Let's get this party started

[crix]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1048<br /><br />Each article I read like this is a gift. It's so great so read of accelerating schedules to the awesome VSE.<br /><br />I've recently made the decision to apply to a couple Aerospace and Astonautical Engineering masters programs for Fall 2006. :-D I want to know our future space hardware systems intimately.

 

[lunatic133]

At least there's some good news to come out of today! The sooner we move on with the VSE the better. And looks like New Moon Rising has a "sequel" coming out ... can't wait. I havent read NMR yet but I have a copy that I will read as soon as I'm done with Zubrin's Entering Space ... can't read too many space related books at the same time or I get confused as to what happened in which. It looks good so far though, even though i don't really like cowing personally I'm sure his book will be good

 

[lunatio_gordin]

I'm afraid of a dead period like the late 70's...

 

[lunatic133]

Weve been in a dead period for two years and seem to be surviving all right. Better a dead period working towards something better than just to maintain the old status quo

 

[lunatio_gordin]

This period was more like the time after challenger than the time after Skylab. Last mission was, I believe, Apollo Soyuz. That's 1975. Shutlle launches for the first time in 81. that's 6 years of no spaceflight at all. As much support as NASA lost after the moon landings, they lost far more by having nothing going on.<br /><br />not to mention it's exceedingly boring for us. and a dead space could lead to what we all fear, a more permanent dead period. The dark age of Manned spaceflight. *shudder*

 

[j05h]

The problem is that they've had two years of down-time to "start" something and all that's come out are viewgraphs. If O'Keefe had said "We've got the Shuttle standdown, so find another way to orbit.", we would be at least half-way there. Instead, it's 2 years later and nothing is being built. This, to me, is a continuation of the charade that has included NASP, X-33/Venturestar, X-34, X-42, OSP and the current Shuttle standdown. They've burned through BILLION$ without flying anything, but constituents and LockMartBoeingGrumDraper sure are happy. <br /><br />This is rant-astic, but they (NASA and partners) should be ashamed. They have wasted, absolutely wasted, our money for decades. What have we gotten from it? Some very cool robots and a whole lot more viewgraphs. Where are the moonbases, the Mars outposts and the SPS demonstrators? Viewgraphs only. Shameful.<br /><br />The only bright hope in manned spaceflight are SpaceShipOne's babysteps and the America's Space Prize. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[john_316]

You are correct Jo5h but I think that what we need to look at here is the way the NASA bueracacy was and how it stymied the engineers perspective of things. All the blame is not soley on NASA either. You must remember the polictica gambit here as well.<br /><br />The CEV if it is a capsule may need to take a test flight before it flys because we havent down an ablative shield on a capsule since skylab. So we need to take some more baby steps because we haven't flown a capsule in 30 years. <br /><br />Now it its a lifting body design then I can see using a tile blanket or what have you. But we still need to get it designed and built. I have some faith in these contractors and the designers behind the CEV design. <br /><br />Its a sad thought to have to retire the shuttles but not only is saftey a concern its also when the populace starts saying its time to do it too. Not juts the president.<br /><br />These CEV can be built as I had posted in previous posts years ago in a variety of configurations when we had post on the OSP and X-38 CRV back then before the harddrive crashes.<br /><br />Like I said I can see the CEV as both a CRV and CTV not just a taxi to ISS/LEO but with a service module and other "things" to make it like apollo but even better.<br /><br />We need to get the CEV flying before 2010 its already 2005 and closing in on 2006...<br /><br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Weve been in a dead period for two years and seem to be surviving all right.</font>/i><br /><br />Of course, this time the U.S. has had a person in orbit continuously during the "down time". While ISS receives criticism, it is up there and is manned. Also, the Mars rovers have delivered a lot of data and excitement. And of course there is Cassini-Huygens.<br /><br />Also, for most of this time there has been a plan to move beyond where we have been (VSE). The downtime from Apollo was more like, "after many years of no access, we will be doing even less (LEO orbit) than before (men on the Moon)." <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Not much to get excited about.<br /><br />To summarize: this downtime has also had a lot of excitement, a continued US presence in space, and something new and exciting to look forward to.</i>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Phased retirement of the Space Shuttle<br /><br />Very interesting. I was wondering how the heck Griffin was going to develop a HLV and have his CEV too. Early retirement of the Shuttle is one way to come up with the money. And with phased retirement of the Shuttle orbiters Griffin can keep the Shuttle system flying until 2010.<br /><br />For a crude estimation of the money saved, let's assume the current 3 Shuttle fleet costs an average of 5 billion per year to run. That comes to a cost of 25 billion dollars by the 2010 retirement date. The new leaked plan retires one orbiter in 2007, another in 2009 and the final orbiter in 2010. I'm guessing the amount saved by the phased early retirement plan is 4 billion dollars.<br /><br />With that much money it should be possible to have at least a LEO version of a CEV and it's booster rocket operational by 2010. An inline SDHLV development will more likely take at least until 2015 to finish (I still think HLV is a waste of money).

 

[wvbraun]

"An inline SDHLV development will more likely take at least until 2015 to finish"<br /><br />That's probably correct. But if they begin the pad modifications around 2007 and make sure the Shuttle fleet can't be brought back when the next president takes office in 2009 it's unlikely that the project will be cancelled.

 

[wvbraun]

Has the shuttle peaked?<br /><br /><br /><i>''I was asking myself earlier today, could I find a single electronics box in my house that is 25 years old and still works?'' Griffin told journalists on Tuesday. "The answer is no.''<br /><br />Later, Griffin compared the shuttle program to NASA's X-15 program of the 1950s and '60s: "We conducted 199 flights with that and had one loss of crew. Nobody ever thought it was anything but a test program. I think we need to adopt that attitude with the shuttle for the remaining years of its useful service."</i><br /><br /><br />I agree. The fuel sensor glitch is quite an embarrassment for NASA IMO (not to mention the window cover that fell of and damaged the TPS). The Space Shuttle is getting too old, it needs to be retired before it can kill any more people. Another Shuttle desaster would probably end manned spaceflight for several years, maybe decades.