NASA selects crew, cargo launch partners

SpaceKiwi · Aug 21, 2006

I entirely agree. Should Rocketplane Kistler win out, and that's a mighty big if at this point, their own expectation is that services will originate out of the US. As I understand it, the seed money awarded by NASA will help facilitate a 3-launch unmanned test program for Rocketplane Kistler out of Woomera, Australia. One suspects that program of development, and its location in Australia, is a combination of a good 'sell' on the part of Woomera to entice Rocketplane Kistler down, and a desire by Rocketplane Kistler to conduct the potentially hazardous first launches somewhere less densely populated than the United States. Once they have established they can do this without raining destruction down on American citizens and property, the program will be immediately repatriated to the US. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

holmec · Aug 21, 2006

>Yet they're having Boeing build the CEV. Curious. < Griffin is supposed to annouce in September who gets the contract for CEV. Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman-Boeing http://www.space.com/news/060331_cev_nasa_update.html Are you spilling the beans? Or this was an off handed remark? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

SpaceKiwi · Aug 21, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It's 1400km or 20 hrs to Adelaide so add a couple of hours and a couple of hundred kms and that would be close.<hr /></blockquote> Road-trip! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

holmec · Aug 21, 2006

>American taxpayer dollars will be spent in the US. I can't imagine Congress tolerating anything else. < Frankly, I have given up on the "spend your money here" type of nationalism. Its a myth now, we're more of a global economy. I hate to say that but its true. Even in the 70's before 'global economy' was coined we were headed there. So to say money being spent in the US, yes, some will and some overseas. What is the big deal? space is becoming more and more international. To limit to the US is to admit defeat. We need word wide resources. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Aug 21, 2006

>One suspects that program of development, and its location in Australia, is a combination of a good 'sell' on the part of Woomera to entice Rocketplane Kistler down, and a desire by Rocketplane Kistler to conduct the potentially hazardous first launches somewhere less densely populated than the United States. Once they have established they can do this without raining destruction down on American citizens and property, the program will be immediately repatriated to the US.< I highly doubt thats the reason. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

j05h · Aug 21, 2006

>> Once they have established they can do this without raining destruction down on American citizens and property, the program will be immediately repatriated to the US.< /> I highly doubt thats the reason. Correct. They originally chose Woomera 10 years ago because it was cheaper/faster to develop a pad there than in the US. Australia wanted to play ball, and was willing to go easier on environmental issues. There was much more paperwork for Nevada and Florida launch sites. None of this saved Kistler anything in getting their rocket flying. The merger of Rocketplane and Kistler is interesting. It could be two companies just barely scraping along merging in a desperate attempt at relevance, or it could be the re-emergence of a truly interesting space-launch concept. I think SpaceX will beat them to the punch with COTS. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

josh_simonson · Aug 21, 2006

>Frankly, I have given up on the "spend your money here" type of nationalism. Its a myth now, we're more of a global economy. No, it's not. If the government spends $1bln in the US, it gets 1/2 of it back in taxes up front, and what's left will be taxed again when those americans spend it. That will always be the case as long as the world is made up of separate tax pools.

holmec · Aug 22, 2006

>No, it's not. If the government spends $1bln in the US, it gets 1/2 of it back in taxes up front, and what's left will be taxed again when those americans spend it. That will always be the case as long as the world is made up of separate tax pools.< The rest of the story is that you go out and buy stuff...parts etc...and a good percentage of those parts are made overseas. Hence global economy. To pove it just go down to a commercial port and see the size of the containger ships that come in. And they are not comming in from America. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Aug 22, 2006

CNet has a nice gallery of SpaceX and Rockeplane: http://news.com.com/2300-11397_3-6107650-1.html?tag=ne.gall.pg <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

crix · Aug 22, 2006

http://news.com.com/2300-11397_3-6107650-1.html

mrcolumbus · Aug 22, 2006

Question: K-1's second stage with payload is a massive orbital spacecraft - isn't there a mass limit for the station arm to grab and dock it to the ISS? How much does the K-1 second stage weigh (after orbit injection)?

josh_simonson · Aug 22, 2006

>The rest of the story is that you go out and buy stuff...parts etc...and a good percentage of those parts are made overseas. Hence global economy. US imports: $179B, US GDP: $11750B, Federal Tax revenue: $2150B. The federal government collects 12 times as much in taxes as leaves the country buying imports. That means that for every dollar the US government spends in the US, 92% comes back as tax revenue at some point. STS is actually cheaper than soyuz (to the US government) if you take that into account.

holmec · Aug 22, 2006

>Question: K-1's second stage with payload is a massive orbital spacecraft - isn't there a mass limit for the station arm to grab and dock it to the ISS? How much does the K-1 second stage weigh (after orbit injection)?< I'm sure shuttleguy could answer this. But I understand that the arm of the station is heaftier than that of the shuttle and the shuttle one manhandled (so to speak) hubble and large parts of the ISS like putting together the first pieces. It doen't really take that much power to handle large stuff in zero G. By the way the K-1 second stage will have a lot of its weight gone (expended fuel). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Aug 22, 2006

>US imports: $179B, US GDP: $11750B, Federal Tax revenue: $2150B. The federal government collects 12 times as much in taxes as leaves the country buying imports. That means that for every dollar the US government spends in the US, 92% comes back as tax revenue at some point. STS is actually cheaper than soyuz (to the US government) if you take that into account.< And.....? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

josh_simonson · Aug 23, 2006

And hence the 'spend the money here' nationalism.

nyarlathotep · Aug 23, 2006

">Frankly, I have given up on the "spend your money here" type of nationalism. Its a myth now, we're more of a global economy. No, it's not. If the government spends $1bln in the US, it gets 1/2 of it back in taxes up front, and what's left will be taxed again when those americans spend it. " While that may be true, by wasting $1B on a jobs program you remove the production of those highly trained engineers from other areas of the economy. 5,000 engineers could be busy launching 50 rockets for the cost of a single inefficient NASA launch. Or you could just launch one, and have the remaining 4900 engineers performing more productive activities like building highways, railways, telecommunications networks, etc.

j05h · Aug 23, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Question: K-1's second stage with payload is a massive orbital spacecraft - isn't there a mass limit for the station arm to grab and dock it to the ISS? How much does the K-1 second stage weigh (after orbit injection)?<hr /></blockquote> An empty K1 second stage is about 13 tonnes, according to Astronautix. Not really a "massive" spacecraft, and definitely something the station's arm could manipulate. from http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kislerk1.htm Stage Number: 2. 1 x Stage: Kistler Stage 2. Gross Mass: 131,000 kg (288,000 lb). Empty Mass: 13,100 kg (28,800 lb). Thrust (vac): 1,769.100 kN (397,710 lbf). Isp: 348 sec. Burn time: 233 sec. Diameter: 4.27 m (14.00 ft). Span: 4.27 m (14.00 ft). Length: 23.60 m (77.40 ft). Propellants: Lox/Kerosene. No Engines: 1. Engine: NK-43. Status: Development 1997. Comments: Empty mass includes payload bay, heat shield, parachutes, and landing bag for recovery at base. Empty mass calculated based by apportioning total vehicle empty mass. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

mrcolumbus · Aug 23, 2006

Mhhm right, I though the second stage was heavier - but now it makes sense. 13t is certainly within the powers of the arm - the HTV is even heavier.

j05h · Aug 23, 2006

With the K1 2nd stage being LoX and kero, there is a possibility of refueling in orbit using relatively simple hardware. One launch of a K1 Departure Stage, fuelled with 10 launches of K1 Tankers, all fairly easy to store/transfer onorbit. Dock this with whatever capsule/lunar stack is available. IIRC, the ISS's arm is capable of handling the Shuttle and other very heavy objects. Might be wrong, but I think I read it had a 110 ton capacity? It can handle and berth most any craft likely to see service soon. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

holmec · Aug 23, 2006

>And hence the 'spend the money here' nationalism.< Ok. So you equate spending money here to buy stuff that probably was made elsewhere as nationalism when your probably buying from an international supply chain. So your just talking retail. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

josh_simonson · Aug 24, 2006

I guess if you call 0.5% of GDP 'probably made elsewhere'.

holmec · Aug 25, 2006

>I guess if you call 0.5% of GDP 'probably made elsewhere'.< 2012.7 billion dollars in imports for 2004 is nothing to sneeze at. That's 10.8% of GDP for 2004. For 2005 imports are at 6.1%. http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2005_e/its05_byregion_e.pdf http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2006/gdp206a.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

josh_simonson · Aug 25, 2006

Ooops, I had a monthly export number. 10% still doesn't qualify as 'probably' though.

NASA selects crew, cargo launch partners

SpaceKiwi

Guest

holmec

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

j05h

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

crix

Guest

mrcolumbus

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

j05h

Guest

mrcolumbus

Guest

j05h

Guest

holmec

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

holmec

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page