While many in the industry were at first skeptical of NASA’s goal to put resupply flights to the International Space Station in the hands of commercial operators, the results speak for themselves. Since 2012, the SpaceX Dragon family of spacecraft has been transporting crew and cargo from American soil to the orbiting laboratory, a capability that the space agency had lost with the retirement of the Space Shuttle. Putting these relatively routine missions in the hands of a commercial provider like SpaceX takes some of the logistical and financial burden off of NASA, allowing them to focus on more forward-looking projects.
But as the saying goes, you should never put all of your eggs in one basket. As successful as SpaceX has been, there’s always a chance that some issue could temporarily ground either the Falcon 9 or the Dragon.
While Russia’s Progress and Soyuz vehicles would still be available in an emergency situation, it’s in everyone’s best interest that there be multiple backup vehicles that can bring critical supplies to the Station.
Which is precisely why several new or upgraded spacecraft, designed specifically for performing resupply missions to the ISS and any potential commercial successor, are coming online over the next few years.
In fact, one of them is already flying its first mission, and will likely have arrived at the International Space Station by the time you read this article.
Cygnus XL
The Cygnus was the second commercial spacecraft to deliver cargo to the ISS back in 2013, and like the Dragon, has gone through several upgrades and revisions over the years. Rather than starting from a clean slate, the Orbital Sciences Corporation based the vehicle’s pressurized module on the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module which was originally designed to fly inside the Space Shuttle’s cargo bay to provide onboard laboratory space before the construction of the ISS. This was paired with a service module that was derived from their line of communication satellites.
Orbital Sciences Corporation was eventually acquired by Northrop Grumman, which now operates the latest version of the spacecraft, the Cygnus XL. This latest version of the cargo craft lifted off for the first time on September 14th, and is currently en route to the ISS.
It retains the same 3.07 m (10.1 ft) diameter of the original Cygnus, but the length of the vehicle has been increased from 5.14 m (16.9 ft) to 8 m (26 ft). This has nearly doubled the internal pressurized volume of the craft, and the payload capacity has been increased from 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) to 5,000 kg (11,000 lb).
While the Dragon can autonomously dock with the ISS, the Cygnus XL needs to be captured by an astronaut using the Station’s robotic arm, and manually moved into position where it’s eventually bolted into place — a process known as berthing. This is a more labor intensive method of connecting a visiting spacecraft, but it does have at least one advantage, as the diameter of the berthing ports is larger than that of the docking ports. At least in theory, this means Cygnus XL would be able to deliver bulkier objects to the Station than the Dragon or any other spacecraft that makes use of the standard docking ports.
Like the earlier versions of the craft, Cygnus XL is an expendable vehicle, and lacks the heat shield that would be necessary to reenter Earth’s atmosphere safely. Once the vehicle delivers its cargo and is detached from the Station, it’s commanded to perform a deorbit maneuver which will cause it to burn up in the atmosphere. But even this serves an important function, as the astronauts will load the vehicle with trash before it departs, ensuring that refuse from the Station is destroyed in a safe and predictable manner.
HTV-X
Like the Cygnus XL, the HTV-X is an upgraded version of a spacecraft which has already visited the ISS, namely the H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). Designed and built by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), the first flight of this upgraded cargo vehicle is tentatively scheduled for late October.
The HTV-X reuses the pressurized module from the HTV, though it has been slightly enlarged and is now located at the rear of the spacecraft instead of the front. The cargo module is in turn attached to a service module that’s responsible for power generation, communications, and propulsion. For all intents and purposes, this service module is its own independent spacecraft, and JAXA is currently investigating future applications which would see this module mated with other payloads for various low Earth orbit missions.
Attached to the opposite side of the service module is an unpressurized cargo module. This is similar to the “trunk” of the Dragon spacecraft, in that it’s essentially just a hollow cylinder with shelves and mounting points inside. This module could potentially be used to bring up components that are intended to be attached to the outside of the ISS, or it could hold experiments and modules that are designed to be exposed to the space environment.
Like the Cgynus XL, the HTV-X will berth to the ISS rather than dock, and it will also burn up after its mission is complete. However the HTV-X is designed to fly freely on its own for up to 18 months after it delivers its cargo to the Station, which JAXA calls the “Technology Demonstration Phase” of the mission. This will essentially allow the agency to perform a second mission after the vehicle has completed its supply run, greatly improving the overall cost effectiveness of the program.
Dream Chaser
Far and away the most ambitious of these new spacecraft is the Dream Chaser, developed by Sierra Space. Reminiscent of a miniature version of the Space Shuttle, this winged vehicle is designed to land like an airplane at the end of its mission. This not only means it can bring material back down to Earth at the end of its mission, but that it can do so in a much less jarring manner than a capsule that ends up splashing down into the ocean under parachutes. This is a huge benefit when dealing with fragile cargo or scientific experiments, and is a capability not offered by any other currently operational spacecraft.
The Dream Chaser has been in active development for over 20 years, but its origins date back even farther than that, as it’s based on HL-20 Personnel Launch System concept from the 1980s. While it was initially designed for crew transport, it lost out to SpaceX and Boeing during NASA’s Commercial Crew Program selection in 2014. It did however secure a contract from the space agency in 2016 for six cargo missions to the ISS. To qualify for these missions, several changes were made to the original design, such as the addition of an expendable module that will attach to the rear of the vehicle to increase its relatively limited internal cargo capacity of 910 kg (2,000 lb) by 4,500 kg (10,000 lb).
The first orbital test flight of the Dream Chaser is currently scheduled to take place before the end of the year, but that date has already slipped several times. Being a reusable vehicle like the Dragon, the first Dream Chaser spaceplane is expected to fly multiple operational missions while a second craft is being assembled.
After completing their contractually obligated missions to the ISS, there are currently plans for the Dream Chaser to fly at least one mission for the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, which will carry an array of scientific experiments provided by member nations that do not have their own domestic space programs. The company also says they remain committed to bringing the crewed version of Dream Chaser to fruition, likely as part of their partnership with Blue Origin to develop the Orbital Reef — a “mixed-use business park” in space.
Time is Running Out
It might seem strange that three different spacecraft are scheduled to enter service before the end of the year, but of course, the clock is ticking. Although the date has been pushed out a number of times over the years, the current 2030 timeline for the decommissioning of the International Space Station seems to be holding so far. With as little as five years left to go before the ISS joins us Earthlings back here on the surface, it’s now or never for any vehicles designed for service missions. This is doubly true for companies such as Sierra Space, who have already agreed to perform a set number of missions.
At the same time, any of these vehicles could support a future commercial space station, should one actually materialize. We’ve covered some of the post-ISS plans previously, but given how volatile the aerospace world is, nothing is a given until it’s actually in orbit.
Exciting times ahead! Can’t believe we are in the amazing timeline where we have private players in the space race!
I was thinking about something, something absolutely cracked out if I say so myself.
I was wondering if I would be eligible for a cash reimbursement from the space agencies since they are taking oxygen, CO2, carbon, steel, titanium, water and other materials into space, never to be returned to Earth again. These are hypothetical resources that may have been used by my children in the future, that they will never get to use (and in case of carbon, literally make up a part of my children), and they are being removed from the entire closed system (aka Earth)
I mean they’re shared resources right? Its only fair that I get a payout since I was not asked if these resources can be taken out.
Well, “private”. Corporations subsidized by the state, working for state funded projects (NASA + DoD) as their main or major source of revenue with a smattering of smaller private customers.
They are more like pseudo-SOEs since they’re so dependent on the state to even exist – I think the exact term would be a captive supplier, except for the possibility of other clients. A “government‑dependent contractor”.
The question is, however, how long states remain independent.
It could also happen that states or their agencies may end up owing money to big companies, eventually.
Or that companies and their bosses have friends in high political positions.
Then it’s the companies who have the political power.
And an once democratic nation turns into a big corporation, basically.
I know, it’s a bit far fetched. It’s just another dystopian story, maybe.
That’s the thing about owning money printing presses.
You can owe any amount of money, no problem.
(Just print $ 2×10^12. Call it the ‘Inflation Reduction Act.’ Chutzpa has a new definition.)
I don’t trust money grubbers or power grubbers.
They are cousins.
‘Money is power’ is a truism.
“Power just takes money’ should also be.
At least a business needs to make money, not a problem for a politician.
Politicians can get as disconnected from reality as the population will allow.
If that population is disarmed, WTF are they going to do?
Wait for someone from across the pond to save them, same as last century?
Corporations with government contracts are even more disconnected from reality than politicians. “Making a profit” is up to lobbyists, not the entirely subsidized market.
S O
If you only have one client you are F’ed, as a business.
Every contractor knows this in his/her bones.
First client is important, but second is more important.
Second gives you power to tell first ‘no’, until then, you just can’t.
Still true if that one client is the US federal government.
You also need the US DOD^nW…joke…or is it?
What you say is true for the Government trough specialists, no doubt.
Government trough is wide and diverse.
At worst is tit shaped trough, where pigs make nothing at all but hot air.
Well, lobbying is pretty much a given. The point isn’t so much space exploration, or that’s a secondary outcome of funneling money to government adjacent business. That’s why they’re not so much trying to push boundaries and do new science, but simply re-inventing the wheel by re-engineering already tested solutions from the 60’s through 90’s.
I mean, with the ISS going out of service for decades already, instead of inventing the proverbial automobile, they’re engineering better buggy whips.
I think it’s dystopian. Space exploration should be a humanistic journey rather than a commercial endevour.
It should be about a human society that has grown up and has become one, rather each of them having childish desires for revenues.
This is just another wild wild west story about a new gold rush, I’m afraid.
Not that private companies are to be left out,
but they should be under supervision by international organizations of democratic societies.
So that “unresponsible” projects such as Starlink won’t happen again.
The focus should be on research and for well being of all people on this planet, not just some countries or companies.
The results of the work in space should be transparent, so that journalists and researchers have access to it.
In this hindsight NASA used to do rather well, considering the “free” and public pictures from space probes.
But that just my opinion, of course. It won’t happen (again).
What we are going to see is hard competition over resources.
Like oil platforms, but in space.
There won’t be any place left for idealistic considerations.
It’ll be all about money. For the Americans, at least.
The Chinese, despite their questionable political system, do at least have more than money in mind.
They’re doing it for pride and prestige and to impress the world,
which is still selfish but at least slightly morally higher than doing it for pure greed and plain profits. IMHO.
The ‘humanists’ can pay for it then.
Their own money please, never take your eye off them.
They love to spend other people’s money.
I didn’t realize you were so in favor of government speech regulations.
‘Starlink’ is irresponsible?
Only if you ask the nations that don’t allow free (as in speech) internet access.
Who gets to define ‘well being of all people on this planet.’
The MFers that have attempted that in the past have generally ended on ‘Giving me all power is best for for the well being of all people on this planet.’
They can’t define ‘well being’, but they know it when they say it.
Your right the Chinese are past money, onto power.
Which is worse.
The members who work together, I guess?
I was thinking about basic research and open research papers.
Things that could eventually help curing disseases, for example.
Releasing hundreds of thousands of barely tested satellites in orbit without asking isn’t?
Which are transmitting on frequencies that are in use in certain countries, maybe?
What about astronomers that monitor the night sky?
The satellites are “in the way”, might be missinterpreted as other objects etc.
The earth orbit is a common good of humanity,
a single company shouldn’t be allowed to totally dominate it at will.
What about other companies or space agencies?
Such a launch of a big constellation should have been co-ordinated, at least.
Huh? Which speech regulations?
Anyway, I think that things like important infrastructure (trains, roads, water/water pipes and orbits etc) should be under goverment supervision, to some degree at least.
Because a goverment of a democratic nation represents the will of the people, the citizens.
Private companies do not, they don’t serve the people but only their own interest.
They would sacrifice people’s life to save money, I’m afraid.
For example, I’ve read that US aircraft manufacturers are considering whether
it’s financially cheaper to make the planes extra safe or
to simply wait and see if the plane crashes once a while and then pay the surviving families’ compensation claims.
China’s hunger for power surely is concerning, but are the motives worse?
Doing things for money alone seems more unhuman to me.
Or at least more “hearthless”, more mechanical. It makes people feel dead inside.
Not sure about the right words here. Any “enthusiasm” is missing, maybe.
What China is doing has a lot to do with national identity, self-esteem and winning the own people.
The USA were similar in the 1960s, still, when they still loved their nation.
Back then, so it seems to me, it still had certain basic values besides capitalism.
Some sort of balance, if we will. Not sure how to put it into words.
Maybe I’m wrong about it, too. It just seems like that if you watch documentaries from the 1960s.
People, ordinary people, were highly excited about was happening.
I don’t remember them talking about money or taxes, but about the possibilities.
Nonsense about Starlink.
Low enough to deorbit on their own and make effective censorship almost impossible.
Money is everything except the people in your life.
Every single thing is just money.
Money is thingpotential.
The things you and those people need.
What better reason to work?
You never know about the people…Exceptions are golden.
Sure, at some point it’s just scorekeeping and status…Not my life, they wouldn’t listen even if I told them ‘Stop! You’re good for life. Don’t make your grandkids richers, you’ll ruin them.’ (I did try once, brick wall…”But I can make even more money next year!”)
And at some further point, power takes over, or at least tries to…
Why a buffoon heir is better than a power addicted puppet.
Besides the entertainment value.
Neither of us remembers the 1960s.
People were still excited about movie cameras, super excited.
I bet you can find movies of enthusiastic happy sober Finns from the 1960s.
Perhaps even Germans not scowling.
I’ll say this about old school American ‘burbs.
Image was important.
People in the 1960’s made an effort to look like perfect families.
If they didn’t, dad would smack them.
I grew up in a fairly backwater part of the USA, I do remember the 1970s, which weren’t what you describe at all.
I go back at least 10 years every time I travel back from CA.
But not really, CA wishes that were true, nobody is following where they’re going.
CA west of the coast range is just granola (fruits, nuts and flakes) and has been for living memory.
Like Berlin, but more stink and less techno.
Still too much techno.
I digress.
Well I suppose we should thank you for making it clear that you are a communist and that your ideas can be viewed accordingly.
Hm? I wasn’t aware of this. I thought it was an social, democratic and a bit European point of view, rather.
We have universities that do basic research, for example.
And a social market economy. Well in my corner of Europe, at least.
Also nolonger as much as we used to have, maybe.
International competition has weakened our values, maybe.
Universities are under financial pressure, too these days.
Or let’s say maybe it was a 1960s/1970s US American point of view, too?
In spirit of minds such as Sagan and many science fiction authors and philosophers of the time?
When Sputnik was in orbit, scientists and dreamers both alike looked forward a peaceful exploration rather than money making.
People like Wernher v. Braun worked on space station designs etc.
It wasn’t about mining on moon so much, but about space colonies and research and the future of humanity.
And that’s the problem. “Private space” is about making money first.
It will expand the whole silly business making on earth into space.
Especially the US American model is what we could call toxic and unhuman, maybe.
It’s all about predatory capitalism and exploiting human beings.
Each to his own, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Do we really need that in space, too?
No offense, though. I’m just trying to be honest.
I simply think that’s not my idea of an mature society that has gained the ability of (limited) space travel.
A society that has gained it should have been mentally more advanced than the technology it is using, at least.
In space, humanity should stick together and solve problems together.
The Mir-Shuttle missions and the ISS both were going in the right directon, I think.
People of different nations worked together and were a living symbol for peace and friendship.
And that’s not as easy as it seems, also because people both on earth and in space must overcome conflicts to make things work.
It is exciting times. Infrastructure is being laid for future missions, bigger payloads, bigger rockets, etc. Glad to see space science and engineering is alive and well. I was hoping we would further along by now as we were on the moon all the way back in ’69. Almost another generation will have passed on before we get established on the moon … let alone Mars and other destinations… Good to have a frontier to explore instead of stagnate here on Earth.
Thank you for your positive view.
Personally, I’ve used to be an optimist and I’d like to see it happen, too.
Maybe it’s somehow good that China is such a big threat, also.
Because I felt that without the USSR, the US Americans stopped being ambitious back then.
They apparently need a strong rival, a competition or a race in order to get going.
– Like Ash needed Gary in the 90s Pokèmon anime. ;)
It’s like in their business life, I guess. It’s all about beating someone and being first at something.
That would explain the stagnation for 40+ years, I think.
Anyway, let’s hope they will make it back on the moon without much drama.
The computer technology since the 1960/70s has improved, too.
With the power of a C64 it’s possible to get there.
And once they’re there, I do imagine, reliable 80s technology such as Packet-Radio
could be used to build FX.25 digipeaters and establishing long distant connections around the moon.
“Store and forward” feature (for electronic mail) could be done by a Z80-based TNC and a 2m band two-way radio, each.
And some solar cells and batteries to power everything.
A Commodore C64 at the moon base could also handle communication and do orbit predictions.
That’s something the Chinese don’t have, I think. Venerable, robust American technology.
I understand that there are some new private stations being planned, but I have to question the wisdom of commissioning all of these different systems to service a vessel that is destined to be de-orbited within five years without a replacement in the pipeline.
I would have ‘thought’ the current space station would be a continual ‘build’. New modules would be added as old/obsolete modules de-orbited for a continual growing presence in space. It sure seems to me a a cost saving solution… Anyway, I think it makes perfect sense — but I guess not to the powers that be.
You have to ask, what interest does a continuously manned station in LEO serve?
Tourism? Maybe, but NASA?
Science? No.
Practice with long term life support? Done.
Politics? Not so much anymore.
Get onto prospecting the moon for fuel/Ice.
Past LEO you need to find shielding, so it’s moons, planets or big asteroids.
Or quick dashes during solar minimums.
I think next after lunar fuel base is prospecting the moons of mars for fuel/Ice…
Not landing on mars yet.
Digging our base next to the alien’s Phobos base and getting started making fuel from ice.
Think of it as like a rock climber hammering a piton into a crack in the cliffside and hanging a loop of his rope from a carabiner there. If he falls after climbing higher, or if he simply needs to rest a while, this will keep him from falling farther down.
We came extremely close to giving up on manned space exploration entirely and just having a world of little bean-counting robots everywhere, which I personally would consider a shame.
Please play some GD KSP.
The ISS is not and can never be an orbital safety catch spot.
That’s not how orbits work.
For the money spent on ISS you could keep multiple Falcon/Dragon rockets on standby that could be launched into the correct orbit on a rescue mission.
Manned space is GD expensive.
Doing it to give people ‘billion dollar rides/media events’ is silly.
“…the results speak for themselves…”
They sure do.
The people no longer actually own any part of space, from the privately held designs built on top of public knowledge, to the equipment itself.
The USA no longer has any space infrastructure.
A private corporation can say “no” at any time, and are free to demand any price they please, and we will need to pay because they own all the current ‘ideas’ of modern spaceflight. We can’t even redevelop it on our own anymore, because we aren’t allowed to compete with private industry without a major governmental act.
Even the VIDEO FOOTAGE of a government funded launch is property of a corporation now.
Private spaceflight is a TRAVESTY.
Die angry commie.