Is NASAs shuttle replacement obsolete before being even built?

Given the first successful private astronaut today does that mean the new nasa
crew launcher isnt needed?

If private industry can build it why not just buy its services from them?

It appears the operational expense will be order oif magnitudes less than
shuttle while it could be launched from the equator.for greatwer pau\yload
capacity or from anywhere with a decent runway for flexiblity.

Does this endager KSCs spaceport USA?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

(bob haller) wrote:
Given the first successful private astronaut today does that mean the new nasa
crew launcher isnt needed?

Given that said first successful astronaut and his craft demonstrated
gross performance that's a bare fraction of that needed for a crew
launcher....

If private industry can build it why not just buy its services from them?

That's a mighty big *if* there bob. All private industry has flown to
date is a prototype of something that hasn't even the performance of a
Mercury capsule, let alone an Apollo. (And at that it's only flown
once, at less than it's design specs and load, and suffered damage of
unknown origin and significance.)

The flight of SS1 is historic and important, but lets not overestimate
where it stands in relationship to the needs of workaday spaceflight.

It appears the operational expense will be order oif magnitudes less than
shuttle while it could be launched from the equator.for greatwer pau\yload
capacity or from anywhere with a decent runway for flexiblity.

It appears that no such thing is true. A vehicle of much greater
size, weight, and complexity is needed for even a minimal crew
transfer capability. While it's dead certain that it will cost less
than the Shuttle, it's exact costs and performace remain open to
debate.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Hardly comparing like with like me thinks...

There is a little question of speed and some other things!

Brian

--

Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Given the first successful private astronaut today does that mean the new
nasa
crew launcher isnt needed?

If private industry can build it why not just buy its services from them?

It appears the operational expense will be order oif magnitudes less than
shuttle while it could be launched from the equator.for greatwer pau\yload
capacity or from anywhere with a decent runway for flexiblity.

Does this endager KSCs spaceport USA?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 15/06/2004

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Given the first successful private astronaut today does that mean the new
nasa
crew launcher isnt needed?

If private industry can build it why not just buy its services from them?

Certainly you know the answer to this. A suborbital flight to 100km is
nowhere near the energy required to go into orbit at 400km. You simply
don't have the velocity needed. The technology demonstrated on SS1 doesn't
mean that they could go out and build an orbital craft tomorrow. It's only
a baby step, although a very important, motivating, and historical, first
baby step.

It appears the operational expense will be order oif magnitudes less than
shuttle while it could be launched from the equator.for greatwer pau\yload
capacity or from anywhere with a decent runway for flexiblity.

Only if you want to go to 100km and fall back down.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Only if you want to go to 100km and fall back down.

Jeff

my point is this. if private industry can do it why should nasa be in the
manned launcher business, other than being a purchaser if the product?

Is there any reason this arrangement cant be scaled up to launch people?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

bob haller wrote:
my point is this. if private industry can do it why should nasa be in the
manned launcher business, other than being a purchaser if the product?

The issue is whether regulating agencies are tolerating this test flight, but
the second commercial operations are contemplated, those agencies will require
a billion standards to be met which would make such vehicles just as
complex/expensive as what NASA does.

Consider NASA's reaction for Tito. My gut tells me that commercial space
flights are more likely to move offshore to nations that are more "simple"
friendly because NASA/FAA will make it next to impossible for commercial
entities to operate simple vehicles. Once this happens, perhaps NASA will then
be forced to re-evaluate itself and begin to adopt the "simple" approaches.

In article m,
John Doe wrote:

bob haller wrote:
my point is this. if private industry can do it why should nasa be in the
manned launcher business, other than being a purchaser if the product?

The issue is whether regulating agencies are tolerating this test flight, but
the second commercial operations are contemplated, those agencies will require
a billion standards to be met which would make such vehicles just as
complex/expensive as what NASA does.

Consider NASA's reaction for Tito. My gut tells me that commercial space
flights are more likely to move offshore to nations that are more "simple"
friendly because NASA/FAA will make it next to impossible for commercial
entities to operate simple vehicles. Once this happens, perhaps NASA will then
be forced to re-evaluate itself and begin to adopt the "simple" approaches.

JF - the "John Doe" nonsense is getting old, really.

Before you respond to hallerb's nonsense, why don't both of you take a
good look at http://ast.faa.gov

All the U.S. regulations pertaining to commercial space transportation
are there in easily-accessible form, as are listings for all the
entities holding current commercial launch licenses (which includes
Scaled Composites and XCOR Aerospace, as well as industry heavyweights
like Lockheed Martin, Sea Launch, etc., and smaller-fry like Orbital
Sciences).

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Columbia Loss FAQ:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

Only if you want to go to 100km and fall back down.

my point is this. if private industry can do it why should nasa be in the
manned launcher business, other than being a purchaser if the product?

NASA will claim (with the one exception of the space shuttle) that they
already do this. NASA claims the exclusive right to decide what it's
astronauts ride into orbit.

Is there any reason this arrangement cant be scaled up to launch people?

Besides the fact that NASA would pile on so many (both written and
un-written) requirements that only an existing government contractor could
meet that you'd end up where you are now? Or do you mean besides the fact
that many of the start-ups want to have nothing to do with NASA or the
government (at least not any more than is necessary to gain the government
approvals to operate their craft).

NASA will continue to operate as it always has, as a government entity which
spends money in important states and congressional districts. Middle
management will continue to make decisions which benefit their NASA center,
at the expense of other NASA centers, and even at the expense of NASA as a
whole. It's the very nature of large, government organizations. As such, I
have little faith that they will do much of anything to actually help reduce
the cost of access to space.

Jeff

(bob haller) wrote in message ...
Given the first successful private astronaut today does that mean the new nasa
crew launcher isnt needed?


Comparing SS1 to an orbital vehicle is about like comparing a Piper
Cub to an SR71. Drawing conclusions from someone building a Piper Cub
equivalent in their garage for a few thousand dollars, and applying
those conclusions to the cost and requirements of the SR71 just as
silly as your statement.

That's not to diss Rutan or the SS1 team, they did an incredible job,
and have created a really cool vehicle, which is truely historic among
private, experimental aircraft. I have great respect for them, and
wish them nothing but the best.

SS1 simply isn't even close to something that could transport people
to orbit. Furthermore, the approach they have taken doesn't seem like
it will scale (no pun intended... well, maybe a little) very well to
something that could transport people to orbit. The carrier aircraft
first stage would have to be very large (see MAKS
http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya6.htm which would have used the largest
cargo plane in the world, along with an exotic engine and a drop tank
for a modest orbital payload). The re-entry innovations also don't
seem particularly applicable to re-entry from orbit (from orbit, TPS
is the hardest problem, and they haven't had to deal with that kind of
environment). Nor are the chosen main engine system, RCS, life
support, or thermal control systems suitable.

Something based on SS1 might make a really nice, cheap microsat
launcher, but I don't see its direct descendants putting people in
orbit.

As an aside, I always thought MAKS would have fit the (now dead) OSP
requirements rather nicely...

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"bob haller" wrote:

Given the first successful private astronaut today does that mean the new nasa
crew launcher isnt needed?

If private industry can build it why not just buy its services from them?

Certainly you know the answer to this. A suborbital flight to 100km is
nowhere near the energy required to go into orbit at 400km. You simply
don't have the velocity needed. The technology demonstrated on SS1 doesn't
mean that they could go out and build an orbital craft tomorrow. It's only
a baby step, although a very important, motivating, and historical, first
baby step.

It appears the operational expense will be order oif magnitudes less than
shuttle while it could be launched from the equator.for greatwer pau\yload
capacity or from anywhere with a decent runway for flexiblity.

Only if you want to go to 100km and fall back down.

And be weightless for a few minutes! :-)