|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The picture is sketchy, and a little out of focus...We've done
Apollo/Soyuz, lots of Mir visits, done ISS, done Shuttle. Now another country has put forward a design for a multi-purpose, re-useable crew vehicle, the Kliper. And Arianespace already has a decent launcher capable of launching Kliper into space. If we are goinig to get to Mars it is going to require the resources of the international community, IMO, and here are two nations that are positioned to make a creditable contribution. My point is that we should be well past the time where international cooperation in space is regarded as a novelty. Finance is a problem. The Russian GNP rose 9.8% last year. Their economy is still in a shambles but at least not in a recession. The Russians and the French would ideally pick up the tab as their share for getting to go along on the ride. I think the French and the Russians should work out a deal to trade Klipers for Arianes anyway. Ariane was designed initially designed to loft the manned Hermes vehicle but the project was cancelled. Japan and India should be encouraged to get involved as well. We should use Kliper as part of a joint operation, and if Kliper is not good enough, sit down with them and design something that *is* good enough. Preferably one that does not have oxygen canisters bursting into flame while enroute to Mars. It will still cost $64 billion on our end. That is 1/4 of the NASA budget. The cost would consist of management and coordination costs, design and construction of a lander, subsidy to some of the partners, and contingency planning in case one of them backs out. The ISS started as a US operation, but the Soviets have come on board in a big way. I suppose Bush will need to sell the Mars program as a US project and then "add" more folks later. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Kent Betts wrote:
If we are goinig to get to Mars it is going to require the resources of the international community, No, it won't. My point is that we should be well past the time where international cooperation in space is regarded as a novelty. We are. It's not a novelty... it's a travesty. Competition is better. The occaisional bit of subcontracting is better. Reliance on other nations, especially those that are rife with anti-Americanism and corruption, is a seriously bad idea. The ISS started as a US operation, but the Soviets have come on board in a big way. Yeah. Look how well THAT worked out. -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Erskine" wrote:
Five billion dollars a year; five years for research and development; five years for prototype flying and initial landings (testing of equipment in space and on the Moon to make sure it works 'as advertised') and for uninterupted science; five years for industrial startup; five years for change-over to commercial operations (after commercial organisations are convinced of capabilities/profit margins) and then the five billion per year is used to develop Mars operations at a similar pace. The problem is that once again (at least with this sketchy outline) is that once again we find 'and then magic occurs' when it comes to industrialization. I'd like to see the original document and see if it actually addresses this issue. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
There is no product. There is no profit.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Lowther" The ISS started as a US operation, but the Soviets have come on board in a big way. Yeah. Look how well THAT worked out. I am looking and I see that the Russians are now doing the crew changes and the cargo delivery. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Erskine" writes:
Perhaps NASA wants to get away from the 'stigma' associated with STS? Two failures, resulting in *all* U.S. space deaths... There have been quite a few "space deaths", but it depends on how you define that phrase. I'd define it so as to include the Apollo 1 deaths. These guys didn't die in their T-38's, they were sitting in a capsule, in full pressure suits, when the fire broke out. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"jeff findley" wrote in message ... "Alan Erskine" writes: Perhaps NASA wants to get away from the 'stigma' associated with STS? Two failures, resulting in *all* U.S. space deaths... There have been quite a few "space deaths", but it depends on how you define that phrase. I'd define it so as to include the Apollo 1 deaths. These guys didn't die in their T-38's, they were sitting in a capsule, in full pressure suits, when the fire broke out. And neither Challenger or Columbia were in space at the time of failure. What Alan should have said was MISSION deaths. That would include both Challenger and Columbia while exlcuding Apollo 1. One should say that Challenger was an STS accident not a Shuttle accident... in other words, the launch vehicle failed, not the orbital vehicle. In the case of Columbia, the reverse may appear to be true at first, but considering the orbiter failed only because the launch vehicle dropped a piece of foam on it, it's hard to blame the shuttle itself. Bruce |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Recent annual shuttle budgets were in the $3.2 billion range. A steady shuttle-derived heavy lift (SDV) program, free of the labor-intensive orbiter processing requirements, could cost 2/3rds as much. At four launches per year, each launch, capable of putting roughly three EELV-Heavy equivalents (75 metric tons) in LEO, would cost roughly $533 million - probably putting it below the recently increased price point per kg of EELV-Heavy. More importantly, an SDV would simplify lunar mission planning by reducing the number and coordination of required launches - helping reduce the cost of spacecraft and mission payloads. - Ed Kyle Can nasa manage to keep the cost down that much? If so it sounds fine by me. Now before someone else asks how about keeping a servicable shuttle around for specific jobs and flying it unmanned? Gut most of the man needed capacity and totally automate it. Gutting would boost the weight capacity and we could still have the ability to retuirn large payloads if thats even needed? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce Sterling Woodcock" writes:
One should say that Challenger was an STS accident not a Shuttle accident... in other words, the launch vehicle failed, not the orbital vehicle. True. But there was the mission where one SSME was shut down, and the crew had to inhibit the sensors on the remaining SSME's in order to get into orbit. Arguably that's a launch vehicle failure, but oddly enough in that case, the launch vehicle *is* the orbital vehicle. In the case of Columbia, the reverse may appear to be true at first, but considering the orbiter failed only because the launch vehicle dropped a piece of foam on it, it's hard to blame the shuttle itself. It's a system integration failure. It would have been o.k. for the ET to shed foam, if it weren't for the shuttle bolted to the side. The problem was studied, but it was assumed that the RCC was "tougher" than the tiles. That's an engineering failure *and* a management failure for not properly solving this system integration issue that surfaced on STS-1. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|