NASA/USAF to dev commercial space roadmap

[docm]

Looks like an expansion of CCDev....

Link....

NASA teams with Air Force to step up commercial space pace

NASA partners with US Air Force to develop commercial space roadmap

As it looks to significantly reshape its future, NASA today said it would partner with the US Air Force Research Laboratory to develop a technology roadmap for use of reusable commercial spaceships.

The study of reusable launch vehicles, or RLVs will focus on identifying technologies and assessing their potential use to accelerate the development of commercial reusable launch vehicles that have improved reliability, availability, launch turn-time, robustness and significantly lower costs than current launch systems, NASA stated. The study results will provide roadmaps with recommended government technology tasks and milestones for different vehicle categories.

NASA and the Air Force will begin the study by soliciting feedback from the emerging commercial space industry regarding emerging or existing technologies that would most benefit their existing and near-term space vehicle systems.

That list could include any number of commercial space firms from Xcor and Scaled Composites to Orbital and SpaceX.

According to NASA it will look at four categories of space vehicles to develop its roadmap:

1.Reusable, sub-orbital vehicles
2.Expendable and partially reusable, orbital vehicles
3.Reusable, two-stage orbital vehicles
4.Advanced vehicle concepts, such as single stage to orbit, air-breathing systems, in-flight refueling, and tethered upper stage
>
>

 

[scottb50]

Looks like an expansion of CCDev....

Link....

NASA teams with Air Force to step up commercial space pace

NASA partners with US Air Force to develop commercial space roadmap

As it looks to significantly reshape its future, NASA today said it would partner with the US Air Force Research Laboratory to develop a technology roadmap for use of reusable commercial spaceships.

The study of reusable launch vehicles, or RLVs will focus on identifying technologies and assessing their potential use to accelerate the development of commercial reusable launch vehicles that have improved reliability, availability, launch turn-time, robustness and significantly lower costs than current launch systems, NASA stated. The study results will provide roadmaps with recommended government technology tasks and milestones for different vehicle categories.

NASA and the Air Force will begin the study by soliciting feedback from the emerging commercial space industry regarding emerging or existing technologies that would most benefit their existing and near-term space vehicle systems.

That list could include any number of commercial space firms from Xcor and Scaled Composites to Orbital and SpaceX.

According to NASA it will look at four categories of space vehicles to develop its roadmap:

1.Reusable, sub-orbital vehicles
2.Expendable and partially reusable, orbital vehicles
3.Reusable, two-stage orbital vehicles
4.Advanced vehicle concepts, such as single stage to orbit, air-breathing systems, in-flight refueling, and tethered upper stage
>
>

This reminds me of the famous saying in aviation circles: Hi! I'm from the FAA and I'm here to help you.

So now not only do we have to get to LEO we have to fund and put up with bureaucrats telling us what to do because someone wrote it in a big book they follow to the letter.

 

[Jazman1985]

short of funding someone to develop a launch system or individual technologies for them, this is the last thing NASA needs to be getting involved in with regards to commercial space development. Waste of time, either pay someone to do something for you, or sit back and watch.

 

[SpaceForAReason]

Actually, this is precisely the thing NASA needs to be involved in. FAA is quite involved in the airline industry. NASA should be involved in the spaceliner industry. It is about time NASA handed off to the private industry, and it is important they be involved to do that.

 

[nimbus]

I'm only repeating what I hear, but 9 times out of 10, comments on the FAA are very negative. This is from pilots, and people like Carmack of Armadillo. Latest FAA-Armadillo anecdote is below.. See for yourself:
http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=16004

 

[scottb50]

Actually, this is precisely the thing NASA needs to be involved in. FAA is quite involved in the airline industry. NASA should be involved in the spaceliner industry. It is about time NASA handed off to the private industry, and it is important they be involved to do that.

NASA doesn't build things, private industry builds it for them, they already issue the specification and control compliance. What the want to do now is regulate those who are not building things for them but for themselves and other private users. That's what the FAA does, they don't run an airline and impose requirements on the builders of their airliners, they impose requirements on both the builder and operator and put people in charge of overseeing it who have little or no actual knowledge of what they are doing.

As an example, a number of years ago, when I was flying out of Albuquerque an FAA avionics inspector grounded an Air Midwest Metroliner because he observed superficial cracks in the ventral fin and grounded the aircraft. It took hours to find a real inspector who actually dealt with Air Midwest and the particular aircraft and understood it was not a problem.
It would be nice if the FAA and other regulators recruited people with knowledge of what they are doing, but the old axiom that those that can do it and those that can't teach comes to mind. Nothing gets done when the major part of the day is spent complying with beurocratic red tape, just look at the Lear Fan and Starship, they meet one criteria and another is added until they either go out of business or no longer meet the criteria they started out with and lose their market.

 

[SpaceForAReason]

Obviously the system is not perfect. Any time you have more than one individual making decisions there is chaos. It only gets worse the more people you add.

However, the purpose of the FAA still remains noble despite the imperfections. The idea is that we get people to cooperate for proper operation and safety. The fact that we have misunderstandings is a very human issue that is not likely to go away.

The moral of the story is: If you can't get rid of it, you must learn to deal with it the best way that you can.

Not easy, but it is possible.