House Compromise adds Tech & Commercial

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sftommy

Guest
Is the 130T minimum threshold for Heavy Lift intended as a deal killer, reeks of Griffin-isms.

Looks like it varies too much from Senate version to get it approved before election.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
When i see a compromise between Presidents and Senate version, it will be something new, not just Cx with more or less powder.
Something like : A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture (pdf)

I'm waiting for Shuttle 2.0, not Apollo 0.1. USAF is doing the best, but that is not really a news.
I guess deciding on every launch makes politicians happy, but it's annoying and unnecessary.

Two things to consider :
Wiki :
Peter Principle

Parkinson's Law
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
This entire proceeding is just getting bizarre. I favored the Senate version, was willing to settle for the house version and right now I'm thinking the only space program we have will be fireworks on the next 4th.

The speculation is that we will not have a bill prior to lame duck and perhaps not till after the election, if then. This suggests that a continuation is increasing possible. This would seem to raise the possibility that NASA could again be bound to Constellation in 2011 if they were so bound in some obscure amendment to another bill. There appears to be zero leadership in all of this. NASA has clammed up, yet again.

I don't recall things being nearly so strange back when the shuttle was in similar position.

Bottle rockets anyone?
 
V

vulture4

Guest
The House bill still wastes billions. It was a serious error for Bush to cancel Shuttle, which is largely a sunk cost and is actually working amazingly well. Now that it's too late, the next best strategy is to push as hard as we can for SpaceX, Orbital, and anything Boeing has that can launch somewhere other than LC-39 while starting work on a fully reusable launch system that can actually make human spaceflight practical. We have no 120 ton payloads and we certainly can't afford a rocket that will cost $5 billion per launch using obsolete but congressionally-dictated ATK SRBs.
 
N

neutrino78x

Guest
A government owned fleet of spaceplanes would be ideal, but since the budget/need is not there for that, I still say that any manned launches should just be scaled down so a small commercial rocket can launch them. If you need more space, launch multiple modules and link them in orbit. Other than that, just fund the commercial players and let them do what they want. The vision is coming from Bigelow et al.

In my opinion, the days of big space projects like Apollo are gone, for now. One day we will need big Navy ships built in orbit, that stay in space, but that's far in the future. You guys who want NASA to do all this need to get out of 1969 and back into 2010. The way you sustain a human presence in space without changing the plan with each President is to have a commercial space program, which is what Obama wanted, and Obama was right.

--Brian
 
A

aaron38

Guest
vulture4":2ypzu0lw said:
the next best strategy is to push as hard as we can for SpaceX, Orbital, and anything Boeing has that can launch somewhere other than LC-39 while starting work on a fully reusable launch system that can actually make human spaceflight practical.
That's how I feel about it. Operating a disposable launch vehicle is commercial sector's job. The SpaceX FalconX/heavy architecture takes care of our lift needs at 38mT and 125mT. If NASA wants to be involved in access to LEO, then they should focus on developing a fully resuable TSTO launch system. Start with something that can carry a crew of 2-3 and reach a minimum transfer orbit with carryon lugage. Hell, the Air Force will probably fund half of it. Scale it up later, but get the fundamental R&D done, and get something flying.

Otherwise, NASA should only be thinking beyond LEO and simply buy launch services.
 
A

aaron38

Guest
I also don't understand why the Senate Heavy Lift option would be 130mT. The current Shuttle stack, Orbiter + cargo is 105mT. Why not just recreate that as Shuttle-derrived? Or is 130mT the number with the 5 segment solids?

If the cert work on the solids is done, then fine use them. Otherwise just stick with 4.

And here's a question I've never been clear on. A Shuttle derived LH2/O2 disposable heavy lift would use an SSME engine right? But if they're being thown away, we need to build more. Is there a cost effective way to build that engine design for single use? Can cost be pulled out of that engine. I remember hearing that they'd still be really expensive.

If NASA's 130mT can't be cheaper than the Merlin2 LP1 FalconX heavy, then what's the point?
 
V

Valcan

Guest
aaron38":buri9te5 said:
I also don't understand why the Senate Heavy Lift option would be 130mT. The current Shuttle stack, Orbiter + cargo is 105mT. Why not just recreate that as Shuttle-derrived? Or is 130mT the number with the 5 segment solids?

If the cert work on the solids is done, then fine use them. Otherwise just stick with 4.

And here's a question I've never been clear on. A Shuttle derived LH2/O2 disposable heavy lift would use an SSME engine right? But if they're being thown away, we need to build more. Is there a cost effective way to build that engine design for single use? Can cost be pulled out of that engine. I remember hearing that they'd still be really expensive.

If NASA's 130mT can't be cheaper than the Merlin2 LP1 FalconX heavy, then what's the point?
Votes, money, politics. Basically everything but science and the betterment of our nation.
 
D

docm

Guest
IIRC Senate sec. 404 discusses land landings for ISS cargo. IMO that's an open invitation for NASA to at least partly fund Dragons LES development since it's a dual-use tech.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY