Retire Shuttle on orbit.

Rich Godwin wrote:



I suppose the shuttle counts for
something, but I think that system was also designed by the old NASA
not the new NASA.



Heck, that thing goes clean back the von Braun's ferry rocket for Colliers.

Pat

"Rich Godwin" wrote:

If you look at the
60's though you'll see that the US built three different manned space
craft systems, flew them, learned how to rendezvous and dock, how to
fly to the moon, navigate that trip, land on the moon, perform EVA,
develop the launch systems, computer systems etc etc to do all of that.
In 10 years we did all of that.
What have we done since?
OK we've learned how to assemble a station on orbit with a lot of help
from our Russian compatriots. I suppose the shuttle counts for
something, but I think that system was also designed by the old NASA
not the new NASA.

I could respond by pointing to the levels of spending and political
urgency applied in 1961-1967, and unmatched since. But I think it's
more to the point to suggest that the things we'd like to have by now,
whether a moon base with regular cislunar traffic... or a finished,
up & running station on acceptable schedule and budget... or Mars as
the beginning of something ongoing, rather than an Apollo-like
stunt -- *all* depend on much cheaper, robust, frequent access to
orbit.

I believe that last is *harder* than Apollo was -- much harder -- for
reasons that apply whatever the goal, and whether undertaken by
today's NASA or New Space. And those reasons would apply even if you
could resurrect every steely-eyed missile man of 1961.



Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com

Monte Davis wrote:
"Rich Godwin" wrote:


I believe that last is *harder* than Apollo was -- much harder -- for
reasons that apply whatever the goal, and whether undertaken by
today's NASA or New Space. And those reasons would apply even if you
could resurrect every steely-eyed missile man of 1961.


I agree that cheap access to LEO is incredibly difficult, Elon Musk
even admits to this tenet. But I also think there is a counter to the
need of cheap access to LEO which is that the "very mature" aerospace
contractors that actually provide that access have a very vested
interest in maintaining the status quo. They have a huge investment in
that same status quo and if they can squeeze $100m+ per launch why
wouldn't they?

As for NASA, they should not be in the launch business at all. They
should buy the ride NOT the rocket. Once they use private contractors
to get there, they can do whatever it is they want to do. They should
only be doing in space what industry can't (not won't) do and pay them
a reasonable going rate. (i.e. if you can deliver 2 tons of water to
ISS on this date we'll pay you x amount of dollars) That's the way to
go.
Imagine if after building the trans continental railroad the government
had designed, built and operated the only train.
Government is an enabler, but it does not create anything.

Monte Davis wrote:
"Rich Godwin" wrote:


I believe that last is *harder* than Apollo was -- much harder -- for
reasons that apply whatever the goal, and whether undertaken by
today's NASA or New Space. And those reasons would apply even if you
could resurrect every steely-eyed missile man of 1961.


I agree that cheap access to LEO is incredibly difficult, Elon Musk
even admits to this tenet. But I also think there is a counter to the
need of cheap access to LEO which is that the "very mature" aerospace
contractors that actually provide that access have a very vested
interest in maintaining the status quo. They have a huge investment in
that same status quo and if they can squeeze $100m+ per launch why
wouldn't they?

As for NASA, they should not be in the launch business at all. They
should buy the ride NOT the rocket. Once they use private contractors
to get there, they can do whatever it is they want to do. They should
only be doing in space what industry can't (not won't) do and pay them
a reasonable going rate. (i.e. if you can deliver 2 tons of water to
ISS on this date we'll pay you x amount of dollars) That's the way to
go.
Imagine if after building the trans continental railroad the government
had designed, built and operated the only train.
Government is an enabler, but it does not create anything.

"Rich Godwin" wrote:

They have a huge investment in
that same status quo and if they can squeeze $100m+ per launch why
wouldn't they?

And by the same token, the field is open to anyone who cares to come
along and scoop up the market by offering the same launch at $90m or
$70m or $50m.

One school of thought among space enthusiasts is that this hasn't
happened because of barriers tacitly or explicitly created by NASA and
the "very mature aerospace copntractors."

My belief is that while those barriers exist, they're trivial compared
to the barrier an entrepreneur encounters when he asks himself: "What
will it cost me up front to *get* to that lower price point? How long
will it be before that lower price point stimulates enough added
traffic to pay me back?" (And NB that only part of those up-front
costs are R&D and insfrastructure; lots of flights at relatively high
cost will be essential in gaining the *experience * vital to driving
costs down. Chicken and egg.)

Guess what? BoLockMart and NASA can do the same math. And the numbers
aren't pretty; they never have been. So all the griping in the world
about how the established players lack motivation is quite irrelevant.
You come up with the demand -- not a lot of spacers saying We Want the
Future, but real market demand that will buy more launches at $90m,
and still more at $70m, and still more at $50m -- and motivation will
take care of itself.

Monte Davis
http://montedavis.livejournal.com

Monte Davis wrote:

One school of thought among space enthusiasts is that this hasn't
happened because of barriers tacitly or explicitly created by NASA and
the "very mature aerospace copntractors."

The hardware issue is indeed a problem and not an easy one to fix, but
there are other barriers which appear artificially high such as range
costs, launch site costs, international insurance and liability issues
etc etc that should be addressed.

Rich Godwin wrote:
I've had this nagging idea at the back of my head for some time. (no
it's not a tick)
When NASA is finally finished with the Shuttle fleet (if it ever is)
why is it not possible to retire the fleet ON ORBIT instead of in a
museum?
As long as we could refuel the RCS and OMS system regularly we'd have
not only a safe haven for ISS, but also three highly capable vehicles
that are not going to be matched in space in our lifetimes.
I realize that there are problems, not the least of which is NASA's
McDonalds style of business-throw it away after use.
Recharge the RCS & OMS on orbit when necessary
Park it reasonably close to ISS
For power recharge the fuel cells OR place solar panels all over the
thing.

They wouldn't have to come back again, so they'd be relatively safe and
then you'd have what it was always supposed to be...a space truck!

Now that everyone's trashed the idea, how about removing the Canadian
manipulator arms and putting these on the ISS?

Any other useable components, that are not needed to send the
astronauts home?