Some people noted earlier this week an article by Talking Points Memo (TPM) reporting that NASA plans to make selections in the next round of its commercial crew effort, the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) [...]]]>

An illustration of the cargo module capability for the ATK/EADS Astrium Liberty system announced earlier this week. (credit: ATK)

Some people noted earlier this week an article by Talking Points Memo (TPM) reporting that NASA plans to make selections in the next round of its commercial crew effort, the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) program, in July or August, making more than one award. While TPM, a website primarily devoted to political news, treated that development as newsworthy, that has been in fact NASA’s plan for some time now, especially after NASA worked out an agreement with a key House appropriator, Frank Wolf, about the future of the commercial crew program. During a press teleconference on June 18 about a memorandum of understanding between NASA and FAA on commercial crew regulation, for example, NASA administrator Charles Bolden said he expected the awards to come by mid-July.

NASA has said little else about the state of the competition, beyond its plan to make “two and a half” awards: two full-sized awards and a third smaller award. What NASA hasn’t disclosed is which companies submitted CCiCap proposals. One can guess, though, that at least five companies are bidding for CCiCap: the four companies with funded second-round Commercial Crew Development (CCDev-2) awards—Blue Origin, Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and SpaceX—and the ATK/EADS Astrium team that has an unfunded CCDev-2 agreement with NASA. And while these companies have made a number of announcements about their CCDev efforts, it’s been that last team that has been the most active in making the case for their crew transportation concept.

In the course of less than a week (June 28 through July 3), ATK issued five press releases related to Liberty, including:

• A teaming agreement with NanoRacks, who will market experiment space on future Liberty missions;
• Completion of a technical interface meeting (TIM) for Liberty’s software;
• Successful tests of tank structures for Liberty’s second stage, which is based on the core stage of EADS’s Ariane 5;
• The creation of an independent assessment team for Liberty, led by former astronaut Bryan O’Connor and including another former astronaut, Ken Bowersox, who formerly worked for SpaceX; and
• The announcement of a combined cargo and crew capability for Liberty, through an “extended cargo configuration” that can accommodate a cargo module based on the Multi-Purpose Logistic Module previously flown to the ISS on shuttle flights.

Their publicity push goes beyond press releases. Listeners to WTOP-FM, an all-news radio station in Washington, DC, have probably heard by now an ATK/EADS ad for Liberty during its broadcasts: a short spot playing up the benefits of Liberty to service the ISS. Such ads aren’t usual on WTOP for the defense industry (right now it’s sharing airtime with one from Lockheed Martin extolling the benefits of a missile defense systems called MEADS.) However, it’s much rarer for the commercial space field, and none of the other likely CCiCap bidders are running similar ads.

(ATK has also benefited from some friendly media coverage, like this article published Wednesday at NASASpaceFlight.com, which cites unnamed sources who claim Liberty “is actually becoming a favorite option of some high ranking Agency managers.” The site, though, may have missed the unintentional irony of the July 4th-themed headline—“ATK push for US space flight independence via Liberty”—when Liberty uses a second stage manufactured in Europe.)

Is a media push like this effective, though? As noted above, radio spots, as well as ads in newspapers and on Metro, Washington’s subway system, are commonplace in the defense industry during major procurements: at the height of the deliberations over a new Air Force tanker last year, the airwaves on WTOP at times seemed to consist of nothing but dueling ads from EADS and Boeing. Did it provide much advantage to Boeing, who won the contract? That’s hard to say, but it’s clear from this push that ATK is very interested in winning a CCiCap award to develop Liberty.

Early last year Alliant Techsystems (ATK) and EADS Astrium unveiled a new launch vehicle called Liberty, using a five-segment solid rocket booster built by ATK for the lower stage and a modified Ariane 5 core stage built [...]]]>

Illustration of the ATK/EADS Astrium Liberty system, featuring the Liberty rocket and a crew capsule. (Credit: ATK)

Early last year Alliant Techsystems (ATK) and EADS Astrium unveiled a new launch vehicle called Liberty, using a five-segment solid rocket booster built by ATK for the lower stage and a modified Ariane 5 core stage built by Astrium for the upper stage. The companies hoped to win funds from NASA’s second-round Commercial Crew Development (CCDev-2) competition, primarily as as an alternative to the Atlas 5 for vehicles being proposed by companies other than SpaceX (which, of course, is using its own Falcon 9).

The companies didn’t win CCDev-2 funding but did get an unfunded Space Act Agreement to support continued study of the vehicle. In the meantime, though, the companies that did get CCDev-2 funding for their vehicles—Blue Origin, Boeing, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and SpaceX—all selected other vehicles for their spacecraft: SpaceX using its own Falcon 9, while the other three picking the Atlas 5. Liberty, it appeared, was left without a ride.

Wednesday, though, in a briefing at the Spacecraft Technology Expo in Los Angeles, the companies announced their new plan: developing their own full-service crew transportation system, also called Liberty, using the previously-announced Liberty rocket and a crew capsule. That capsule is based on a composite crew capsule previously built by ATK for testing by NASA during Constellation. The vehicle’s service module is a slimmed-down version of the one bring developed for Orion by Lockheed Martin, while the crew escape system is the Max Launch Abort System (MLAS), developed originally as an alternative to Orion’s traditional escape tower system and successfully tested at NASA Wallops in 2009.

ATK and Astrium officials, at the LA announcement, said that Liberty could be ready soon: initial test launches of the abort system would take place in 2014, with test flights of the full system in 2015, the second carrying a two-person test crew. “We have our first test crew picked out,” Kent Rominger, ATK vice president and program manager for Liberty, said, without divulging their names.

Rominger emphasized the design safety of the Liberty system, calling it “the safest ever designed.” That assessment is based on what he described as a simple design as well as the demonstrated reliability of solid rocket motors and the Ariane 5 core stage (there have been nearly 50 consecutive successful Ariane 5 launches, going back nearly a decade.) Rominger said that the risk of a fatal accident on the shuttle was no better than 1 in 200, while the Liberty system would be better than 1 in 1,200.

Liberty looks like the Ares 1 rocket that was under development by NASA for Constellation before its 2010 cancellation, which had concerns about thrust oscillation causing significant vibrations in its upper stage. However, Rominger and John Schumacher, CEO of Astrium in North America, said that the Ariane 5 core stage behaved differently than the original Ares 1 upper stage, with far less vibration. “Ares 1 was really a system tuning problem,” Rominger said, as its upper stage has natural frequencies coupled with the lower stage. The Ariane-derived upper stage doesn’t have the same tuning, he said. “We can confidently say we don’t have a problem.”

The initial market for the Liberty system is crew transportation to the ISS, but Schumacher said they have identified other markets, including cargo transportation, launches of US government satellites, tourism, and so-called “sovereign clients”, governments that want a human spaceflight program without having the ability to develop their own systems. (Notably absent from the list is commercial satellite launch, perhaps because EADS Astrium doesn’t want to compete with its own Ariane 5.)

The companies confirmed they were seeking funding from NASA’s Commercial Crew Integrated Capabilities (CCiCap) competition, but didn’t disclose financial information, including the prices they planned to charge for their services (beyond that they would be cheaper than current Soyuz flight costs of over $60 million a seat.) Rominger said they would continue development of Liberty if they don’t receive CCiCap funding, but at a slower pace than the schedule they described that called for an initial crewed flight in 2015. “There’s no way I can meet a schedule like that without an award from NASA,” he said.

One of the bigger developments [...]]]> I was on vacation last week in London, but that did not stop me from making a visit to the Royal Aeronautical Society last Tuesday for their “Space Tourism: A New Industry in the Making” conference. I’ve written up some highlights of the conference in The Space Review this week.

One of the bigger developments at the event was a confirmation by Hugues Laporte-Weywada of EADS Astrium that their suborbital spaceplane project, launched with great fanfare just over two years ago at the Paris Air Show, is going into stasis because of a lack of funding. They have been working on some key technologies, including the LOX/methane rocket engine that the vehicle will use, but now that this work is wrapping up the project will on until (or if) they can raise the €1 billion (US$1.4 billion) they estimate they need to develop the vehicle. Laporte-Weywada conceded that this means that they won’t be the first to enter the market, but tried to liken the situation to that encountered by Airbus, which entered the commercial jetliner market many years after Boeing and other companies but is now an industry giant.

Another area of focus was on the regulatory situation, particularly in the UK. Will Whitehorn of Virgin Galactic noted that no other country has a regulatory environment as favorable as the US, thanks to the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, although Sweden is the closest, thanks to existing law that has governed sounding rocket launches there for decades. (A representative from Spaceport Sweden noted that they are working with the Swedish National Space Board to get final clarification on the regulations that would govern suborbital commercial human spaceflight there.) The UK has no enabling law, which is hindering proposals to establish a spaceport in northern Scotland. Whitehorn said he wanted to talk with other British space companies to seek a comprehensive overhaul of UK space policy (including but not limited to commercial suborbital spaceflight regulation), with an eye towards the national elections planned for next year.

Yesterday’s sessions of the International Symposium for Personal Spaceflight didn’t have any groundbreaking revelations, but there were still some interesting developments [...]]]>

(The picture above doesn’t have anything to do directly with the conference, it’s just a nice view of the Moon rising around sunset Wednesday as seen from the conference site in Las Cruces.)

Yesterday’s sessions of the International Symposium for Personal Spaceflight didn’t have any groundbreaking revelations, but there were still some interesting developments and news from the various conference sessions, which I’ll summarize below:

• One of the most informative presentations during the day was the first, by Valin Thorn, deputy program manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew & Cargo Program. He addressed head-on the recent decision to terminate the funded COTS agreement with Rocketplane Kistler, saying that they had missed milestones not only for their financing, but also a cargo module critical design review. He called the K-1 concept “outstanding” and said he wouldn’t be surprised to see them resubmit a revised proposal in the new round of COTS bidding.
• John Herrington, filling in for George French in the same morning session (French was at the conference but called away to a board meeting), confirmed earlier reports that the company had lined up commitments from investors for $300 million of the sought-for $450 million (not $500 million as reported elsewhere), but those plans fell through because of a variety of reasons, including NASA’s agreement to buy Progress and Soyuz flights from Russia as well as comments by unnamed NASA officials that appeared to be disparaging towards COTS.
• Herrington did say that work was proceeding with the XP suborbital spaceplane, and the company plans to announce a revised design of the vehicle on Friday. From what I understand, this will be more than a minor tweak to the existing modified-Learjet approach. Herrington said that some of the investors who has expressed an interest in the K-1 may also be interested in investing in the XP (which is done by a separate subsidiary company, Rocketplane Global), but didn’t have anything specific to say about XP financing.
• Thorn’s talk also revealed some new developments by other companies that have unfunded COTS agreements. SPACEHAB is working on a concept called ARCTUS to develop a cargo spacecraft based on the Centaur upper stage. PlanetSpace, in addition to their work on their Nova booster and spaceplane, is also working on a less-ambitious concept that would use a launch vehicle called the Athena 3 (a Lockheed Martin Athena 2 augmented with two shuttle SRB segments) for carrying cargo to the station.
• SpaceDev CEO Mark Sirangelo said his company is continuing work on its Dream Chaser design for both orbital and suborbital applications, including working with NASA on an unfunded COTS agreement. The company’s operations have been disrupted because of the San Diego wildfires that forced them to evacuate their Poway, California headquarters; he said their team is working on their new COTS proposal from a trailer on a beach near San Diego.
• Sirangelo added that SpaceDev may work with Benson Space Company on engine technology for BSC’s suborbital vehicle, but plans no additional involvement on that project.
• Hugues Laporte-Weywada, senior vice president of EADS Astrium, didn’t offer a lot of new details about his company’s suborbital space tourism vehicle. That effort started in early 2006 with market and design studies; the Rocketplane-like spaceplane won out over rocket-and-capsule and air-launched spaceplane approaches. The company is continuing work on both technology and financing, and hopes to have all the money lined up to develop the vehicle as soon as possible in early 2008.
• The government-commercial synergy panel was a crowded mix of familiar topics (operationally responsive space, the Marine Corps’ SUSTAIN concept, and other RLV technology development work), without a lot of new developments announced.
• Two afternoon panels featuring past and expectant space travelers were combined into one, with Anousheh Ansari and two NASA astronauts (Michael Lopez-Alegria and Dan Barry) discussing what their orbital flights were like, as well as expectant or would-be space tourists Reda Anderson (Rocketplane), Craig Willan (Virgin Galactic), and Lori Garver (who tried to arrange a trip to the ISS in 2002) discussing their expectations. One theme that emerged: when you’re in space, take time to simply soak in the experience rather than get caught up in tasks or taking pictures.

Thursday’s sessions appear focused on spaceport development, financing, and more discussions with astronauts. I will continue, as schedule and technology permits, to microblog some insights from the conference on Twitter during the day.

Burt Rutan, contacted by SPACE.com, doesn’t think much of the plan. He thinks it, and other rocket-powered aircraft that take off from a runway under rocket or jet power, will be more [...]]]> Some reaction (and clarification) on the EADS Astrium announcement this week about its plans to develop a suborbital vehicle for space tourism markets:

Burt Rutan, contacted by SPACE.com, doesn’t think much of the plan. He thinks it, and other rocket-powered aircraft that take off from a runway under rocket or jet power, will be more expensive to develop and operate, and also have greater operational risks. “The non-recurring development cost of a suborbital spaceship that has rocket and jet engines — both of which leave the atmosphere and experience reentry — will be far more than our SpaceShipTwo program,” he said.

The vice president of the European Commission, Guenter Verheugen, is also dissatisfied with the Astrium proposal, but for very different reasons: “It’s only for the super rich, which is against my social convictions,” he told Reuters. (One wonders what he thinks of the many terrestrial luxury items and resorts that are also affordable only by the “super rich” in Europe or elsewhere.) The article also notes that an Airbus official “declined to answer a question on the apparent paradox of a company trying to cut emissions in one area while investing in a project to blast rich travellers into space.” Perhaps because the paradox wasn’t apparent to him or others.

Also, thanks to a few readers that helped alleviate my ignorance about the seating inside Astrium’s “space jet”. It turns out the seats are hinged on each end, allowing the seats to rotate into the proper position during ascent so that the g-forces are aligned on the G_x vector through the body. It turns out there’s an illustration in a brochure about the vehicle, although, curiously, no matching image in a photo gallery. In any case, it makes much more sense to me now.