- Status
gawin":173x3l8q said:
The SRB was used because it was proven technology. And it was cheaper than using something new. 2,500 jobs will be lost. This is never how we did NASA space exploration, leaving it all to private companies.
Your basis for saving Constellation is the assumption that Congress would properly fund it... and your basis for assuming Congress would properly fund Constellation is the assumption that Congress would properly fund Constellation. :lol:Jacksonjr0458":i3xmxsmf said:
menellom":2mi9it1i said:
No it's not. If they want to save it they will probably fund it, is my assumtion.
Lighten up.
:lol:
Jacksonjr0458":36vwlhzx said:
Falcon 9 if sucessful will have cost less then 1 bil. (I will give you this is a BIG if but so is Ares. 2/3 parachutes fail on flight 1 so its not off to a good start.)
The total estimated cost to develop the Ares I through 2015 has risen from $28 billion in 2006 to more than $40 billion in 2009
so your quote as far as cheaper then something new needs some more backing.
You are rite that NASA was not run this way in the past.... or was it....
Did NASA make the North American X-15 to help study high speeds and reentry... no they helped a private company do so.
Did NASA make the Mercury rocket or was it a private companies missile that was revamped for humans to ride on.
Did NASA make the Boeing X-48 Blended wing... no but they are helping test the concepts.
You can go on and on and see all over where NASA and private companies have worked hand in hand in all forms of Flight not just space. This is a chance to do this all over again. NASA helps out private companies for the manned mission and resupply to LEO and this frees them up to do even MORE research into new and exciting areas.
gawin":36da4fuw said:
Hey... I am all for SpaceX... and I hope all the luck in the world for them... and the key word here is luck, but if they prove themselves unworthy... I still don't think we should give up on them!
jakethesnake":3ustya60 said:NASA cancels KSC contract leading to charge “Obama broke law”
Let the battle begin…
One thing that is becoming glaringly obvious is that Obama does not understand what is meant by “Separation of Powers”… It looks as if Obama believes that his authority as the President of the United States of America overrides that of the Judicial and Legislative branches of government.
What Obama doesn’t seem to get is that his authority is neither greater nor less than the Legislative or Judicial branches of the government, they are equal i.e. “Seperation of Powers” and with 27 bipartisan members of Congress weighing in on the side of Constellation it looks to be a real battle and another wake up call for Mr. Obama.
This man is seemingly beyond reproach, and he didn’t get it when he tried to shove a nationalized heath care systems down our throat, or when he disrespected the Supreme Court in front of the entire country during his State of the Union address.
A copy of the letter to Charles Bolden from Congress can be found here.
http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blo ... 5-2010.pdf
From the Orlando Sentinel
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_s ... ponse.html
From the Orlando Sentinel
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_s ... ation.html
From Spacenews.com
From Floridatoday.com
Legislators Allege NASA, Obama In Violation Of Law
http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blo ... a-in.shtml
Perhaps you don't realize that, while Congress appropriates the money, the administration operates the agencies. Congress passes spending bills which may itemize what the money is for, but those are not contracts.
gawin":etqlz4jx said:
For LEO it may be cheaper, but for moon travel it will not be. A whole new spacecraft will be needed for moon travel for private companies. The parachutes are an esay fix, they know why they failed. The rocket did very well. Spacex has lost 3/5 falcon 1s! Falcon 9 will probably be trial and error too. No time for that. Sure, NASA has private companies make it's spacecraft a lot of times, but we never let them make them for themselves and NASA have little involvement. They are not making spacecraft for NASA, NASA has no spaceship.
Jacksonjr0458":z221ade1 said:
This is one of my favorite quotes people use to defend NASA and not to give credit where credit is due for a NEW rocket system from scratch 3 out of 5...... how about this figure 8 out of 11 LOST!!!!!!! hmm and that was a govt project with a new system it was the Vanguard Rocket.. maybe you have herd of it. New system trial and error.
1. Vanguard TV3 - December 6, 1957 - Failed to orbit 1.36 kg (3 lb) satellite
2. Vanguard TV3 Backup - February 5, 1958 - Failed to orbit 1.36 kg (3 lb) satellite
3. Vanguard 1 - March 17, 1958 - Orbited 1.47 kg (3.25 lb) satellite
4. Vanguard TV5 - April 28, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
5. Vanguard SLV 1 - May 27, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
6. Vanguard SLV 2 - June 26, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
7. Vanguard SLV 3 - September 26, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
8. Vanguard 2 - February 17, 1959 - Orbited 10.8 kg (23.7 lb) satellite
9. Vanguard SLV 5 - April 13, 1959 - Failed to orbit 10.3 kg (22 lb 11 oz) satellite
10. Vanguard SLV 6 - June 22, 1959 - Failed to orbit 10.3 kg (22 lb 11 oz) satellite
11. Vanguard 3 - September 18, 1959 - Orbited 22.7 kg (50 lb) satellite
So 3 out of 5 is not to bad considering.
Even NASA has had a multitude of failures. So before you go running off yelling 3/5 remember your history and think 8/11
How many redstone's were lost before we launched a man on one....
Why not do just what you say and have the companies build the rockets for NASA. I am 100% sure that if any of the private companies do not meet or exceed NASA's expectations then NASA will not use them. There is no way that NASA is going to let some piece of junk go trotting off to the ISS. This is a chance again for NASA to assist civilian space like they took of the reigns of when they started for civilian aviation.
This has the potential to benefit both sides.
Private companies can now get interested backers because now there is a genuine profit to be made.
NASA frees up monies and resources for NEW and more exciting and im very positive ground breaking research. I have every faith in NASA and believe that they will come up with the "next best thing" but they will not come up with it if they are stuck burning up all there funds and resources making another same old principle rocket and trying to get to the moon again.....
I have a question, the NASA budget as proposed by Obama in 2010 apparently includes money for development of a heavy lift booster.
Would this be a fleet of reusable heavy lift boosters owened by NASA, or more commercial services?
Does NASA plan to own a fleet of heavy lift rockets for the deep space targets such as asteroids, the Moon, etc.?
Navy submarines are manufactured by General Dynamics Electric Boat, not Navy enlisted men. However, the fleet of manufactured submarines is owned by the US Government, and operated by US Navy personnel. Would this be the model for the heavy lift vehicles used to send astronauts to asteroids, the Moon, and Mars, or not?
I understand that LEO flights, mainly to the ISS, would be done by commercial providers, but I am asking about the deep space flights.
--Brian
Would this be a fleet of reusable heavy lift boosters owened by NASA, or more commercial services?
Does NASA plan to own a fleet of heavy lift rockets for the deep space targets such as asteroids, the Moon, etc.?
Navy submarines are manufactured by General Dynamics Electric Boat, not Navy enlisted men. However, the fleet of manufactured submarines is owned by the US Government, and operated by US Navy personnel. Would this be the model for the heavy lift vehicles used to send astronauts to asteroids, the Moon, and Mars, or not?
I understand that LEO flights, mainly to the ISS, would be done by commercial providers, but I am asking about the deep space flights.
--Brian
neutrino78x":jwcjmiai said:
That's a darn good question, Brian. In all probability, NASA will design and develop the booster, working with contractors, then, hopefully turn that design over to SpaceX or someone to operate. When the space shuttle was in development, a consortium of investors wanted to pay to have an 8th (this is when the fleet was going to number 7) one built, which they would operate themselves, paying for the use of NASA facilities. The Reagan administration said, "No, they are not for sale," which really befuddled a lot of people, because NASA was supposed to develop technologies for the private sector to use.
Hopefully, the United States has progressed beyond launching deep space missions from Earth. We will save ourselves immense amounts of money and difficulty if we launch our deep space vehicles from Earth orbit.
jacksonjr
You’re in a circular argument.
NASA has not been "properly" funded in 60 years by the government. The last time Congress properly funded NASA they were afraid they were going to get bombed from orbit by the USSR.
Your assuming that Congress wants an exploration program, they don’t, they want a jobs program.
You’re in a circular argument.
NASA has not been "properly" funded in 60 years by the government. The last time Congress properly funded NASA they were afraid they were going to get bombed from orbit by the USSR.
Your assuming that Congress wants an exploration program, they don’t, they want a jobs program.
halman":fkhwu1fb said:
When Bolden came to JSC last week, he told us that the heavy lift would be done internationally but really had no idea how that was going to be done. Every answer he gave us was that he did not know and that it would take weeks/months before they had a plan laid out. To be honest, neither we nor the administration knows what the words "heavy lift vehicle" actually imply's in the FY2011 budget plan. He did say however that "starbucks is hiring"...
gawin":e1n0kkno said:
I know that. You are missing my point. We were alredy working with trial and error on Ares, and the 1 launch did pretty well. Ares 1 was being built with PROVEN tech, not totally new, like Falcon9.
Gravity_Ray":22a65dv7 said:
Funny, NASA has not yet been around for 60 years. Guess what will be a jobs program.
Jacksonjr0458":ajtfmtwd said:
If trail and error is needed then NASA is at a disadvantage. Falcon 9 is sitting on the pad. Ares I's "test flight" was not even the version that is going to be used for flight(4 vs. 5) Segment SRB, guidance system from another rocket, no upper stage and did not separate cleanly. Space X could spend the next 4 years doing trial and error and still beat Ares I to orbit.
I am a supporter of NASA but I am sorry constellation should end. The goal was unattractive (the moon via Apollo methods, again??). The program badly thought out(it should not take 7 years or more to put a capsule in orbit). The Ares I rocket too underpowered and struggling just to get Orion to orbit. It was as sad as some retired athlete trying to relive glory days.
Here is what NASA could do, design fuel depots so that a craft in LEO can reach the moon and/or design a reusable lunar transfer vehicle that could be parked at a LaGrange point. NASA needs to learn to leverage its advantages. This could enable access to the moon quickly and if HLV becomes available it could make it more effective. Imaging the cost advantage of having lunar capable reusable craft. It also may be cheaper than building/using a rarely used HLV. This approach gives us assets for further exploration of the solar system (depots) and breaks moon missions into manageable pieces (i.e. we could partner with other countries for moon craft or fuel).
Ares I was a fine research project into using segment solid rockets as a first stage. It was not something to be relied upon for quick access to space.
It was not a good method for reusing the shuttles parts ( i.e. The J2x, ect...). It was not good form an operational timeline standpoint (NASA needs access to space NOW!) and the moon is more than ten years (Apollo had 8)? It was not good from an operations standpoint what are we going to do with an Orion capsule during the period when we have no ISS and no ARES V for the moon?
I think the moment it took more than 3 years between the shuttle and ARES I the plan should have changed. Not to mention there should have been something in mind other than going to the moon for Orion. The shuttle could do some interesting missions without the ISS; Orion can’t do much without Ares V.
Orion locked the new administration in ways that shuttle did not (which maybe why it survived so long). Orion was good for the moon and maybe an overkill visit to transfer crew at the ISS. The shuttle could fly a “star wars” payload, a “green” payload what ever Washington was interested in. Orion was the moon or bust.
"If trail and error is needed then NASA is at a disadvantage. Falcon 9 is sitting on the pad. Ares I's "test flight" was not even the version that is going to be used for flight(4 vs. 5) Segment SRB, guidance system from another rocket, no upper stage and did not separate cleanly. Space X could spend the next 4 years doing trial and error and still beat Ares I to orbit.I am a supporter of NASA but I am sorry constellation should end. The goal was unattractive (the moon via Apollo methods, again??). The program badly thought out(it should not take 7 years or more to put a capsule in orbit). The Ares I rocket too underpowered and struggling just to get Orion to orbit. It was as sad as some retired athlete trying to relive glory days. Here is what NASA could do, design fuel depots so that a craft in LEO can reach the moon and/or design a reusable lunar transfer vehicle that could be parked at a LaGrange point. NASA needs to learn to leverage its advantages. This could enable access to the moon quickly and if HLV becomes available it could make it more effective. Imaging the cost advantage of having lunar capable reusable craft. It also may be cheaper than building/using a rarely used HLV. This approach gives us assets for further exploration of the solar system (depots) and breaks moon missions into manageable pieces (i.e. we could partner with other countries for moon craft or fuel).
Ares I was a fine research project into using segment solid rockets as a first stage. It was not something to be relied upon for quick access to space. It was not a good method for reusing the shuttles parts ( i.e. The J2x, ect...). It was not good form an operational timeline standpoint (NASA needs access to space NOW!) and the moon is more than ten years (Apollo had 8)? It was not good from an operations standpoint what are we going to do with an Orion capsule during the period when we have no ISS and no ARES V for the moon? I think the moment it took more than 3 years between the shuttle and ARES I the plan should have changed. Not to mention there should have been something in mind other than going to the moon for Orion. The shuttle could do some interesting missions without the ISS; Orion can’t do much without Ares V. Orion locked the new administration in ways that shuttle did not (which maybe why it survived so long). Orion was good for the moon and maybe an overkill visit to transfer crew at the ISS. The shuttle could fly a “star wars” payload, a “green” payload what ever Washington was interested in. Orion was the moon or bust.[/quote]"
That's a bad argument. It was not the real rocket but it simulated the rocket exactly. The launch was not a failure by any means, the only real problem was its parachutes. A full SRB would have made no difference, weight was put in for it.
And..uh, the J2X engine was not based on shuttle technology. It was based on the J2 engine of the Apollo program. Nasa's plan would definitely get to the moon first. We could keep the ISS and the constellation program, other nations involved could pay more or we could increase it's budget too. Orion can do many more missions than the moon, even without Ares V. The shuttles missions are just as limited, but we kept it for years. Just for a few years we could not get to the moon with Orion, but then we could go anywhere, the moon included. We need the Moon NOW? Not going to happen either way, it takes time. It will take far more time with private companies.
Ares I was a fine research project into using segment solid rockets as a first stage. It was not something to be relied upon for quick access to space. It was not a good method for reusing the shuttles parts ( i.e. The J2x, ect...). It was not good form an operational timeline standpoint (NASA needs access to space NOW!) and the moon is more than ten years (Apollo had 8)? It was not good from an operations standpoint what are we going to do with an Orion capsule during the period when we have no ISS and no ARES V for the moon? I think the moment it took more than 3 years between the shuttle and ARES I the plan should have changed. Not to mention there should have been something in mind other than going to the moon for Orion. The shuttle could do some interesting missions without the ISS; Orion can’t do much without Ares V. Orion locked the new administration in ways that shuttle did not (which maybe why it survived so long). Orion was good for the moon and maybe an overkill visit to transfer crew at the ISS. The shuttle could fly a “star wars” payload, a “green” payload what ever Washington was interested in. Orion was the moon or bust.[/quote]"
That's a bad argument. It was not the real rocket but it simulated the rocket exactly. The launch was not a failure by any means, the only real problem was its parachutes. A full SRB would have made no difference, weight was put in for it.
And..uh, the J2X engine was not based on shuttle technology. It was based on the J2 engine of the Apollo program. Nasa's plan would definitely get to the moon first. We could keep the ISS and the constellation program, other nations involved could pay more or we could increase it's budget too. Orion can do many more missions than the moon, even without Ares V. The shuttles missions are just as limited, but we kept it for years. Just for a few years we could not get to the moon with Orion, but then we could go anywhere, the moon included. We need the Moon NOW? Not going to happen either way, it takes time. It will take far more time with private companies.
vulture4":1o0mqiv8 said:
Does anyone know if ATK has any plans to commercialize Ares I for launching satellites or probes? They have the plans and the capability to manufacture them, as well as a successful test launch.
Jonny_Quest":3oqu1ntq said:
That will never happend, Ares I would never be able to compete. It is to big (94m/310ft), when compared with what it can lift, and therfore it will be to expensive to run in a competitive market.
The Orion on the other hand, has a chance to survive in some form.
2 quick questions I am looking for info on along the lines here.
1 What is the annual cost of the ships and crews of the retrieval of the SRB's. (IE budget for getting them out of the ocean)
2 What is the cost of a new SRB and what is the cost of refurbishing them (not the 5 segment but the existing). I have herd all sorts of figures but nothing to back it up. Most seem to hit around 5 million more for new V used. can some one back this up?
Thanks if any one has this info.
1 What is the annual cost of the ships and crews of the retrieval of the SRB's. (IE budget for getting them out of the ocean)
2 What is the cost of a new SRB and what is the cost of refurbishing them (not the 5 segment but the existing). I have herd all sorts of figures but nothing to back it up. Most seem to hit around 5 million more for new V used. can some one back this up?
Thanks if any one has this info.
I do not have exact figures. I can only say that I have never seen any data to indicate that SRB recovery is cost-effective. Most people I have talked to informally say that new SRBs would be cheaper than refurbished ones if the recovery apparatus were deleted. This doesn't mean all reuse is uneconomical; a liquid fueled runway landing vehicle would require much less refurbishment.
voyager4d":2ffv923p said:
ATK did propose a COTS booster based on SRB and Castor 120 technology. The first stage would only have used two and a half SRB segments. The proposal lost to Taurus 2 and Falcon 9. (In retrospect, a sign of things to come.)
I don't see Orion surviving. The "Taxi" idea seems to hinge on use of a smaller. lighter, less-capable spacecraft for ISS only - an American Soyuz. Soyuz only weighs 7.2 tonnes give or take. Orion for ISS missions was going to weigh 20-ish tonnes. The SpaceX Dragon is posited to weigh 8.5 tonnes.
Mass to orbit is a function of dollars spent. The cost implications of cutting mass by more than half should be obvious. The cost implications by comparison to orbiting the 100+ tonne Shuttle Orbiter should also be obvious.
- Ed Kyle
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
-
US Space Force 5 years later: What has it accomplished so far, and where does it go from here?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram