<i> I happen to be capable of looking at proposal on it's merits instead of this mindless knee jerk reaction of "Me not like him, so me not like anything him say" that is all too common in both political parties today. </i><br /><br />I don't think this post was directed toward me specifically, but I hope that you will give me more credit than that. I am capable of forming an opinion based on the merits of the proposal alone. And, in fact, the inline "Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle" is one part of the plan that I do think is a good idea. I just happen to feel that we need a more worthy replacement for STS than a capsule on top of an SRB. It's a shame that nobody is willing to even consider a "Shuttle II", as I feel we could get a hell of a vehicle with today's technology. As I said, I think SDHLV is a good idea, and I agree with separating our heavy lift capability from our crew transport capability. So, I wouldn't propose another "space plane" designed to haul 50,000 lb of payload to LEO. But a small, safe, reliable, and affordable space plane is well within our reach.<br /><br />And, btw, I worked on the X-33 program briefly, and I do have some appreciation for the technical hurdles facing such a program. It's a shame, though, that we can no longer take on such challenges in this nation.
- Status
The VSE is a broad outline, the ESAS is starting to fill in the details in that outline. At first it looked at different options before settling on what could be realistically done with available funding. That is called reality.<br /><br />Sorry if reality clashes with the alt.space pie in the sky, that is what happens to daydreams.<br /><br />
<font color="yellow">"...my generation, besides worshiping reality TV, is trying to accomplish what your generation already has accomplished 30 years ago...instead of moving forward. <br />and you think that's OK."</font><br /><br />First, you need to prove that you can do what that generation did. Then, if you can manage that, it will be time to move forward. But I wonder about a generation that seems to believe "Reality TV" is really reality and can't seem to separate entertainment fantasies from real world practicalities. I hope you have what it takes to move forward. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
The knee jerk BS is common in BOTH parties. If Clinton had proposed the exact same VSE in 1996 there would have been a pack of Republicans that would have hated it for no other reason than Clinton was for it. Such is the sorry state of politics today.<br /><br />Congress was most unhappy with the original 4 year gap between the last flight of the Shuttle in 2010 and the first flight of the CEV in 2014. Unhappy on BOTH sides of the aisle. NASA had to close that gap, and going with a proven basic design allowed them to shave 2 years off the gap. Even with the gap cut in half Griffin had a hard time keeping the Senate from mandating that the Shuttle be flown until the CEV was ready in the NASA Authorization Act. That would have meant even less funds for the CEV and the SDHLV at a time when they were needed most. Even if you disagree with the technical merits of a capsule you can't ignore the political and budget realities that made another attempt at a spaceplane an impossibility.<br /><br />
<font color="yellow">"The system has gotten too bloated and functions only to ensure its survival."</font><br /><br />As little as about a year ago I would have totally agreed with this statement. I still believe that the biggest obstacle to spaceflight is the fact that there are more workers on NASA's payroll than necessary.<br /><br />And, like you, I would have preferred seeing the new architecture include a true spacecraft that would stay in space and travel back and forth between the Earth and the Moon taking passengers and cargo routinely between the two bodies. Kinda like a space station only it doesn't just stay in LEO.<br /><br />But an overabundance of redundant, overpaid workers is a hallmark of government agencies and it would probably take a revolution to change that. That's the way it is. But now Dr. Griffin comes in with a new plan and, despite the realities of bloated government beauracracy, is presenting us with a plan to go beyond LEO that is, IIRC, one of the least expensive plans ever put forth by NASA at least in terms of annual funding requirements. No, it doesn't include my hoped for Earth-Moon Ferry, but oh, well. At least it'll get the job done and not require a major budget increase. I consider that fact alone worth supporting.<br /><br />And the absolute truth is, as others have pointed out repeatedly, that either the space community, whether it be alt.space or old school traditional, established space enthusiasts, need to support this plan or else it will be a long time before another opportunity to go beyond LEO comes along. There's no need to become a NASA cheerleader, but it would be wise to reconsider any negativity to the plan or you might get your wish and not have that plan...or any plan at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
"I'm closer to being a Goldwater Republican than anything else"---------------------------------NO,GOLDWATER NO! I like Nelson Rockefeller or William Scranton
This is somewhat difficult as I wasn't even replying to your post, but to one by spacefire (you can read, can't you?)!<br /><br />I will apologise here, I really didn't mean your entire generation, just people like yourself, who seem to have nothing to do except to sit before a keyboard and carp at others dreams! <br /><br />Actually, as I fully support Mike Griffin and NASA, and it is now (2005) instead of then (1965), and the current people of NASA who have to deal with the reality of budget restrictions on the one hand, and young people who grow tired of just being in LEO, then I guess that I actually support the dreams of younger people after all, as does John Young and a lot of us other older people!! <br /><br />If you don't want the support of us older psople, do try to remember one very important fact, "OLD PEOPLE VOTE!", which is why nobody is going to play around with social security. So I would guess that it might be a good thing that older people like myself support NASA and its current dreams, huh???<br /><br />
<font color="yellow">It's a shame, though, that we can no longer take on such challenges in this nation. </font><br /><br />Ah, but we can and we are taking on the challenge of developing a space plane, several of them in fact.<br /><br />But since these are not government programs, they don't seem to have much of an impact on your reality. <br /><br />This nation has decided, in its own stumbling way, that space plane development is for the private sector. The pure private sector. Only by developing the design in the crucible of free-market performance can we forge an economical space plane.<br /><br />Maybe it ends up being true that these things can only be done by government programs. I don't think so for a moment, but a lot of other folks seem to, and I respect that. But what's the harm in others trying? Maybe not everything will work out as badly as Loral did <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />More importantly, maybe the folks at the alt.space companies are actually the cream of the crop. Maybe they are the ones who left NASA because they wanted to get something done. That happens to be what I hear over and over again about many of the technical people at the major alt.space players. Others come from ‘outside the industry’ which can only be good as long as those folks are in fact good at what needs to be done.<br /><br />So maybe the next time you consider that only the government can pull off the development of a space plane, remember that there are very likely folks out there smarter than the folks at NASA and organized into efficient development teams by the discipline of the marketplace.<br /><br />Yeah, it’s a shame that we don’t get a government space plane. I wanted one too. But if you want it to be small and reliable and affordable, you want a private space plane. That’s just the way it is, as it turns out.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
On the topic subject, the question seems to be how much of an endorsement / buy-in / commitment this represents.<br /><br />If this AREV (Atmospheric Re-entry Experimental Vehicle) doesn't fly til 2007, doesn't that mean the Russians will still be knocking at the door trying to get Klipper sold more completely? I could even see how this contract could be seen as a way to placate the Russians for a while.<br /><br />Or is this closer to a firm commitment to Klipper than the above speculation?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
You are correct. And at least I do apologize for getting off topic. I have noticed lately a tendency by some of those that adamantly oppose the VSE to sarcastically inject some negative remark about it on just about every thread (which is usually what starts these off topic acidic argument types of flame war discussions)! This is just why the T.O. insists upon people at least making a reasonable attempt to stay on topic!<br /><br />So, I will state that I am not just for NASA and its VSE, but I do think that it is truly terrific that the ESA is going to cooperate with the Russians in developing the Klipper (which will not be in competition with the VSE as they are being designed for different purposes). This cooperation is generally in the best form for the always cash strapped, but technologically very competent Russian space program. It is mainly in the form of financial assistance, very thoughtful and intelligent of the Europeans!<br /><br />This also gives us a chance to actually look at what a lifting body type of Earth to LEO system (without the faults of the shuttle) can really do, and thus should hopefully help to satisfy those who do support such a craft!<br /><br />Now, for myself, I like ANYTHING that gets humanity into space! And thus, I dislike those who don’t seem to have anything better to do than to complain about one effort or the other!<br /><br />I actually believe that horizontal take off and landing, single stage to LEO, lifting body type of craft, designed like the National Aerospace Plane concept of the late 1980's to launch by flying from conventional airports all over the world will eventually be adopted as the means to lower the cost of a pound of material from Earth to LEO to something like $1,000 per pound, and even lower, depending on the number of such flights from those airports. However, there is a great deal of relatively expensive development ahead before such a vehicle becomes a reality. The complexity of such a craft is far, far g
because LEO is "halfway to anywhere". Getting a lot of stuff cheaply to LEO=getting a lot of stuff cheaply anywhere else in the solar system and beyond. What is so difficult [to understand] about that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
It takes a lot more to get half way there than hot air and constant whining, or you would have accomplished it a long time ago.<br /><br />
me? what does this have to do with me? who exactly are you referring to with "you"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<font color="yellow"><b>Europe selects Kliper look-a-like for testing</b><br /><br />A vehicle resembling Russia’s Kliper has been selected to be studied under the European Space Agency’s Atmospheric Re-entry Experimental Vehicle (AREV) project. A scale model could be launched to 150km (93 miles) and would orbit once or twice before re-entering.<br /><br />The AREV could fly on ESA’s Vega small launch vehicle from the Kourou spaceport in French Guiana and land at the Woomera test range in Australia. Vega’s maiden flight is scheduled to take place in 2007. The AREV could also fly on a Russian Rockot launcher and then land in Kiruna, Sweden.<br /><br />Kliper is a six-crew reusable spacecraft proposed by Moscow-based Energia. ESA is proposing to work with Russia’s Federal Space Agency to develop the Kliper as part of its Aurora long-term space exploration programme.<br /><br />The final AREV selection was presented to ESA last month. “We expect to publish the AREV report’s executive summary soon,” says Federico Massobrio, a project manager with Alcatel Alenia Space, the company leading the study.</font><br /><br /><br />For future reference you might want to read the article before posting the title.
<i>I actually believe that horizontal take off and landing, single stage to LEO, lifting body type of craft, designed like the National Aerospace Plane concept of the late 1980's to launch by flying from conventional airports all over the world will eventually be adopted as the means to lower the cost of a pound of material from Earth to LEO to something like $1,000 per pound, and even lower, depending on the number of such flights from those airports. However, there is a great deal of relatively expensive development ahead before such a vehicle becomes a reality. The complexity of such a craft is far, far greater than even the shuttle!</i><br /><br />We need NASA to perform that expensive development. That's where the private sector cannot be expected to bear the burden of the tremendous R&D costs, and that's exactly where organizations like NASA are supposed to come in. But there will be no money for such development if we're spending the bulk of NASA's budget on "proven technology" for expensive excursions to the moon.<br /><br />And, yes, I can read, thank you very much!
<font color="yellow">The complexity of such a craft is far, far greater than even the shuttle! </font><br /><br />That is why it is a flawed concept to develop such a vehicle on a government program.<br /><br />You cannot achieve low cost with high complexity. I am amazed that some people are still in love with the concept of complexity as a good thing.<br /><br />The only way to make a SSTO economically viable is to somehow find the simplicity on the other side of complexity. Somehow you've got to outsmart the rocket equation - I assume you've done the math on SSTO? - in such a way that you end up with a simple vehicle.<br /><br />IMO only the discipline of the marketplace can drive the design to the simplicity on the other side of complexity. A government program cannot do that project, at least not from the point we are at this point in time.<br /><br />The strategic imperative for assured access to space for government personnel over-rides all else at this point in time and we’re getting the CEV as a result. Meanwhile, the market is being developed to support the kind of flight rate many think is essential to make the space plane work economically. Sub-orbital, then orbital, adventure tourism will provide the social framework needed to support the funding to take the next step and get the cheap SSTO Space Plane. Let the efficient space planes be built by for-profits, let the elegant super duper space plane wait until its time arrives. Let it be.<br /><br />How about that ESA / Klipper deal, anyway, huh?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
"And, yes, I can read, thank you very much!"<br /><br />Read yes, but can you comprehend it? So far you are having as much trouble doing that as Gaetano.<br /><br />We need something that works. Is that too hard for you to understand?<br /><br />We don't have time to fart around with prototypes. We can't afford another failed spaceplane because that darn well could be the last manned vehicle that NASA would be given a chance to play with for a long time.<br /><br />We can't bet the space program on a concept that has produced one failure after another.<br /><br />
Did you read all of my post? I made comments about the ESA/Russian Klipper deal! I already stated that I am all for anything that gets humanity into space. For all I care it could be a giant sling shot!<br /><br />But for NASA there are practical and political realities that some on these boards (not yourself as you have already stated support for NASA and the VSE) do not seem to have any knowledge about at all!<br /><br />The area of hypersonic flight and scramjet types of engines is going to have to be researched before such a space plane can be built. There IS no magic bullet here, the laws of physics, particularily those pertaining to friction heat at high speeds in the Earth's atmosphere dictate that. And they are even more demanding that politics is! Also, the so called rocket equations make it very difficult to get a reasonable payload out of any SSTO type of craft. These are the items that make it difficult to just come up with one simple SSTO type of practical vehicle. I am really sorry, I actually wish it were otherwise!!
Sorry frodo, yes I read all your post, we’re saying basically the same thing. I was addressing vt_hokie and just used that one line of yours, which he also quoted, as my starting point.<br /><br />I think that pure research on hypersonic flight (Mathematics and Theory) needs to be relatively well-funded, and IIRC there is an ongoing program to get more hypersonic data, and that should be continued as well. But other than that, put it on the back burner until CEV launches. At that time there will be some space tourism going on and the resulting altered perspective will better inform a clever design for the super duper gummint space plane.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Hi frodo<br /><br />I agree 100% with what you said.<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>
"The Lifting Body concept was patented in 1921 by Vincent Burnelli. The Space Plane concept dates back to the German Silver Bird bomber of the 1930s, which used a lifting body along with small wings. The Capsule concept dates back to NACA research for warheads in 1952 and NASA's patent on the blunt reentry manned Mercury capsule was filed in 1958. Capsules are the newer and more advanced concept." -- Dobbins.<br /><br />Equating a lifting body airplane to a hypersonic reentry lifting body spacecraft? What a load. While you are at it, why don't you sing the praises of the 'advanced' Vostok spherical capsule.<br /><br />In truth the ballistic capsule is about as advanced and sophisticated as a cannon ball.<br /><br />Here is some real history...<br /><br />"The original idea of lifting bodies was conceived about 1957 by Dr. Alfred J. Eggers Jr., then the assistant director for Research and Development Analysis and Planning at what later became the NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.(then called the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory).Eggers found that by slightly modifying a symmetrical nose cone shape, aerodynamic lift could be produced. This lift would enable the modified shape to fly back from space rather than plunge to Earth in a ballistic trajectory." --<br />http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/Lifting/index.html <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
"In truth the ballistic capsule is about as advanced and sophisticated as a cannon ball."<br /><br />Then why are the spaceplane fan boys terrified at the idea of NASA building a capsule? That fear alone is proof that deep down the spaceplane fan boys know will prove it's superiority and make everyone except sci-fi fanatics forget about playing with spaceplanes. You didn't see people who are aware of a capsule's advantages run around pitching these screaming hissy fits when NASA was sinking money into one failed spaceplane after another, unlike spaceplane fan boys they weren't peeing in their pants in fear that one of the things might fly and show it was better than a capsule.<br /><br />"The original idea of lifting bodies was conceived about 1957 by Dr. Alfred J. Eggers Jr"<br /><br />Think, if you can get past your emotional state of drooling over spaceplanes, how did Sanger include the lifting body in his 1930s silverbird bomber design in the 1930s if it wasn't dreamed up until 1957? Was he psychic or something? The NASA site is incorrect, there was nothing original about Eggers idea.<br /><br />
<font color="yellow">Then why are the spaceplane fan boys terrified at the idea of NASA building a capsule?</font><br />you put way too much feelings into our hearts 
<br />we are not 'terrified', and the lifting re-entry concept is alive and well thanks to the Kliper program.<br />We are just dissapointed that NASA chose a capsule design instead of the more promising lifting body. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<br />we are not 'terrified', and the lifting re-entry concept is alive and well thanks to the Kliper program.<br />We are just dissapointed that NASA chose a capsule design instead of the more promising lifting body. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>If it's more promising then why has it produced a string of failures dating back to the Orient Express?<br /><br />
<i>Then why are the spaceplane fan boys terrified at the idea of NASA building a capsule? That fear alone is proof that deep down the spaceplane fan boys know will prove it's superiority and make everyone except sci-fi fanatics forget about playing with spaceplanes.</i><br /><br />No, my fear is that NASA will continue to waste money operating and maintaining expensive, antiquated hardware and have no money for development of cutting edge technology. It will be disappointing to see the United States left behind by other nations as we're busy flying half a dozen astronauts on our multi-billion dollar capsules a couple of times per year, and eating up the entire NASA budget doing so.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
-
Could that be Santa's sleigh? Early risers can spot the ISS from the UK this Christmas
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram