Positive on Griffins new Vision

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

barrykirk

Guest
I know that a lot of people posting on these web sites have been nitpicking this or that little detail of Griffin's "Apollo on Steroids" approach, but I do believe that if you asked those same people, do you approve or disappprove. The overwhelming majority would approve of the new vision.<br /><br />I know that i've posted quite a bit here lately nitpicking this or that little aspect. Couldn't this be done better here. Or couldn't that be done better there.<br /><br />But, now there is a plan!!!! And for me it is one I can get excited about!!!!<br /><br />It is also a plan that has provisions for a lot of flexability. By 2018 once we start flying to the moon. We should be in a position to incrementally improve the system, by adding a tweak here or a tweak there.<br /><br />Remember that Dr. Griffin has also stated that he is actively encourging the private enterprise guys to contribute and compete.<br /><br />They may beat NASA to the moon and I would like to see that, but they may also help accelerate NASA to the moon earlier and I would like to see that also. It's a win-win situation.<br /><br />I've heard some criticsm about, it's just a capsule, but that also provides a lot of flexability too. By the time that capsule flies, it may and probably will bear no resembalence to what is being proposed now. Again I think that the private enterprise guys will have a huge input there.<br /><br />OK, getting off my soapbox now.
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
The only way it won't resemble what we see now is if they do endless redesigns, as was done with Freedom/ISS, thus causing schedule slippages and cost overruns. <br /><br />My biggest problem is that by setting the bar so low, this plan assures that all I will see from NASA in the next 20 years is an Apollo style tin can capsule launched with 1970's vintage shuttle technology. Because this antiquated system will eat up the lion's share of the budget, any dreams of true advances in spaceflight are dead for likely another generation. <br /><br />Reagan's call for an "Orient Express" of the skies was a real vision. This "VSE" is not, imo. I see it as more of an obstacle to progress.
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
What Dr. Griffin's new vision gives us is a real Heavy Launch Vehicle with expandability. Something the shuttle never had. Need more lift capability, just add a couple more SRBs. I don't know what the final potential is for a maxed out system.<br /><br />Why am I so interested in a Heavy Launch Vehicle?<br /><br />Because, I believe that the only way the common man will ever get to space is if they build a space elevator.<br /><br />Now there are several components that we need before we can build a space elevator.<br /><br />1) Really good, cheap, and long carbon nanotubes.<br /><br />2) Something to launch the elevator cable.<br /><br />People are doing a lot of research on the carbon nanotubes... there are a lot of other commercial applications.<br /><br />Who knows, we may be able to do some of that research on board the ISS. I've heard some people say that it may turn out that the only way to grow good nanotubes is in zero G. If that is the case, then we will need something to boost our raw materials and the nanotube factory into orbit.<br /><br />Either way, without a heavy lift vehicle we can't build a space elevator. Once the first elevator is built, we can use that to build the next one. It's a bootstrap operation.<br /><br />So, am I happy with Dr. Griffin's new vision. You bet I am!!!!
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Reagan's call for an 'Orient Express' of the skies was a real vision."</font><br /><br />So how did that Orient Express thing work out anyway? The best thing about Griffin's plan is it looks real. It looks like something that will happen. I'll take reality over fantasy. The limiting factor for NASA is not guts or vision but MONEY. There is no additional money. They'll be lucky to hold on to what they have. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kane007

Guest
Plus the Oreint Express - NASP - is still waiting for the development of that vary special material - Unobtanium.<br /><br /><font color="red">DO NO HARM</font>/safety_wrapper>
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
Scramjets work up to Mach 8 - Mach 10 without "unobtanium". Maybe we can't get one into orbit, but we should be working toward new high speed commercial transports and such in addition to new space vehicles. <br /><br />And if we took the approach of never trying to push the boundaries of technology, we would all still be living in caves.
 
K

kane007

Guest
Sorry, not clear enough. Not referring to heat resistant material. But the combination of really light, strong, and heat resistant = unobtanium.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
<font color="yellow">Scramjets work up to Mach 8 - Mach 10 without "unobtanium". Maybe we can't get one into orbit, but we should be working toward new high speed commercial transports and such in addition to new space vehicles.<br /><br /><font color="white">Why?<br /><br />If I want to go abroad I book a flight on easy jet, £20. Job done.<br /><br />If I want to talk to someone abroad I'll sent an email or maybe skype them, fractions of pence per min. Job done.<br /><br />If I really must talk to them now I call long distance, tens of pence per min. All sorted.<br /><br />Why would I pay thousands of pounds for a seat on the son of Concorde just to get there a little sooner? SCRAM jets are for military applications, missiles etc. Let the military develop them.<br /></font></font>
 
R

rfoshaug

Guest
A good article on "The cold equations of spaceflight":<br /><br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zy.html <br /><br />That's probably why even modern rockets will have to look like tin cans instead of futuristic space planes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
The shuttle was a tractor trailer, unfortunately it turns out that we don't really need a tractor trailer (yet). The CEV is a sport utility vehicle. Small, rugged, can go off the beaten path.<br /><br />If you go shopping for a new car you usually won't be comparing SUV's with tractor trailers. They do two very different jobs. Why do people insist on comparing the CEV and its associated launchers with the shuttle? Or with an as yet undeveloped spaceplane (a flashy sports car)? As much as we space cadets may hate to admit it space is still a wilderness. In the wilderness you need tried and true tools that you can count on. Tools that are not too expensive ('cause things get lost and destroyed in the wilderness), and that are easy to fix ('cause stuff gets broke in the wilderness). Compare Amundson's successful dog sled and fur parka trek to the south pole to Scotts' disastrous steam tractors, woven cloth clothing, and "full technological might of the British Empire" approach. Amundson "won" because his technology was tailored to the job at hand. It didn't matter that much of that technology was thousands of years old.<br /><br />Its kind of strange to hear people deride SDLVs for having "vintage 70s shuttle technology" then turn around and praise the reliability of the Soyuz booster which is basically a beefed up V2!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts