Group calls for midcourse correction for NASA

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14012996/

"Radical surgery is needed on NASA's vision for space exploration of
the moon, Mars and beyond, according to a study released Monday by a
space advocacy group.

The assessment from the New York-based Space Frontier Foundation calls
for immediate elimination of all work on the Block 1 version of
NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle and for a delay in developing the
Crew Launch Vehicle - a solid-rocket booster design derived from
shuttle hardware and now escalating in cost. The study urges NASA to
reconsider using the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launchers in place of the Crew
Launch Vehicle. "

www.space-frontier.org

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:33:08 -0700, davida wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14012996/

"Radical surgery is needed on NASA's vision for space exploration of
the moon, Mars and beyond, according to a study released Monday by a
space advocacy group.

The assessment from the New York-based Space Frontier Foundation calls
for immediate elimination of all work on the Block 1 version of
NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle and for a delay in developing the
Crew Launch Vehicle - a solid-rocket booster design derived from
shuttle hardware and now escalating in cost. The study urges NASA to
reconsider using the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launchers in place of the Crew
Launch Vehicle. "

www.space-frontier.org

Write your Congress Person, take a vacation to Washington, see
the sites and visit them in person. Tell them what you think.

NASA we love ya! But, please get out of the Earth to LEO business.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Craig Fink wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:33:08 -0700, davida wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14012996/

"Radical surgery is needed on NASA's vision for space exploration of
the moon, Mars and beyond, according to a study released Monday by a
space advocacy group.

The assessment from the New York-based Space Frontier Foundation calls
for immediate elimination of all work on the Block 1 version of
NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle and for a delay in developing the
Crew Launch Vehicle - a solid-rocket booster design derived from
shuttle hardware and now escalating in cost. The study urges NASA to
reconsider using the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launchers in place of the Crew
Launch Vehicle. "

www.space-frontier.org

Write your Congress Person, take a vacation to Washington, see
the sites and visit them in person. Tell them what you think.

NASA we love ya! But, please get out of the Earth to LEO business.


These guys are kinda slow to the punch, aren't they.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

a écrit :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14012996/

"Radical surgery is needed on NASA's vision for space exploration of
the moon, Mars and beyond, according to a study released Monday by a
space advocacy group.

The assessment from the New York-based Space Frontier Foundation calls
for immediate elimination of all work on the Block 1 version of
NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle and for a delay in developing the
Crew Launch Vehicle - a solid-rocket booster design derived from
shuttle hardware and now escalating in cost. The study urges NASA to
reconsider using the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launchers in place of the Crew
Launch Vehicle. "

www.space-frontier.org


This people sya:

Do not give any money to NASA.
Give the money to US!!!!

This is essentially what they want. They speak of "free entreprise" and
mean "I want the money from the tax payer"

If "free entreprise" is the best thing, then they do not
need any tax payer's money, and they will create their
"industry" without public support.

jacob navia wrote:
a écrit :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14012996/

"Radical surgery is needed on NASA's vision for space exploration of
the moon, Mars and beyond, according to a study released Monday by a
space advocacy group.

The assessment from the New York-based Space Frontier Foundation calls
for immediate elimination of all work on the Block 1 version of
NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle and for a delay in developing the
Crew Launch Vehicle - a solid-rocket booster design derived from
shuttle hardware and now escalating in cost. The study urges NASA to
reconsider using the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launchers in place of the Crew
Launch Vehicle. "

www.space-frontier.org


This people sya:

Do not give any money to NASA.
Give the money to US!!!!

This is essentially what they want. They speak of "free entreprise" and
mean "I want the money from the tax payer"

If "free entreprise" is the best thing, then they do not
need any tax payer's money, and they will create their
"industry" without public support.

That's the way I see it, at least for crew launch and transfer to and
from the ISS and LEO. The 'Stick' has to go. Even Keith Cowing finally
noticed the similarity of the CEV to the Saturn IVB. They had it all in
the 1968 (Apollo 7), and they threw it all away. Rendezvous with the
upper stage, dock, done. We can do that now with the Delta IV Medium.

On the other hand, we need some heavy lift. What they want to do now is
basically add a couple of SRBs to the Saturn V in another throwaway.
That would kill the space program. For space colonization to work,
it's absolutely imperative that large FOAM FREE cryogenic tanks be
delivered all the way to LEO in the first stage (and/or a half).
To do this basically DEMANDS a high performance hydrogen core,
powered by reusable high performance cryogenic engines, whether
it is assisted by SRBs to get off the pad or not, and to assist
in SSTO and RLV procedural development, to alleviate weight issues.

Thus my proposal to use seven SSMEs, with SRB assistance, in order to
deliver that core tank to LEO, and a very powerful upper stage for the
occasional interplanetary mission. Once reusability of the engine module
is demonstrated, and weight margins achieved, SRBs can be eliminated.

This is precisely the area where NASA expertise can be utilized. If they
decide to switch to hydrocarbons on the core stage, the Saturn V with
SRBs paradigm, and use Russian hydrocarbon engines, then all is lost.

Regardless, a ten meter diameter ET is a fundamental prerequisite.

I hope that helps.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Private industry has very little(Spaceship 1) to zero experience
launching humans into space, especially earth orbit, zero experience. I
think handing over the human spaceflight program to private industry will
probably make it more dangerous than the space shuttle has been. Until
private industry has experience and a track record launching people into
space to compare with NASA's, I donot not trust private industry and think
NASA should do human spaceflight. If NASA wants to use Atlas or Delta to
launch CEV instead of CLV, maybe that would be a better idea considering the
budget and technical issues associated with CLV, I am not sure. I dont
believe that HLV or Aries 5 can be replaced. What other rocket do we
currently have that can lift 200,000lbs to earth orbit and over 100000lbs to
the moon?

vze3gz45

wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14012996/

"Radical surgery is needed on NASA's vision for space exploration of
the moon, Mars and beyond, according to a study released Monday by a
space advocacy group.

The assessment from the New York-based Space Frontier Foundation calls
for immediate elimination of all work on the Block 1 version of
NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle and for a delay in developing the
Crew Launch Vehicle - a solid-rocket booster design derived from
shuttle hardware and now escalating in cost. The study urges NASA to
reconsider using the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launchers in place of the Crew
Launch Vehicle. "

www.space-frontier.org

vze3gz45 wrote:
Private industry has very little(Spaceship 1) to zero experience
launching humans into space, especially earth orbit, zero experience. I
think handing over the human spaceflight program to private industry will
probably make it more dangerous than the space shuttle has been.

Obvious but...

Who cares?

The people making the big bucks are NOT the ones that are going to
get screwed....

Craig Fink wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:33:08 -0700, davida wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14012996/

"Radical surgery is needed on NASA's vision for space exploration of
the moon, Mars and beyond, according to a study released Monday by a
space advocacy group.

The assessment from the New York-based Space Frontier Foundation calls
for immediate elimination of all work on the Block 1 version of
NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle and for a delay in developing the
Crew Launch Vehicle - a solid-rocket booster design derived from
shuttle hardware and now escalating in cost. The study urges NASA to
reconsider using the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launchers in place of the Crew
Launch Vehicle. "

www.space-frontier.org

Write your Congress Person, take a vacation to Washington, see
the sites and visit them in person. Tell them what you think.

NASA we love ya! But, please get out of the Earth to LEO business.

When I read something like this I think, great idea. Let the commercial
sector make Earth to LEO a COTS product for NASA. But, where is it?
Where is the commercial routine flyer to ISS or HST or anywhere to LEO
for that matter?

I'll bet you that if you build it, they will use it. Until then, you're
asking for then to rely on nothing.

Eric

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

In article . com,
"enchomko" wrote:

NASA we love ya! But, please get out of the Earth to LEO business.

When I read something like this I think, great idea. Let the commercial
sector make Earth to LEO a COTS product for NASA. But, where is it?
Where is the commercial routine flyer to ISS or HST or anywhere to LEO
for that matter?

It hasn't been built yet (at least, not for human passengers).

I'll bet you that if you build it, they will use it. Until then, you're
asking for then to rely on nothing.

I really don't think so. If you build it, and NASA didn't ask for it,
NASA's not going to use it, and you're going to have to scramble to find
enough other customers to keep from going belly-up. This outcome is at
least reasonable enough that no sane investors would put money into such
a plan.

Conversely, if NASA requires such a service (because it no longer
provides that itself), and has a budget for it comparable to what it
spends now, then companies WILL build it. That'd be a very safe
investment, since the customer is large and pretty much guaranteed.
Your main worry would be competition -- which is of course a good thing,
since it tends to drive cost down and performance up.

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout wrote:
In article . com,
"enchomko" wrote:

NASA we love ya! But, please get out of the Earth to LEO business.

When I read something like this I think, great idea. Let the commercial
sector make Earth to LEO a COTS product for NASA. But, where is it?
Where is the commercial routine flyer to ISS or HST or anywhere to LEO
for that matter?

It hasn't been built yet (at least, not for human passengers).


Then why ask NASA to get out of the Earth to LEO business until one IS
ready?

I'll bet you that if you build it, they will use it. Until then, you're
asking for then to rely on nothing.

I really don't think so. If you build it, and NASA didn't ask for it,
NASA's not going to use it, and you're going to have to scramble to find
enough other customers to keep from going belly-up. This outcome is at
least reasonable enough that no sane investors would put money into such
a plan.

NASA may not jump on the first orbiter that goes to LEO. But I bet
after leass than a half dozen flights they'd enlist the services of the
spacecraft for their work. Why shouldn't they?


Conversely, if NASA requires such a service (because it no longer
provides that itself), and has a budget for it comparable to what it
spends now, then companies WILL build it. That'd be a very safe
investment, since the customer is large and pretty much guaranteed.
Your main worry would be competition -- which is of course a good thing,
since it tends to drive cost down and performance up.

Right now it looks like a picky NASA is micromanaging a greedy
spacecraft builder who wants to both satisfy the customer as well as
bilk or overcharge him.

Eric


Best,
- Joe