Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday January 08 2019, @10:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the to-the-moon-and-back dept.

Soon, three companies will be able to perform resupply missions for the International Space Station, and that may be one too many:

How Sierra Nevada's "Dream Chaser" Could Become a Nightmare for Northrop Grumman

[Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC)] intends to perform its obligations under [Commercial Resupply Services (CRS-2)] using its new "Dream Chaser" spaceplane, a privately developed space shuttle (but only one-quarter the size of the Space Shuttle) that will launch into orbit atop a rocket, make its delivery, then land back on Earth under its own power like an airplane.

[...] Dream Chaser is designed to be reusable, with a service life of 15 missions. In this regard, the SNC is similar to SpaceX, which sends cargo to ISS aboard reusable Dragon space capsules launched into orbit by also-reusable Falcon rockets. Utilizing reusable spacecraft, both SNC and SpaceX should be able to save considerably on the cost of their missions, because they will not need to build new spacecraft for each supply run. In contrast, Northrop Grumman performs its ISS resupply missions using disposable Cygnus cargo capsules carried by expendable Antares rockets -- likely a more expensive proposition.

[...] Currently, plans are for SNC to purchase Atlas V rockets from United Launch Alliance for this purpose. But in 2016, SNC's then-VP of Space Systems John Olson let on that SNC was designing the spaceplane to be "agnostic" as to which launcher it uses to get into orbit. So in theory, at least, SNC could use a SpaceX Falcon rocket to carry Dream Chaser instead. Because SpaceX's Falcons are cheaper than the expendable rockets used by other space launch companies, this would probably result in a lower launch cost for SNC (and the cost could be even cheaper if SNC uses reusable Falcons).

Granted, this would necessitate giving money to a competitor. However, seeing as Sierra Nevada is going to have to buy its launch vehicles from somebody, it might as well buy them from the cheapest provider. And if it does so, this will almost certainly mean that not only SpaceX, but SNC, too, can bid below what Northrop Grumman must charge to perform CRS-2 supply missions for NASA -- giving SNC a leg up in future competitions to resupply ISS.

Related: United Nations to Launch a Space Mission
NASA to Continue Funding Private Spaceflight, Considers Sixth Hubble Upgrade Mission


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @11:27AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 08 2019, @11:27AM (#783623)

    If the competitor doesn't consider the market big enough for the both of you.

    In the old days, at least in some industries, it used to be possible for multiple companies to compete in the same market, even sometimes forgoing a project to allow a struggling competitor to have it, because they had enough on their own plate and didn't need to own the whole market themselves. There are many other examples that refute this, but it has become increasingly less likely to see this occuring in the modern world, where every dog MUST eat every other dog, or they aren't doing their 'due diligence'.

    Truly a sickness of the modern era.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday January 08 2019, @02:29PM (1 child)

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday January 08 2019, @02:29PM (#783655)

    An Atlas V launch costs a lot more than a Falcon 9 or an Antares. Heck, when an Antares blew up OrbitalATK had to launch Cygnus on top of an Atlas V, and just a couple of years they are getting bought by Northrup Grumman. Probably not a coincidence.

    Antares is just a toy for military contractor companies to pretend to be doing commercial services. ULA is Boeing and Lockheed, so you can't get much more military than that. Atlas V was designed back when there were no-bid contracts, so it wasn't made to be cost effective.

    If Blue Origin ever gets their big New Glenn rocket flying, Dream Chaser could easily fly on that. Supposedly it could beat even Falcon Heavy on price, but that is easy to say when it hasn't even flown yet.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/7xem8y/launch_vehicle_capabilities_and_costs_compared_wip/ [reddit.com]

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday January 08 2019, @07:57PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday January 08 2019, @07:57PM (#783821)

      >If Blue Origin ever gets their big New Glenn rocket flying, Dream Chaser could easily fly on that. Supposedly it could beat even Falcon Heavy on price, but that is easy to say when it hasn't even flown yet.

      And unfortunately the problem for them is that by the time they get it flying, they probably won't be competing against the Falcon Heavy anymore, or at least not for long. Instead they'll be facing the Falcon Super-Heavy(aka BFR), which will supposedly be cheaper per-launch than the current Falcon R, while also carrying a larger payload than anything since the Saturn V (and more pressurized volume than the ISS, which will be very relevant to tourism and the like)

      I'm rooting for New Glenn, but I'm just not sure they'll be able to overcome SpaceX's first-mover advantage - though perhaps government "multiple vendor" priorities will give them enough room to thrive and grow until they can.