there are better by Ana10g · · Score: 1

      Sounds pretty cool.... have a link?

      --
      just an analog boy living in a digital age.
    2. Re:there are better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. In order to achieve the same velocity and G loads, a circular track actually needs to be twice the diameter of a linear track. You trade straight-line for centripetal acccelleration, and with each circuit the payload experiences a complete velocity reversal.

  14. Putting shite into orbit..... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm Ok so here are some questions:

    • How much of the total propellant weight of the booster is used to:
      • Overcome inertia from say 0mph and accelerate to say 300mph?
      • Accelerate from 300mph to 1000mph?
      • Accelerate from 1000mph to escape velocity?
    • If we know those weights, how much can we then reduce the weight and cost of the booster?
    • What is the best acceleration rate of a say a 20 car MAGLEV train?
    • How much distance of MAGLEV track would one need to accelerate the space craft to a sufficient rate to reduce its fuel requirements sufficiently to gain a launch and economic advantage over a conventional 0mph vertical launch?
    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  15. Killing the ISS by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Ok so suppose we got private space cargo going to the ISS by 2010 and they only plan on keeping the ISS around till 2015? How is this usefukll, unless Deuce Bigelow, Space Gigelow sends up his sweedish inflatible space station.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...