ALHAT is a hazard avoidance component of the descent and landing control system. It isn’t the whole thing. Morpheus is mostly a descent propulsion technology development effort. It happens to have some avionics tacked on to it. There is a lot more to a lunar lander development project than that. Morpheus is a nice project, but it’s done on the cheap and, well, you get what you pay for.

In simple terms cheapness gives you get what you need and nothing more.

Space navigation could use the Space Technology developed by the New Millenium program. ST5 gives ‘Miniature spinning sun sensor’ and ST6 ‘Inertial Stellar Compass’.

The rover would be something like RESOLVE.

“Obital is an integrator in that they aren’t really making anything only putting the parts together therefore they may not have longer term control over their suppliers – so that’s another question.
Lots of unknowns around the Antares vehicle.”

Orbital is more than an integrator, since they have been a launch provider with their Pegasus, Taurus and Minotaur rockets, and they even build satellites. A pretty well rounded company.

I don’t know what the market is for Antares outside of the CRS program, but I do like the route Orbital took. No doubt Orbital is operating in the shadow of SpaceX, but in comparison to everyone else I do like their modular approach as it speeds development and buys down risk.

The downside is that by using major components from other companies you also have to pay them for their profit, so costs are not as low as they could be if they built everything themselves (like SpaceX), but since they are in a niche part of the market maybe that’s OK. Time will tell, although I haven’t heard of any non-NASA orders for Antares.

I also like the Cygnus spacecraft for the same reasons, especially since they are using their satellite bus as the service module. I hope they can grow that into it’s own product, such as a space tug.

Orbital Sciences has a lot of potential, but they have to find customers for their services, and that means they have to make correct guesses on where the market is going – it’s not just hardware execution that determines the viability of a company.

“The telescopes don’t look that small, so I’m wondering what they have in mind. I don’t see how the payload shroud or center of mass restraints could work.”

Ya, I wonder if he made a mistake saying it could launch eight units at a time. Here is the stats:

“To fully leverage the flexibility of LauncherOne and the ability to fly from the broadest possible range of potential launch locations, exact up-mass capability will be calculated based on the specific requirements of each mission. As a general rule, LauncherOne in its most typical configuration will be capable of delivering on the order of 500 lb (225 kg) to low inclination Low Earth Orbit, and 225 lb (100 kg) to a higher altitude, Sun-Synchronous Low Earth Orbit. Other configurations may offer significantly greater performance.

The maximum allowable payload volume is quite large for a launch vehicle of this class. Payloads will be accommodated within a fairing approximately 40 inches (1 meter) in diameter, with a cylindrical shape for the first 30 inches (77 cm) and a conical section above.”

That really is pretty small volume for eight units. One at a time the way it looks.

this is the story on the nanoracks that simply sat. RGO

“While Barbree didn’t dwell on specifics about what the US space policy should be…”

And he shouldn’t. Barbree is unqualified to extrapolate and incorporate those years of basic, regional news reporting and his accompanying opinions from his Florida perch (where he has been based for NBC the whole time) into musings on shaping national policy. It is beyond the area of his competence.

He’s a reporter– and as with his colleagues who covered the ‘glory days’- a bit of a cheerleader for the beat he covered as well. That’s all. He’s no more qualified to inject himself into shaping national space policy than other broadcast reporters of his era, like the late Walter Cronkite (who flunked HS physics) or the knowledgeable but loathed Jules Bergman, etc., etc. This goes for print reporters as well. Journalists watch the passing parade and chronicle events that become the ‘first draft of history.’ If they want to plan policy, they best run for office.

In fairness to ATK, er, Morton Thiokol, their engineers (like Boisjoly) did warn NASA about launching the o-rings in cold environment. Thiokol management did eventually reverse itself and recommend a go for launch, but only after NASA managers like Hardy and Mulloy ignored their warnings and bullied them into it.

Earlier, both Thiokol and MSFC had discovered that the o-rings needed reinforcing, but those changes were not made before the Challenger mission.

The technical issues with Liberty have little to do with Challenger, and instead are attributable to the single-stick, first-stage SRB, second-stage LOX/LH2, and inline capsule configuration itself.

As long as we are all dumping on ATK, their promo video is one-sided (natch). They claim that one mission can do the work, crew and pressurized cargo delivery, that other suppliers need two missions for. But if we consider other options than crew, they too would need two missions for the whole potential cargo cycle w return of cargo.

As long as they are beat on cost, the minor flexibility with 2-in-1 for some options aren’t much. (I liked their design tho’.)

@ Robert G. Oler:

Can you spill the space beans on “the racks brought up by SpaceX that simply never got turned on”? Mysterious instead of clarifying – who was at fault (and what happened)?