Our reactions to NASA's new spacecraft.

[darkenfast]

If you are talking about Kliper, the Russians are NOT designing a runway-landing "space plane". They showed a mockup of a spacecraft that re-enters on it's side; a semi-lifting body. The crew would have to either ride the re-entry G's sitting up (as in the Shuttle), or re-position the couches (especially after long-stays in microgravity). The equivalent of the Service Module and the airlock (a Soyuz Orbital Module), would be jettisoned prior to re-entry, and there would also be an abort system in the rear of the spacecraft. Following re-entry, parachutes would be used for landing. My career in the U.S. Navy involved following the Soviet Union and then Russia, and since the break-up, I have lost count of the "mock-ups" of new ships, submarines, aircraft, and rockets that have been shown to the press, as the successor companies to the old design bureaus try frantically to remain afloat (and can you blame them?). Sometimes, they succeed, but more often, nothing happens. Anyway, hopefully some of our politicians will understand the CEV proposal better than some of the "space cadets" around here. The progresss of the current budget through the Senate is encouraging.

 

[frodo1008]

Once again, (as usual) you totally miss what is going on cost wise don't you? Every one of the items that you mention in your list is going to cost at least 50 billion dollars per year, except the space items!!<br /><br />NASA's ENTIRE budget is only $16 billion per year! The manned portion of that budget is $5 bullion per year, or just about 10% of one of the non space items (and I am being VERY conservative on their costs). Now, just how is cancelling some 10% of a portion of the budget going to make up for the rest????<br /><br />You know that politically if the ISS and shuttle are cancelled that portion of the budget WILL NOT go towards the other space projects!! It will go back into the general fund to VERY partially (although the polititions willl of course say that every little bit helps!) help defray the costs of such items as the war in Iraq. This is EXACTLY what happend in the 1070's with the Viet Nahm war and NASA's budget at that time!! This is why we ended up with such a kluge as the STS system (a magnificent kluge, but a kluge, never the less). But, like other subjects, you are not much of a student of history are you?<br /><br />So, cancelling the ISS will NOT leave more funding for going on to the moon (or even your Zubrinite favorite, Mars). It may even destroy completely what funding there for manned space programs there already is! Fortunately, real experts like Mike Griffin already realize this political reality, and he has no intention of listening to such as yourself!!

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"If you are talking about Kliper, the Russians are NOT designing a runway-landing "space plane". They showed a mockup of a spacecraft that re-enters on it's side; a semi-lifting body."</i><br /><br />And they have a winged variant that will make a runway landing. Since bringing the Europeans on board, that seems to have become the preferred configuration.

 

[josh_simonson]

High on the list of priorities for moon missions is the study of in-situ resource extraction/use. If rocket fuel and water can be produced on the moon (one and the same actually) then it can be relatively easilly launched from the moon and used to fuel and supply ships for longer journeys. This is not flags-footprints, this is the first steps toward building a space infrastructure that lowers the costs of space exploration and access in the future. <br /><br />As far as the rockets go, they're a good start in that they keep much of the existing infrastructure intact (for political reasons), yet are modest and realistic as well. By re-using the existing shuttle infrastructure, it becomes politically difficult for a follow-on administration to cancel the program. That's a very shrewd way to gurantee followthrough over several administrations. The cost may be high compared to other commercial systems, but that's true of anything run by the government - they'll spend all their money and then some no matter what comes of it. This is at least something flexible, practical and useful in return.

 

[barrykirk]

Mike Griffin's plan just has to get us to the moon and get some people up there to start doing some research. By the time it's well under way. We will have the technology for the space elevator.<br /><br />To build the first space-elevator, we need a heavy lift vehicle with the approximate specs of the new heavy lift vehicle we are developing to goto the moon. Imagine that!<br /><br />Once we have space elevator tech. Space flight will become cheap and profitable. Than we can let wall street take over and develop it.

 

[JonClarke]

You just called an idiot someone who spent his life working on space flight. Not a good move.<br /><br />Since your rudeness was in response to a polite and reasoned argument from frodo, have you run out of reasoned, fact-based arguments yourself? <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Calling anyone an idiot is a bad move.

 

[lampblack]

Roger that.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[mattblack]

The only people I've ever called an idiot on this forum is the type who was banned here a few days ago. Insulting someone who merely disagrees with you, especially politely, is a sign of immaturity. <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>

 

[lampblack]

There actually seem to be two issues here. One revolves around whether Frodo's ideas (or yours, or mine) have any particular merit. Who knows? ISS admittedly has become a bit of an albatross -- but it's also true that if they killed the program tomorrow, it's unlikely in the extreme that the funds would be diverted into other space-related programs. They'd probably be used to pave a road somewhere -- or to defray the deficit.<br /><br />The other issue has to do with the importance of civility in expressing disagreement about matters that we all care about deeply. We need to treat each other with respect, even in an internet forum. Otherwise, the conversation breaks down -- and very *human* feelings get hurt for no good purpose.<br /><br />All we know about each other, really, is what we can glean from peering deeply at the words that pop up on our computer monitors. But it's worth keeping in mind that behind every keyboard sits a human being deserving of basic respect.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>