I think NASA should get out of the manned launch business

[kdavis007]

Space is not about science.. It is about exploration. Why do you Saganites think you own space??

 

[gavino]

HAHAHAHAHA, That's so stupid! Hubble would be gone by now and he be sending more money up on "Hubble 2". I see what your saying but not getting any of it. There is tons of stuff in space that man can use like fuel and water. Besides that a time may come were people are tired of Earth and won't to move on. Its happened with North America and it could happen in space. its just stupid to leave out man and let robots do all the work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span style="font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">gavinovz</span></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

I agree..

 

[ehs40]

i think that getting out of maned exploration of space would be a stupid idea

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">i think that getting out of maned exploration of space would be a stupid idea</font>/i><br /><br />Why?</i>

 

[ehs40]

because what is the good of looking at pics and through telescopes if u cant go to the places? (i dont want to sound mean)

 

[radarredux]

Back to the original posting...<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Change NASA's mandate to only do science - with unmanned vehicles. Like the Hubble and the planetary probes.</font>/i><br />...<br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Let private companies develop space tourism if they want to.</font>/i><br /><br />One approach is to get <i>NASA</i> out of the manned launch business. One challenge is that there is no commercial manned launch industry. Here is one approach to resolving this:<br /><br />The goal is to attract private investment by guaranteeing certain operational income through subsidies. No money is paid for development, just successful missions. The initial money is fairly high and is scaled back over time. Furthermore, unlike the X Prize where only one group can claim "the prize", the subsidies are provided to several companies so that there can be several commercial companies offering services.<br /><br />For example, here are some potential subsidies for different mission types:<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">Suborbital flight:</font>/b><br /><ul type="square"><li>$200,000 per person per flight for the first 100 customers.<li>$100,000 per person per flight for the next 100 customers.<li>$50,000 per person per flight for the next 100 customers<br /></li></li></li></ul><br /><b><font color="yellow">Orbital Flights</font>/b><br /><ul type="square"><li>$2 million per person per flight for the first 100 customers<li>$1 million per person per flight for the next 100 customers<li>$500,000 per person per flight for the next 100 customers<br /></li></li></li></ul><br /><b><font color="yellow">Orbital Stay</font>/b><br /><ul type="square"><li>$2 million per person per 24 hours for the first 100 24-hours stays<li>$1 million per person per 24 hours for the next 100 24-hours stays<li>$500,000 per person per 24 hours for the next 100 24-hours stays<br /></li></li></li></ul><br /><b>EXAMPLE SCENARIO:</b><br /><br />For example, suppose Virgin Galactic get</b></b></b></i></i>

 

[spacester]

That is a brilliant proposal! Well formulated, well presented, logical, straightforward and results oriented.<br /><br />Here's hoping the PTB actually read these forums . . .<br /><br />Well done, RadarRedux! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<b><font color="yellow">Put a gas bubble or just gas in the turbo pump at those speeds and the turbo prump blades will break off and punch through the engine.</font>/b><br /><br />once again, thanks for the info. Indeed I have a lot to learn, but so does everyone else. Another question, if you please: how are gas bubbles prevented from forming during flight when the tanks are partially empty and the thing shakes like mad?<br /></b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

that makes sense, shuttle guy...however, the acceleration decreases suddenly when the SRBs are dropped-that coupled with vibration wouldn't by any chance generate bubbles that could get in the system?<br />Another question: are the tanks pressurized with inert gas as the levels of LOX and LOH decrease? Shouldn't that be safe to go through the turbopumps and SSMEs if the tanks run 'dry'?<br />thanks <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

are high rotational speeds such as these maybe needed because the tank is external-i.e. the lox and loh have to travel through a more convoluted path to get to the engines? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

what's your honest opinion: could something with the same performance as the Shuttle have been designed to be cheaper and more reliable? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[askold]

"Many systems pushed the limit of our technology..."<br /><br />The limits of 60's technology, yes - these systems are not pushing the limits of today's technology.<br /><br />But, the shuttle replacement may not be much more effective. NASA will layer safety system on top of safety system until the criteria for launch will never be met.<br /><br />NASA seems to think that more sensors means more safety - not necessarily true. Actually, more parts usually increase the failure probability of a system - not reduce it.<br /><br />NASA's original design for the ECO sensors called for 3 out of 4 good sensors to allow a launch. Now it's 4 out of 4. The reliability of the system has not been improved - it's been reduced.

 

[tap_sa]

Airlines Are Fail Operational--NASA Is Only Fail Safe<br /><br />Long story short; There should be redundancy to both launch criterias and in-flight operation. The original 3/4 good sensor criteria had this.

 

[spacefire]

I agree with the posters below you, I think rather than being advanced, the Shuttle is complicated.<br />So complicated that even with all precautions taken, it has proven to be fragile and unreliable. Maybe it was state of the art in the mid 70s, but that's 30 years ago.<br />We should be able to build something better performing, more reliable and cheaper! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[askold]

"Airlines Are Fail Operational--NASA Is Only Fail Safe"<br /><br />Great article - dead on point.<br /><br />The accidents that NASA has suffered have caused them to throw good engineering out the window and replace it with feel-good, but ultimately innefective criteria like - everything has to be perfect before we launch.<br /><br />This is a recipe for inaction. <br /><br />Sort of like a broken watch that is perfectly correct twice a day, if you never launch you'll have a perfect operational record.

 

[askold]

"The launch Commit Criteria has not had any major modifications due to any of the accidents....."<br /><br />According to Spaceflight.com:<br /><br />"As it turns out, NASA's original launch commit criteria called for three-of-four operational ECO sensors. But in the wake of the Challenger disaster, a review of shuttle systems revealed that two of the sensors were powered or controlled by a single component in an electronic black box "upstream" of the sensor system. Because the failure of that component could take down two sensors, the rule was changed to require four-of-four at launch."<br /><br />This is a major modification due to one of the accidents.

 

[askold]

"That is NOT a major LCC change !!"<br /><br /><br />It stopped a launch. Sounds like a major LCC change to me. <br /><br />But worse than that, it introduced the possibility of a single failure aborting a launch. That's bad engineering.

 

[frodo1008]

First of all you are against manned space efforts. But now suddenly you are a manned space launch expert? If the people doing the actual work such as shuttle_guy don't know what they are doing (which I VERY seriously doubt) then what on earth makes the people sitting here on their computers think that they are more qualified then the people actually sitting in front of the launch consoles?<br /><br />If I was an astronaut I can tell you WHO I would want in that position, and it certainly wouldn't be someone who DIDN'T even believe in maneed space in the first place!!!!!!

 

[spacefire]

chill out frodo, everybody is entitled to an opinion here! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[askold]

"...however I do not understand how you think a change from 3 of 4 to 4 of 4 "introduced the possibility of a single failure aborting a launch." <br /><br />What I'm refering to is - since the criteria was changed to 4 out of 4, then a single failure aborts the launch. <br /><br />Related to this, I found another piece of information:<br /><br />"NASA's original launch commit criteria required three operational ECO sensors for a countdown to proceed. But in the wake of the 1986 Challenger disaster, the LCC was amended to four-of-four because of concerns two sensors could be knocked out by a single failure in an upstream electronic black box known as a multiplexer-demultiplexer. The single-point failure was corrected during Discovery's last overhaul, but the four-of-four launch rule remains on the books."<br /><br /><br />That's interesting - it's not clear why the 4/4 criteria remains now that the single-point failure has been removed. As was pointed out in the recently referenced article, if NASA needs 4 good sensors, they should have installed 5 and made the criteria 4 out of 5.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

Ah yes! But then I am entitled to question the motives of someone asking questions! The motives of someone who has clearly stated that he is against the manned apace efforts of NASA itself!

 

[askold]

"...entitled to question the motives..."<br /><br />Motives for asking questions? I'm a Russian spy sent to destroy the US space program ....<br /><br />Listen, if you just want to talk to people who agree with you and share your views, then please feel free to ignore my posts. I won't be offended.

 

[spacester]

" . . . question the motives . . . "<br /><br />Very dangerous territory there, sir. Are yours beyond question in the minds of all those you reach? <br /><br />Is it not possible that a fellow poster could inaccurately question your motives and thus reach incorrect conclusions? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

You started a thread in which you attacked the entire manned space program of NASA. And then you come up with "That's bad engineering." , and you don't think that someone who does support the program will not question your motives? Then you decide to get sarcastic on top of it! You are lucky you are over here in M&L, and not over with the real wolves in free space!<br /><br />Now if you have honest questions about the current problems with the STS system, then that is fine with me. Make it clear that you are not just criticising people, but are genuinely interested, and you will not have to ignore me (or I you) as I am also curious. <br /><br />No one here who even supports NASA in general is saying that they are perfect or above constructive critisizm. <br /><br />Why would RSA want spies anyway?<br />THEY support manned space flight, without any problems with NASA or otherwise!!