Griffen wants commercial station service, fuel depots

Speaking at yesterday's AAS meeting, Michael Griffin said that NASA
wants to buy fully commercial station resupply (and perhaps even
astronaut-ferrying) services once the Shuttle is retired, and that he
would also like to see commercial orbital fuel depots. Moreover, he's
allocated half a billion dollars "seed money" for private companies to
demonstrate their own launch capability.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/3463963

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
Speaking at yesterday's AAS meeting, Michael Griffin said that NASA
wants to buy fully commercial station resupply (and perhaps even
astronaut-ferrying) services once the Shuttle is retired, and that he
would also like to see commercial orbital fuel depots. Moreover, he's
allocated half a billion dollars "seed money" for private companies to
demonstrate their own launch capability.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/3463963

The first sign may come as soon as 2010, when NASA retires
its aging space shuttle fleet and completes the construction
of the international space station.

That is after Bush leaves office. Will ISS be completed when Bush leaves
office? Is there enough money for both ISS and the lunar program?

"The exploration of the solar system cannot be what we want
it to be as an enterprise borne solely by the American taxpayer,
or even by the taxpayers by the other nations that will join
with us," Griffin told the opening session of the American
Astronautical Society's annual meeting, being held this year
in League City.

"If we are to make the expansion and development of the space
frontier an integral part of what humans do, then these
activities must assume an economic dimension as well," he said.

Sounds good, but if tax payers are not bearing the full cost, that implies
revenue sources of some kind. If we are going to spend $100 billion on a
plan, I would like to see revenue sources spelled out in the plan. I'm
reluctant to go with "and revenue sources will magically appear."

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
Speaking at yesterday's AAS meeting, Michael Griffin said that NASA
wants to buy fully commercial station resupply (and perhaps even
astronaut-ferrying) services once the Shuttle is retired, and that he
would also like to see commercial orbital fuel depots. Moreover, he's
allocated half a billion dollars "seed money" for private companies to
demonstrate their own launch capability.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/3463963

Actions speak louder than words. NASA's plans to build the stick and the
SDHLV seems to be at odds with using commercial astronaut ferrying missions
for ISS missions and commercial orbital fuel depots for lunar missions.

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

Jeff Findley wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...


Speaking at yesterday's AAS meeting, Michael Griffin said that NASA
wants to buy fully commercial station resupply (and perhaps even
astronaut-ferrying) services once the Shuttle is retired, and that he
would also like to see commercial orbital fuel depots. Moreover, he's
allocated half a billion dollars "seed money" for private companies to
demonstrate their own launch capability.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/3463963



Actions speak louder than words. NASA's plans to build the stick and the
SDHLV seems to be at odds with using commercial astronaut ferrying missions
for ISS missions and commercial orbital fuel depots for lunar missions.


Not really. Stick and HLLV are the expensive-yet-low-risk half of the
equation, while fuel depots and such are the low-cost-yet-highly-risky
approach. One is the backup to the other.


--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

Scott Lowther wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...


Speaking at yesterday's AAS meeting, Michael Griffin said that NASA
wants to buy fully commercial station resupply (and perhaps even
astronaut-ferrying) services once the Shuttle is retired, and that he
would also like to see commercial orbital fuel depots. Moreover, he's
allocated half a billion dollars "seed money" for private companies to
demonstrate their own launch capability.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/3463963



Actions speak louder than words. NASA's plans to build the stick and the
SDHLV seems to be at odds with using commercial astronaut ferrying missions
for ISS missions and commercial orbital fuel depots for lunar missions.


Not really. Stick and HLLV are the expensive-yet-low-risk half of the
equation, while fuel depots and such are the low-cost-yet-highly-risky
approach. One is the backup to the other.

Oh sure, they want to spend 100 billion to reproduce the 35 year old
Apollo thing, when they don't even have the horse and cart thing worked
out properly, and then he claims with great bravado, that they are
going to throw a 500 million dollar carrot to the starving masses.
Let's see, that's 1/2 of 1%. Somehow, the numbers just don't add up.

You really need to drop the .sig crap. It's unbecoming of your great
additive powers.

On 17 Nov 2005 08:41:09 -0800, wrote:


Not really. Stick and HLLV are the expensive-yet-low-risk half of the
equation, while fuel depots and such are the low-cost-yet-highly-risky
approach. One is the backup to the other.

Oh sure, they want to spend 100 billion to reproduce the 35 year old
Apollo thing, when they don't even have the horse and cart thing worked
out properly, and then he claims with great bravado, that they are
going to throw a 500 million dollar carrot to the starving masses.
Let's see, that's 1/2 of 1%. Somehow, the numbers just don't add up.

NASA won't start serious spending on the SD-HLV until after 2010. If
private industry demonstrates that a Tank Farm will work in the
meantime, then NASA won't need to build SD-HLV. In that cast, the
Stick can launch the CEV, EDS, and LSAM on separate flights, tank up
in orbit, and be on their way.

Seems to me a sensible move by NASA.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
[...]
NASA won't start serious spending on the SD-HLV until after 2010. If
private industry demonstrates that a Tank Farm will work in the
meantime, then NASA won't need to build SD-HLV. In that cast, the
Stick can launch the CEV, EDS, and LSAM on separate flights, tank up
in orbit, and be on their way.

Seems to me a sensible move by NASA.

Perhaps the best news related to ESAS....

/dps

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...


Speaking at yesterday's AAS meeting, Michael Griffin said that NASA
wants to buy fully commercial station resupply (and perhaps even
astronaut-ferrying) services once the Shuttle is retired, and that he
would also like to see commercial orbital fuel depots. Moreover, he's
allocated half a billion dollars "seed money" for private companies to
demonstrate their own launch capability.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/3463963



Actions speak louder than words. NASA's plans to build the stick and the
SDHLV seems to be at odds with using commercial astronaut ferrying
missions
for ISS missions and commercial orbital fuel depots for lunar missions.


Not really. Stick and HLLV are the expensive-yet-low-risk half of the
equation, while fuel depots and such are the low-cost-yet-highly-risky
approach. One is the backup to the other.

And you wonder why my preference is to drop shuttle derived launch vehicle
designs, including the shuttle ground infrastructure, and go with EELV's to
start with. We're already paying for the fixed costs of EELV, so starting
out with EELV's isn't nearly as wasteful as developing the stick and the
SDHLV (and paying their fixed costs) only to face the possibility of
shutting down the program.

The benefits of the low risk, shuttle derived launch vehicle approach don't
justify the high development costs, the high fixed costs, and the low flight
rate (especially the low flight rate of the SDHLV).

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