Next SpaceX Mission is Now the ISS Cargo Resupply CRS-10
Station cargo flight leapfrogs commercial satellite launch on SpaceX manifest, Spaceflight Now
“SpaceX said Sunday that the first Falcon 9 rocket launch from pad 39A, a former shuttle-era complex at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, is scheduled to send a Dragon supply ship to the International Space Station in mid-February, deferring a mission with an EchoStar communications satellite that was set to take off this month.”
Like who? Blue Origin has so far demonstrated a sounding rocket. Orbital has a small launcher and no upgrade path. Masten has no launcher and minimal experience of large scale projects. SNC has no launcher and no deep-space capacity.
Who else did you have in mind?
Even SpaceX has only a small launcher with poor deep-space “throw”, with a potential large launcher in the next year (hopefully) but which has a weak upper-stage, bringing it back down below Delta IVH payloads for BEO.
So other than SpaceX, you’ve got the two ULA launchers and the European & Russian govt launchers. That’s it.
Agreed with the proviso that SpaceX has Raptor in development with the AF partially funding an upper stage version.
Cheers
“Who else did you have in mind?”
Why not ULA? They have the most experience in the US with LOX/LH2 upper stages and have already done some development work on their next generation ACES upper stage. Their upper stage tech is directly applicable to LOX/LH2 fuel depots, which could be used to refuel ACES (start-ups could provide launches to refuel the depot).
Reusable upper stages combined with a sizable LEO fuel depot would largely replace the need for SLS since the “earth departure stage” would no longer need to be launched at the same time as the payload.
Need more delta-V than one ACES can provide? Add more LOX/LH2 tanks to the stage (same tech as in the LOX/LH2 fuel depot) and/or add more than one ACES to the “stack” while in LEO. This easily scales up to increasingly larger missions in a way that SLS does not.
Regarding ULA, they have launch vehicles with the most flight experience now, but in a few years they will be right back at Square 1 with Vulcan (new core methalox core and later new upper stage in ACES). Atlas 5 will be gone due to Russian engines and Delta IV is already on the way out. So in the early 2020s, it will actually be SpaceX operating the vehicle with the most flight experience in the US, and ULA’s number one selling point “we’re the proven reliable choice!” will be dead as a doornail. Ariane will be in the same boat.
I think you are focusing on the rockets and neglecting the payload. In the case of one Mars lander (I’m afraid I’m too lazy to look up which) the descent imaging instrument was almost removed. The company responsible offered to provide the instrument at their own expense, so the instrument was flown. I suspect they did so to enhance their reputation and their odds of getting future NASA contracts, but that is an example of NASA/commercial cost sharing.
For future missions, the standard NASA AO for Discovery and New Frontiers missions allows private companies to contribute instruments, in a similar way to the inclusion of instruments from foreign governments.
If SpaceX felt that they needed certain measurements for their long-term Mars colony plans, I could imagine NASA including an appropriate, SpaceX-funded instrument on a future mission. I could also imagine Bigelow offering inflatable module to NASA under some cost sharing arrangement.
The issue of NASA collaborating with private companies goes beyond private companies providing the rockets and the launches.
This first time launch from 39A has already been delayed from Dec. I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets delayed into March. Now that they have a date, perhaps they’re confident now but the proof in the pudding will be when they perform the engine test.
This is widely reported but ASAIK not explained.
SpaceX does have a history of launch delays, and with only one launch since the Falcon 9 returned to flight, a reasonable person would be concerned about schedule pressure. The EchoStar and CRS-10 launches were only a couple of weeks apart and both launch from the same pad. If they went ahead with the EchoStar launch, a delay would have a very real possibility of also delaying CRS-10. Bumping EchoStar gives them more time and less schedule pressure to get CRS-10 off on time. That seems like a reasonable decision to me, especially if they negotiated it in advance and said please. But it isn’t a good sign as far as clearing their backlog is concerned. That may not happen until they have another pad available.
Thanks. Makes sense to me. But I’m just a commenter on someone’s blog 🙂
I’ve seen reports in multiple places that work on the LC-39A pad has not yet been finished. Schedule bump is because CRS has priority. Tangentally, the rockets for CRS-10, Echostar23, and SES-10 are all reported to be in processing at KSC. We may see those three go up in rapid succession once the pad work is completed.