|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
I spotted this posting on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php:
NASA should design its rockets so that they can launch manned space craft built by the private sector. This would encourage a larger private sector for space flight. These manned space craft could be built by private companies, universities, and advanced amateur aircraft builders. This is the dumbest idea ever. This person has it completely backwards. Plus this person is obviously ignorant of history. The space shuttle was called STS because it was to be the one and only US Space Transportation System. In this advertised role the shuttle failed miserably. Do we really want to repeat that mistake twice? The US already has several launch providers (dinosaurs and early mammals). Why should NASA be in this market at all? In fact, it's barred by law from competing in this market (this was put into place post-Challenger because it became obvious to everyone involved that the US government was a very poor substitute for a commercial launch provider). Some argue that NASA should still build its own launch vehicles (i.e. Ares I and Ares V), but I find the arguments for this position to be weak and ineffective. EELV's exist now and can be adapted to launch Orion. Larger launch vehicles could be built, if needed, by those same launch providers. But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be a paradigm changing technology. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
Jeff Findley wrote: But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be a paradigm changing technology. And whom, pray tell, is going to take the fuel up to the orbiting fuel depot? Shouldn't that be privately done also? Pat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
Some argue that NASA should still build its own launch vehicles (i.e. Ares I and Ares V), but I find the arguments for this position to be weak and ineffective. Mostly because you've decided in advance that NASA shouldn't be in the launcher business no matter what. But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be a paradigm changing technology. And here Jeff trots out his favorite hobby horse again. The paint is a bit worn, but enough of the outline can still be seen to allow one to recreate the fantasy. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
Derek Lyons wrote: And here Jeff trots out his favorite hobby horse again. The paint is a bit worn, but enough of the outline can still be seen to allow one to recreate the fantasy. Remember years back the guy who was costantly arguing here in favor of his superconducting electrical storage cell that was going to change everything, and people kept trying to explain to him that no more energy was going to come out of it than you put into it? This is the space equivalent of that concept. :-) Pat |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message dakotatelephone... Jeff Findley wrote: But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be a paradigm changing technology. And whom, pray tell, is going to take the fuel up to the orbiting fuel depot? Shouldn't that be privately done also? Nope. You invite participating countries to launch fuel in exchange for seats on lunar missions. You get *them* to pay for the launch vehicles, so the US doesn't have to. This keeps participating countries off the "critical path" and it gives the US a key spacefairing technology which will enable bigger missions which can travel further from Earth. By far the biggest part of a Mars mission (mass wise) will be fuel. Getting other countries to foot the bill for launching that is a good thing. Set the precedent now rather than later. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "Jeff Findley" wrote: Some argue that NASA should still build its own launch vehicles (i.e. Ares I and Ares V), but I find the arguments for this position to be weak and ineffective. Mostly because you've decided in advance that NASA shouldn't be in the launcher business no matter what. US law says they should not be in the commercial launch business. EELV's can easily replace Ares I. There is no need for it. But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be a paradigm changing technology. And here Jeff trots out his favorite hobby horse again. The paint is a bit worn, but enough of the outline can still be seen to allow one to recreate the fantasy. In orbit refueling would replace Ares V and would open up the architecture for other nations to participate (by delivering fuel to the depot) in a way that keeps them off the critical path. Also, it's a key enabling technology for a Mars mission. If you think NASA is going to get funding for a launch vehicle even bigger than Ares V to launch a manned Mars mission, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you... And yes, I don't believe NASA should be in the launch vehicle business anymore than NACA should have been in the passenger airliner business. Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message dakotatelephone... Derek Lyons wrote: And here Jeff trots out his favorite hobby horse again. The paint is a bit worn, but enough of the outline can still be seen to allow one to recreate the fantasy. Remember years back the guy who was costantly arguing here in favor of his superconducting electrical storage cell that was going to change everything, and people kept trying to explain to him that no more energy was going to come out of it than you put into it? This is the space equivalent of that concept. :-) LEO refueling depots don't require unobtainium to produce. In fact, near term tests could be done using modified EELV upper stages. Today's EELV upper stages have some pretty amazing cryogenic storage capabilities, especially when compared to what NASA is trying to baseline for Ares V. NASA just isn't on top of the current state of the art in upper stage cryogenics. :-( The part NASA needs to work on are the technologies needed to move cryogenic propellant from one tank to another, make reliable (leak free) cryogenic connections between two spacecraft, automated rendezvous and docking (this one is just about off the shelf already), and etc. Russia has been transferring non-cryogenic propellant from one spacecraft to another since what, the 1970's? Can't we please update this in the 2010's to include cryogenic propellants? Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message news "Jeff Findley" wrote: : :"Pat Flannery" wrote in message hdakotatelephone... : : : Jeff Findley wrote: : But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit : refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge : constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be a : paradigm changing technology. : : And whom, pray tell, is going to take the fuel up to the orbiting fuel : depot? : Shouldn't that be privately done also? : :Nope. You invite participating countries to launch fuel in exchange for :seats on lunar missions. You get *them* to pay for the launch vehicles, so :the US doesn't have to. : It'd be cheaper to just launch the fuel ourselves. I don't understand how getting another country to launch fuel costs the US more money than launching it ourselves. Unless you assume NASA gets a big, cheap, launch vehicle out of nowhere. :This keeps participating countries off the "critical path" and it gives the :US a key spacefairing technology which will enable bigger missions which can :travel further from Earth. By far the biggest part of a Mars mission (mass :wise) will be fuel. Getting other countries to foot the bill for launching :that is a good thing. Set the precedent now rather than later. : This is still a 'chicken and egg' thing. If you don't have a use for the stuff it's a waste. If you *do* have use for the stuff, then it's one somebody's critical path for whatever missions intend to use it. If the plug gets pulled on Ares development and NASA is told that they're out of the launch vehicle business for good, then the need for LEO refueling becomes far greater. The way the politics are working out, I personally doubt NASA will get the funding it wants for Ares V (or any big SDLV). NASA will be forced to "do more with less". Jeff -- "Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National Lampoon |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote: :This keeps participating countries off the "critical path" and it gives the :US a key spacefairing technology which will enable bigger missions which can :travel further from Earth. By far the biggest part of a Mars mission (mass :wise) will be fuel. Getting other countries to foot the bill for launching :that is a good thing. Set the precedent now rather than later. : This is still a 'chicken and egg' thing. If you don't have a use for the stuff it's a waste. If you *do* have use for the stuff, then it's one somebody's critical path for whatever missions intend to use it. Jeff is fully aware of the 'chicken and egg problem', but he sees it as a feature rather than a bug - because it allows subsidies to launcher operators without actually calling it a subsidy. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
By far the biggest part of a Mars mission (mass wise) will be fuel. So what? In terms of the cost of the program, it's nearly down in the noise. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
http://sidewalkastronomy.info/nucleus/ | Starlord | Misc | 0 | October 8th 06 08:01 PM |
http://rapidshare.de/files/25705110/Bathing_MMS.rar | sSharma | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | July 13th 06 02:18 PM |
New, old topics | [email protected] | Research | 10 | June 7th 06 09:54 AM |
you can see Alan Erskine on this Security Camera http://149.137. | see Alan Erskine on this Security Camera next to h | Policy | 0 | September 7th 04 04:50 AM |
Error accessing http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ [128.32.18.151] | Robi | SETI | 20 | November 16th 03 12:09 PM |