NASA to support ISS through 2020

[halman]

dreada5<br />In reply to:<br /><br />"The future looks bright for private industry. Even if just a few of the spacex's, kistlers, t/spaces, virgin galactics(scaled) or bigelows are successful they will, through market competition, optimise "cheap" and "safe" systems for accessing and operating in LEO quicker and more efficiently than NASA bureaucracy ever could."<br /><br />I am much less optimistic. The rate of progress of the private sector in developing launch vehicles is such that I am wondering if we will see a successful orbital insertion of a payload large enough to support manned space flight in this decade. The only real progress is likely to be in suborbital flights, by Scaled/Virgin Galactic, it looks like. People consistently blame the bureaucracy of NASA for the expense of space flight, but that completely overlooks the incredible difficulties in accelerating in a controlled manner from a standing start to 5 miles per second.<br /><br />Even with government backing, the Arianne program experienced multiple failures. But they were able to attempt launches several times a year, so their learning curve was steep enough that they eventually succeeded on a regular basis. When there is a gap of a year or more between launch attempts, it can take a long time to get everything right.<br /><br />I just hope that the Russian program does not encounter any setbacks, as they are likely to be the only ones with access to space after 2010. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[mattblack]

In my opinion, if they changed an Ares IV-based mission architecture from Lunar Orbit Rendezvous to an L-1 based rendezvous, they could upsize the LSAM mass to something real useful and save a lot of Orion & LSAM LOI propellant to boot. Very similar to the pre-ESAS Boeing final study anyway (4.2 meg download): <br /><br />http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Boeing.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am much less optimistic. The rate of progress of the private sector in developing launch vehicles is such that I am wondering if we will see a successful orbital insertion of a payload large enough to support manned space flight in this decade. The only real progress is likely to be in suborbital flights, by Scaled/Virgin Galactic, it looks like. People consistently blame the bureaucracy of NASA for the expense of space flight, but that completely overlooks the incredible difficulties in accelerating in a controlled manner from a standing start to 5 miles per second. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />SPACEX is scheduled to carry out testing of the dragon capsule before the decade's out, but even if they don't and it slips a couple years, I think it'll be well worth the wait. Doing it properly and safely is paramount. Elon is a smart guy and like Burt Rutan/Branson... he has the ability to deliver!<br /><br />wrt. "difficulties in accelerating in a controlled manner from a standing start to 5 miles per second." I personally think NASA should have invested more in t/space's concept. It has the virtue of eliminating the need for launchpads and risks associated with vertical launches and the concept itself isn't totally alien to NASA, given their X-15 experience and finally it just strikes me as requiring much less time to develop and test because of its simplicity! But I digress. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.view&workid=EE0A866A-F1C1-C18B-7D3CB327BCAF3542