NASA awards CRS contract to SpaceX

[astrosammy]

...and Orbital Sciences Corporation


http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081223

NASA Selects SpaceX's Falcon 9 Booster and Dragon Spacecraft for Cargo Resupply Services to the International Space Station


F9/Dragon Will Replace the Cargo Transport Function of the Space Shuttle after 2010

HAWTHORNE, CA – December 23, 2008 – NASA today announced its selection of the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft for the International Space Station (ISS) Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) contract award. The contract is for a guaranteed minimum of 20,000 kg to be carried to the International Space Station. The firm contracted value is $1.6 billion and NASA may elect to order additional missions for a cumulative total contract value of up to $3.1 billion.

“The SpaceX team is honored to have been selected by NASA as the winner of the Cargo Resupply Services contract,” said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO, SpaceX. “This is a tremendous responsibility, given the swiftly approaching retirement of the Space Shuttle and the significant future needs of the Space Station. This also demonstrates the success of the NASA COTS program, which has opened a new era for NASA in US Commercial spaceflight.”

Under the CRS contract, SpaceX will deliver pressurized and unpressurized cargo to the ISS, and return cargo back to Earth. Cargo may include both NASA and NASA-sponsored payloads requiring a pressurized or unpressurized environment. SpaceX will provide the necessary services, test hardware and software, and mission-specific elements to integrate cargo with the Dragon delivery capsule.

In 2006, SpaceX was named a winner under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) competition. Under the existing COTS agreement, SpaceX will conduct the first flight of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft in 2009. The final flight, currently scheduled for 2010, will demonstrate Dragon's ability to berth with the ISS.

Falcon 9 flight hardware has already started to arrive at the SpaceX launch site, Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral, in preparation for Falcon 9 going vertical on the pad within a few weeks. Construction of the SLC-40 launch site is proceeding ahead of schedule and is estimated to be completed in early 2009.

Photo Caption: Artist rendering of SpaceX Dragon spacecraft delivering cargo to the International Space Station.
Credit NASA

Orbital Selected by NASA For $1.9 Billion Space Station Cargo Delivery Contract

-- Company Expects to Conduct 8 Launches Carrying 20 Tons of Cargo Over 2011-2015 Period --​

-- NASA to be Anchor Customer for Company’s Taurus II Medium-Class Space Launch Vehicle --​

(Dulles, VA 23 December 2008) -- Orbital Sciences Corporation (NYSE: ORB), one of the world’s leading space technology companies, today announced that it has been selected for a long-term contract by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to provide cargo transportation services to and from the International Space Station (ISS). Orbital stated that the contract, awarded under NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program, has an expected value of approximately $1.9 billion for cargo transportation missions to be conducted between 2011 and 2015. This contract amount covers ISS cargo transportation services for about 20 metric tons of cargo, which would be accommodated by 8 missions of Orbital’s CRS system. The operational missions would follow Orbital’s flight demonstration of its CRS system in late 2010 under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, which Orbital and the space agency initiated in early 2008.
“We are very appreciative of the trust NASA has placed with us to provide commercial cargo transportation services to and from the International Space Station, beginning with our demonstration flight scheduled in late 2010,” said Mr. David W. Thompson, Orbital’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “The CRS program will serve as a showcase for the types of commercial services U.S. space companies can offer NASA, allowing the space agency to devote a greater proportion of its resources for the challenges of human spaceflight, deep space exploration and scientific investigations of our planet and the universe in which we live.”
To carry out the cargo services missions, Orbital will use the integrated system it is currently developing under the COTS cooperative research and development program with NASA. The company’s COTS system is based on Orbital’s new Cygnus™ maneuvering space vehicle and will be the anchor customer for the new Taurus IITM medium-lift launch vehicle, now under development. Cygnus is made up of a service module, containing the vehicle’s propulsion, power systems and avionics, and one of three types of specialized cargo modules. Orbital’s design accommodates pressurized, unpressurized and return cargo modules, offering NASA flexibility in its cargo planning.
“CRS represents a dramatic departure from NASA’s traditional contracting practices that will be greatly beneficial to both the space agency and the nation’s industrial base,” said Dr. Antonio L. Elias, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Orbital’s Advanced Programs Group, which oversees both the COTS and CRS projects.
Leading up to the first flight of Orbital’s system, the company has begun preparations for its CRS-related production and testing activities over the next 18 months at its Dulles, Virginia headquarters and space vehicle engineering center; its Chandler, Arizona launch vehicle operations; and its Wallops Island, Virginia payload processing facility and launch base. Orbital recently determined that it would conduct the testing of the first stage engines of the Taurus II rocket at NASA’s Stennis Space Center facility in Mississippi. The company has also begun its on-site preparations for the launch site infrastructure at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport located at Wallops Island that will support Taurus II launches.

 

[DaveS]

Not just SpaceX, but Orbital Sciences Corporation(OSC) aswell. OSC is a well-known space-launch company with several launch vehicles available, like Pegasus, Taurus and Minotaur.

They, just like SpaceX have a SpaceAct agreement with NASA for their first liquid-fueled launch vehicle, the Taurus II, which will also be used for the CRS contract.

 

[Andy44]

Nice to see some good news for the industry. Now if only we had a private version of the ISS...

(BTW, I always thought CRS means "can't remember s***" ;-0)

 

[ozone]

http://www.space.com/news/081223-nasa-spacestation-cargo-contract.html
I am pretty familiar with SpaceX and the Falcon 9, but the only thing I know about Orbital Science is that they have been air-launching small satellites with old Peacemaker ballistic missile engines. Anybody have observations/info about the Taurus II ?

 

[Andy44]

OS has also been launching small satellites from Wallops Island, Virginia, using Taurus I rockets, which use Minuteman III stages. One of my friends was driving over a hill in the Washington DC area one morning and saw the launch in the dawn sky to the east. I so wish I was there; that's gotta be a couple hundred miles away!

 

[ozone]

http://www.iqt.org/news-and-press/press-releases/2002/IQT_08-05-02.html
I don't want to seem overly political; but I do think this is intriguing. I had not been aware of Griffins and the CIA relationship with Orbital Science.

 

[Spicer]

In relation to this news, Space X is grearing up to stack their falcon 9 rocket. They are also nearing completion of the lauch facilities at the Cape. Interesting times for Space X!

 

[JamesG]

Sad to see the Russians getting frozen out of some business from an international cooperation standpoint, but I guess it was politically inevitable. Will be really good for SpaceX and OSC though.

Are they public companies?

 

[Woo482]

SpaceX is but I am not sure about OSC

 

[eveningsky339]

It's nice to see the end of beaurecrat-ridden space agency monopolies upon us. Now if some company would just purchase and overhaul the shuttles...

 

[JamesG]

The shuttles were built in the 1970s. It would cost more to rebuild them to something approaching cost effective (if its possible at all) to launch for a commercial enterprise than to build entirely new ships.

 

[eveningsky339]

The shuttles were built in the 1970s. It would cost more to rebuild them to something approaching cost effective (if its possible at all) to launch for a commercial enterprise than to build entirely new ships.

Still, I'm not too happy about the fact that spaceflight seems to be regressing back to capsules... With more research, spaceplanes will become much cheaper and convenient to launch.

Though I don't have any problem with capsules that avoid jettisoning millions of dollars of worth of ordinance into the atmosphere (eg Orion) or that avoid splashdowns. We can't expect to make progress in terms of advancing passenger spaceflight when the military has to dispatch an aircraft carrier every time a spacecraft lands.

That's enough blabbing for now. STS was obscenely expensive anyway.

 

[Missioncmdr]

The problem is that winged spacecraft are a complete waste of weight if you plan on going farther than low Earth orbit.

 

[BHawthorne]

The shuttles were built in the 1970s. It would cost more to rebuild them to something approaching cost effective (if its possible at all) to launch for a commercial enterprise than to build entirely new ships.

The shuttles are waaaay too complex of a system to be commercially viable. Just too many steps and parts in the system. To make spaceflight affordable companies need to simplify the systems and number of components. The part count in the shuttles is huge. Parts = failure points = expensive redundancy. Privitization of the shuttle fleet isn't a good idea.

 

[Missioncmdr]

The shuttles are waaaay too complex of a system to be commercially viable. Just too many steps and parts in the system. To make spaceflight affordable companies need to simplify the systems and number of components. The part count in the shuttles is huge. Parts = failure points = expensive redundancy. Privitization of the shuttle fleet isn't a good idea.

What? Some commercial jets have have more parts than a Space Shuttle.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Before or after you add up each TPS tile with a unique shape? Not to mention the complexity of rocket engines over jet engines.

 

[JamesG]

The problem is that winged spacecraft are a complete waste of weight if you plan on going farther than low Earth orbit.

Unless of course you find a clever way of using that wing volume as fuel/gas or cargo storage or heat shield or radiators, etc.

But yes, a craft designed for atmospheric entry isn't going to be as efficient as one optimized to stay in space.

 

[eveningsky339]

A "lifting body" design with trim flaps offers all the cross range and flexibility of a spaceplane during re-entry without the thermal/weight penalties associated with wings. However, unless the craft comes equipped with a heavy parasail, it won't come with the benefits of landing on a runway.

All that to say this: I am excited that SpaceX is paving the way for civilian spaceflight, but I'm not happy with their choice of a capsule.

 

[tl8]

A "lifting body" design with trim flaps offers all the cross range and flexibility of a spaceplane during re-entry without the thermal/weight penalties associated with wings. However, unless the craft comes equipped with a heavy parasail, it won't come with the benefits of landing on a runway.

All that to say this: I am excited that SpaceX is paving the way for civilian spaceflight, but I'm not happy with their choice of a capsule.

I am quite sure that once SpaceX is more developed they will add a lifting body type vessel, however a capsule is the easiest to start of with.

 

[Usquanigo]

Still, I'm not too happy about the fact that spaceflight seems to be regressing back to capsules...

Exactly. I am totally with you there. I was flabbergasted when I found that the Shuttle replacement was a freaking capsule. IF we bring back Kennedy, the Firebird, the GTO, and gas so cheap it's practically free, THEN the regression to the 60s would be ok, but otherwise.....

I'm sure the Shuttle was overly expensive, but it was a US Government project, they always are. But then again, tossing huge chunks of rocket with every launch isn't exactly economical either (and certainly not "green").

The shuttle concept could be modified to be more green and more reusable and more economical as a result, and if you pull out a lot of bureaucratic red tape, the prices could come down much more-so.

As for the shuttle, I too would love to see it bought, re-furbed, and continued to be used. Sure, a brand new vehicle could be cheaper to make, and launch, but.... even the existing shuttle could be made cheaper. And it's just SO appealing. There is just something about it. Plus, planes are meant to fly, and cars are meant to drive. The NASM is great and all, but a static display is almost cruelty for such things. Leno's garage does it right, EVERYTHING is driven and used, often, kept in running shape, and people get to experience it. Even if it's just for the sake of doing so, the shuttle should keep flying.

Sorry, my furnace died on christmas day, just had to rant a little. lol