|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS
On Dec 18, 9:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:
... *Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such vehicles is privately financed: OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el... Some great points were made in this article such as this: Quote Each new administration wants to create its own space project, refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy- lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it. All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it. /Quote And then there's this: Quote Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over with something new. With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety, and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that their product is better than their competitors. In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on, selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike NASA which Congress owns and controls. /Quote The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec. 21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show he http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm Links to hear the show live are he http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show web site: http://www.thespaceshow.com/ Bob Clark |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS
On Dec 20, 8:13*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Dec 18, 9:18*am, Robert Clark wrote: *... *Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such vehicles is privately financed: OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el... *Some great points were made in this article such as this: Quote Each new administration wants to create its own space project, refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy- lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it. All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it. /Quote *And then there's this: Quote Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over with something new. With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety, and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that their product is better than their competitors. In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on, selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike NASA which Congress owns and controls. /Quote *The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec. 21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show he http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm *Links to hear the show live are he http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm *It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show web site: http://www.thespaceshow.com/ * Bob Clark Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the way out. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS
Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the way out. the alternattives are a big budget bloated pork filled program that wouldnt get built because its not affordable or a smaller commercial launch system thats affordable...... when your home in in foreclosure you might buy a used vehicle....... but be unable to afford a spiffy new porsche with all the bells and whistles/ |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS
In article 5067fb16-7956-4d13-a0cd-593b905cd369
@h11g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says... On Dec 20, 8:13*am, Robert Clark wrote: *The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec. 21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show he http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm *Links to hear the show live are he http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm *It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show web site: http://www.thespaceshow.com/ * Bob Clark Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the way out. True, there are many shades of gray. This is not a black and white issue. That said, I still think SLS is a huge waste of money. Military transport via aircraft isn't 100% private or 100% military. I have no idea what the mix is, because it depends on how you define the rules. Outside of combat zones, it's not unusual to see commercial aircraft being used to transport troops. Also, it's not unusual for the military to buy slightly modified versions of commercial aircraft and operate them. Neither of these examples are of military aircraft developed, owned, and operated solely by the military. SLS is an example of a purely NASA specific launch vehicle. It will be developed, owned, and operated solely by NASA. At least NASA isn't trying to sell SLS to the politicians like it did STS. The shuttle failed to meet commercial and military launch needs. Both of those external (to NASA) customers returned to expendable launch vehicles to meet their requirements. Jeff -- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. " - tinker |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS
On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the way out. Why? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS
On Dec 20, 3:16*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote: Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the way out. Why? Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting total privatization of HSF. The only national-level politicians who want that are both running for POTUS: Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul-and neither of whom will be POTUS. (It'll either be Mitt Romney or Mr. Obama gets reelected). Remember the fury over the "outsourcing" of LEO to commercial crew that that disaster for NASA known as the FY 11 Budget that was rolled out in a botched manner on 1 Feb 10 (among a lot of other stuff that drew Congressional fury)? Privatizing NASA would NEVER pass Congress, period. Cut and dry, that is it. The only Congresscritter who comes anywhere close is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) who's pushing CCDev and COTS-but his motives are not completely pu Several Commercial Space (or NerdSpace, or ObamaSpace, call it whatever you please) outfits have facilities in SoCal (his district includes Hawthorne), and he's likely got constitutents who work at those firms. IF (and I do mean If) he'd been Chair of House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a strong position to push his argument and try to influence matters. He's not, and that's that. The key members on the committees that deal with NASA are from "Space States", and they're the ones you have to convince. And the Commercial Crew folks haven't done a good job of that. They only got 45% of their requested funds for FY 12, and $100 mil of that is frozen pending NASA notifying Congress of firm exploration plans, missions, destinations, etc. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
... For now. When Musk flies people and returns them safely as part of his flight test program, then you can say that he has a capability that he can offer paying customers. Until then..... And until then NASA has... umm.. nothing even close to flying. Congress has more confidence in NASA than it does Musk. That's nice. But few of us have any confidence in Congress. Why do you think they fully funded SLS and Orion and gave the Commercial Crew side only 45% of the funds requested-and $100 Mil of that is held up until NASA ID's the destinations BEO that they intend to fly to. Not "study" or "workshop presentations. Actually come out and say where NASA is going to fly exploration missions. And personally, I'm more comfortable with an established firm like Boeing or Orbital Science handling the crew side than I am Space X. Those firms have been around the block and know what they're doing. As Capt. Gene Cernan said in Congressional testimony regarding the startups: "They don't know what they don't know." Translation: they will learn things the hard way, just as NASA did back in the early days. -- Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software http://www.greenms.com Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS
On 21/12/2011 2:11 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting total privatization of HSF. Has anyone asked them? Is there any record of anyone saying they _don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS
There a lot been written on this thread I have little to add.
But here is a prediction. In five years you can go back and fact check me as this post will be in the archive. I predict SLS funding will continue. The project will plod along, there will be a few static rocket tests. I predict Dragon will launch successful cargo flights to the ISS within the year (2012). I predict SpaceX will continue on the path to getting a man rating and flying a crew (timeframe still a little hazy here, but I think 5 years is a safe bet). At the end of 5 years SpaceX will have flown a crew to the ISS and returned them safely. In the meantime SLS will still be largely on the drawing board, all the money spent to keep contractors in various Congressional districts busy and THIS KEY LITTLE ITEM: "0 dollars spent to upgrade existing KSC infrastructure to support SLS". People will want to spread the dollars not concentrate them. And without this up-front work SLS remains purely pie-in-the-sky regardless of how much $$$ Congress pours down this rat-hole. At the end? SpaceX launches from their own facilities whilst VAB and complex 39 sit largely empty and/or rusting away in the Atlantic sea-breezes. When the money spent on SLS could have been going to useful ground support upgrades. (LC-39 a&b should be made dual-fuel capable NOW, Mobile Launch Platform & Crawler vehicle should be updated immediately for using Falcons and the current generation of EELVs) why on Earth should we wait on this? Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SpaceX Dragon | Alan Erskine[_3_] | Space Shuttle | 1 | September 6th 11 08:40 AM |
SpaceX orbits Dragon breath? | David Spain | History | 2 | April 22nd 11 01:59 PM |
SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon. | Mike DiCenso | History | 8 | December 14th 10 10:19 PM |
SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon. | Robert Clark | History | 7 | December 13th 10 04:05 PM |
SpaceX Dragon | are | Policy | 6 | March 25th 07 12:19 PM |