Keith Cowing has been critical of the overhyping of all the firsts. In that context, he has an interesting posting to her blog.

Bravo.

[Via Robin, who is apparently managing Anousheh’s blog]

Keith Cowing has been critical of the overhyping of all the firsts. In that context, he has an interesting posting to her blog.

Bravo.

[Via Robin, who is apparently managing Anousheh’s blog]

Dwayne Day has a good rundown on a conference I missed last week because I was attending one on the left coast.

Taylor Dinerman had an article in yesterday’s issue of The Space Review, but it doesn’t have the latest news about the OSC deal falling apart.

This experiment doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, if they’re really trying to understand what surgery will be like in weightlessness:

Whizzing above southwest France aboard a specially modified Airbus, strapped-down surgeons will attempt to remove a fatty tumor from the forearm of a volunteer in a three-hour operation.

The Airbus A300 Zero-G, based in Bordeaux, is designed to perform roller coaster-like maneuvers that simulate weightlessness. It will make about 30 such parabolas during the flight.

The problem is that you only get about twenty-five seconds of weightlessness at a time. In between, you get two or more gees as you do the pullup maneuver going in and the pullout on the way down. So in addition to probably making the surgeons nauseous, they’ll have to deal with tools being pulled down in the high gees (and any fluids will also be pooled, rather than continuously floating). I really don’t think that it will usefully replicate the problems of surgery in a continuous weightless environment (and it really is a problem). This is the kind of research that has to be performed on ISS, or some other orbital facility.

I also found this a little strange:

The patient, Philippe Sanchot, and the six-person medical team underwent training in zero-gravity machines, much like those astronauts use, to prepare for the operation.

What “zero-gravity machines” are they talking about? I’d like to get one.

Not to mention an astrophysics blogger.

I met Louise Riofrio last week at the conference in San Jose. She has a lot of posts, and pictures. And she likes to put herself in the pictures, for an “I was there” feel to it. Keep scrolling.

(Note to readers from the distant future–this is just a link to the blog, not a permalink, so you’ll have to dig into the archives for the date of this post.)

She’s also going on the blogroll.

This is interesting news: if this story is true, OSC is pulling out of the deal. I’m guessing they pulled a bait and switch on George French. When they made the original deal with RpK, OSC wasn’t expecting a CEV win for Lockheed Martin, but now that they’re on the Orion team, the COTS deal doesn’t look as good to them, so I’m speculating that they tried to renegotiate it.

It’s not clear what this means for the overall COTS deal going forward. I don’t know to what degree having OSC in the proposal was a factor in the NASA award. But if they can’t raise the money, they’ll have to get out of the game, and NASA will have to award another COTS contract to one of the runners up.

[Update a little before 5 PM EDT]

Just to clarify, per the first comment. Why did things change when Lockheed Martin won the Orion contract? OSC was hungry, and they committed to a ten million dollar investment in RpK in order to get a lot of the work on COTS. Once they had their plate full with the Orion work, it didn’t look like such a great deal to them any more. They pushed too hard for a do over, and RpK pulled the plug (partly, no doubt, because they didn’t want to do business with someone who would renege on a deal).

[Late evening update]

Here is a semi-official statement from RpK:

• In June 2006, Rocketplane Kistler and Orbital Sciences initiated discussions regarding a strategic relationship in which Orbital would have both a significant role in the development of the K-1 and a significant financial interest in Rocketplane Kistler.
• Rocketplane Kistler has been very pleased with the programmatic and technical interfaces with the Orbital personnel.
• However, in recent weeks, Orbital has conditioned investment in Rocketplane Kistler on changes to the K-1 Program that Rocketplane Kistler does not believe are in the best interests of Rocketplane Kistler and would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of NASA in entering into a Space Act Agreement with Rocketplane Kistler.
• As a result, Rocketplane Kistler and Orbital have decided to terminate their strategic relationship.
• As part of its planning processes, Rocketplane Kistler has anticipated the possibility that one or more of its contractors may elect not to participate in the K-1 program. While the company regrets Orbital’s decision, the decision will not impair the ability of the company to meet its obligations to NASA under the SAA. Among other things, we are increasing near term RpK staffing plans for conducting SE&I related activities that were previously planned for Orbital. RpK is also continuing discussions with several potential industry strategic partners who have recently approached Rocketplane Kistler about participating in SE&I and other development and operational areas of interest on the K1. We anticipate completing those discussions in the very near future and finalizing appropriate agreements that will provide the best strategic and economic value to Rocketplane Kistler.

I was at Ames most of the day yesterday, with no net access, and then took a red eye back from SFO via LAX. Probably no posting today, because there’s a lot of stuff to catch up on around here.

Bigelow announced at lunch that he will be putting up a three-person space station in late 2009 or early 2010, about fifty percent bigger than an ISS module. He is putting up a destination in hopes that the transportation will come along (and in order to spur the transportation providers). Station will last for several years. Will be executing contracts in 2008 for transportation contracts to Sundancer. Expects between four and eight trips (people and cargo) per year, after six-month shakedown. Then trips will commence whenever transportation becomes available. 2012 will see the launch of another module providing 500 cubic meters of habitable volume. Will support sixteen launches a year for full utilization (again, cargo and people). Minimum three-week stay, but market limited at ten million, so wants to establish private astronaut program for other nations (this is not news). Make sixty instead of eleven countries with an astronaut corps. Could represent on the order of a billion a year in revenue. Launch estimates from fifty to a hundred million per flight. About time to take human spaceflight from the exclusive domain of governments. Will be changing that in the next half decade.

He also announced that he and Lockmart have a joint agreement to study what it will take to human rate the Atlas V for commercial passenger transport.

A press conference is about to start at which he will have more details and take questions. I’ll try to live blog it, despite my lack of mouse.

[Update at start of conference]

Conference with Bob Bigelow and George Sowers from Lockheed Martin. Bigelow saying that he’s happy to simply take questions. Dr. Sowers saying that they’re pleased to be working with a pragmatic visionary like Bob Bigelow to get the human spaceflight industry started. Handing a model of the Atlas V with the Begelow payload on top. Two-stage, one engine per stage, most reliable Atlas ever built.

Bigelow saying that he’s been looking at the Atlas for a while, and impressed with the family track record. Has a lot of faith in the people of Lockheed.

In response to question from David Livinston, this will be handled by ULA if ULA happens, won’t be outside.

Warren Ferster asks if Bigelow will continue to self finance. He says yes, and he’s looking for another job (joke). Has sufficient funds to go through 2010-2012, but wants to start to establish relationships with other companies, because he expects it to be huge. Will be looking for joint venture opportunities.

Each organization will handle its own contribution to feasibility studies, but Sowers says that Atlas V human rating is not a new subject. They have a lot of info to bring to bear.

In response to a question from me, expects to use NASA standards for human rating absent a large document from the FAA.

TBD situation as to who will build crew module. Bigelow is providing destination, and focusing their resources on that. Have had conversation with various people. Bigelow can’t say what cost situation will be, but thinks it’s between three and twenty millions.

Sowers won’t directly answer my question as to whether or not Lockheed Martin is considering a variant of Orion as a crew module. Says that discussions have taken place, and that there are options, and the focus of this announcement is on the launch vehicle and destination.

Not considering any launch site other than the Cape currently.

In response to question from me, says that they currently plan to be at forty degrees inclination for “early out” options in the US (didn’t quite understand this comment from Bob–didn’t seem to be ascent abort, but rather some kind of “early” return from orbit).

Definitely don’t want to discuss cost (particularly with respect to the module).

Wired reporter asking how many people. First module is three, second is five, for a total of nine. Want to reduce costs initially as low as possible to spawn industry and create demand. Will be aggressive with low lease cost (Bigelow).

Sundancer will be as close to forty as possible (response to Warren Ferster). Won’t know specifically until they know launch provider and location. Will be able to change altitude to accommodate launch provider. BA-330 is name for the second module.

Considering EM tether and other methods for maneuvering in response to question from me. Can’t specify electric power level yet.

Conference over.

Thoughts and analysis later.

[A couple minutes later]

I think that this has upstaged the major Orion discussion at the plenary this morning. I haven’t been to an AIAA conference in a while, but this is the first one that I’ve been to that had some of the feel of a NewSpace conference.

[Update a little while later]

Apparently NASASpaceflight.com had the story earlier (I’ve been too busy reporting to know what’s going on, though I was hearing rumors in the morning). Also, there was some speculation in comments in my previous post. Clark Lindsey has thoughts. as does Jon Goff, even if I don’t have time to gather mine right now.

Shutting down the computer now. Back later, probably tonight, after the conference is over. Be nice in the comments section.

Yes, sorry, I know that it’s been non-existent (other than deleted whining about wireless problems and the overwhelmingness of it). But Bob Bigelow is the luncheon speaker, and he’s going to make some kind of news announcement at 1:30, so I’ll try to get the word out on that, at least.