future launch manifest

[tap_sa]

Frodo, your posts are very well thought and written. I for one welcome your experience and realism, even (and especially) if it sometimes mean a little raining on the current Rutan-SpaceX-parade <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I'm not a die-hard fan on either one but wish them luck. Rutan still has that gigantic leap from suborbital hop to true orbit ahead. SpaceX seems to have the equipment ready but inaugural flight keeps getting postponed.<br /><br />I happen to have The Right Stuff on DVD, great film indeed. Contains some hilarious dry humour, like face of the guy pressing launch-button, almost too afraid to act after those numerous failures. Like in the movie it was a hard start for both US and soviets, the latter just managed to cover up accidents better, thanks to secretive communist regime. It's about fifty years since those actual mishaps were filmed. So much progress has happened since that a row of such stellar pad-failures before getting it right is doubtful. Especially with SpaceX because their design is very conservative, not trying to push any envelope unlike NASA which has and should continue to do so. <br /><br />Now, the little Falcon V 20 launch campaign example, it's purpose was just to give some general direction of cost compared to the other options, nothing more serious. I'm fully aware that such a massive amount of launches for single purpose is very unlikely in the near term, with any vehicle. <br /><br />If the delivered propellant need would be the said 250000 pounds per year then economy of scale might favor Falcon V. If we give no upper limit to the annual delivery then all bets are off (hi mrmorris <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ). Other factor is what the destination is. If it's a moon/mars liner awaiting filling her up then there might be tight schedule to force the delivery in one superheavy shot. <br /><br />An orbital fuel depot is another story. It would allow the delivery from earth in smaller amounts while being able to fill the

 

[gofer]

frodo, with all respect, do not for a second think that I belittle NASA's efforts or its worthwhile programs. I'm just a taxpayer. I agree that the ISS and STS *CAN* be useful. I *WANT* them to by useful. I long for the future in space....

 

[spacester]

Hi frodo, good to see you. I love your posts. But since I try to be both a NASA supporter and a rah rah private industry type, I have a different perspective. Your perspective is of course valid even if it differs from mine; it’s the diversity of opinion that makes this all fun, right?<br /><br />The following is not meant to imply that I suppose you think the opposite . . . (isn’t there a word for that concept?) . . . but then again, that’s kinda what I’m hearing . . . and it’s not all addressed to you specifically, frodo. It really is great seeing you when you show up . . . obviously I share your inability to write short posts <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> What are they gonna do, kick us off the board for that? <br /><br />I think private industry should be allowed to take the lead in spaceflight. I do not believe we need to have NASA work everything out before we get private industry operating up there. BoeLock is not interested in operations up there when they’ve got a gravy train of research projects and hardware to build. You want Americans to understand that space flight is an investment, so do I. But IMO the best way to do that is to show them a return on investment.<br /><br />You and I aren’t getting any younger and I want to see some progress in the next ten years. It is entirely possible that progress in the next ten years will far exceed current projections of all the space experts (a group of which I am not a part <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> ). But fulfillment of that possibility requires that NASA changes the way it does business. So if I seem to bash NASA, it’s out of a sense of trying to herd them in a more fruitful direction. <br /><br />I have an abundance mentality, those with a scarcity mentality often have no idea what that means.<br />***<br />Mike Griffin looks too good to be true, there’s gotta be a catch. But I have every reason to believe NASA is about to change the way they do business right along the lines of my ideas. Shoot, that lo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

spaceter: Your idea of just having NASA pay a certain rate per pound to LEO is indeed a good one!!<br /><br />However, strangely enough launch costs are NOT the driving factor in manned space (and they are even further from a driving factor in satellite launches). Most satellites cost at least $200 million (some of the larger ones are far more), and most current launches are running at less than $100 million. The real problem is that there just are not enough launches for all of the launchers available, in particular when you include competition from Europe, Russia, and China.<br /><br />What is really needed for manned launches is a destination that can be reached that leads onto further destinations at greater altitudes. I am hopeful that eventually Bigeloes inflatable modules can be made into a rotating space station in a high 500 miles + orbit. Such a station should be at such an inclination that it would be relatively easily reached from both the US and Europe (and even from the Sea Launch). At 500 miles+ a station would not need any reboosting to stay in orbit, and it would be well above the space debris of the last 50 years or so. Remember Von Braun's rotating space station at 1,040 miles altitude, in Colliers Magazine in the 1950's, this is what is needed to really have a transfer point for travel outward to the moon and beyond. <br /><br />The configuration that I would like to see such a station have would be a non-rotation hub for shuttles to hook up to, and concentric rings at both the moons and Mars gravities. I fully believe that living quarters should have at least the gravity of the moon so that future guests (and the station should be both large enough for research in low gravity environments and use as a space hotel for tourism) don’t have to put up with space sickness. At present I can’t seem to find my copy of “The Case for Mars” but in the chapter that discusses using rotating parts of Mars bound spaceships to generate the artificial gravity