|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Plotting A New Course for NASA
On Nov 24, 4:56*am, David Spain wrote:
On 11/24/2011 2:00 AM, Matt Wiser wrote: "David *wrote in message I don't think SLS gives us that cheaper access to LEO that is the stated goal of CCDev. And maybe re-using KSC assets won't either, but who can say? Dave David, SLS isn't for LEO: it's for BEO missions. None of which have been defined. Something vague about visiting NEO objects. Using what tho? An Orion derivative that isn't even under proposal? Orion is big, Orion is heavy, Orion today duplicates what Dragon does for for a lot more $$$. We don't need SLS for heavy lift if we stick to the COTS course. So let's leverage that instead of trying to duplicate what that accomplishes for a lot more $$$ in operations. But we need to know if reusing KSC assests with COTS/CCDev saves money or wastes money. The NX proposal give us something to spend $$$ on that not only supplements the money being spent on COTS/CCDev but also give us a BEO technology other than a very expensive to operate HLV. In other words lets spend the money in order to maximize return on investment. I don't see SLS as that. But I'm open-minded, I could change my mind if you can give me convincing numbers. Dave The numbers are still very preliminary-not to mention that contracts haven't been finalized. And David, I hate to rain on your parade, but there's only ONE congresscritter pushing the EELV/Depot concept: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). His motives aren't pu there's several commercial space outfits in SoCal, and if he doesn't have facilities from those companies in his district, he's got constitutents who work at those companies. Which is the same approach that congresscritters from Utah, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida have when they pushed for and got SLS. They didn't want the Administration to wait up to 5 years before deciding on a heavy-lifter: which, btw, Augustine strongly hinted at was a good thing to have; they wanted it NOW. If Rohrabacher was Chair of the House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a position to push his ideas to NASA, but he's not. Rep. Ralph Hall (R- TX) is the chair, and he's staunchly pushing JSC's interests, even though he's not from Houston. And the push for SLS was bipartisan, if you'll recall. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Plotting A New Course for NASA
On 11/24/2011 10:58 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
The numbers are still very preliminary-not to mention that contracts haven't been finalized. When you take into consideration even the preliminary numbers for cost of operations of SLS they are not good compared to cost to operate Falcon 9 Heavy or even Atlas 5 Heavy or Delta 5 Heavy configurations. That's why I urge a study to compare the costs of re-use of KSC assets with ELVs. It may be the bulk of cost to operate is due to the expensive ground infrastructure and has little to nothing to do with the rocket (in the case of SLS I doubt this as well). In any case, the numbers I've seen (so far) don't look good. And David, I hate to rain on your parade, but there's only ONE congresscritter pushing the EELV/Depot concept: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). His motives aren't pu there's several commercial space outfits in SoCal, and if he doesn't have facilities from those companies in his district, he's got constitutents who work at those companies. Which is the same approach that congresscritters from Utah, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida have when they pushed for and got SLS. I understand the political issues. However these are not the "numbers" that would change my mind. Wasting money because its politically expedient right now to do so isn't going to make for a healthy space program once a "reformer" gets elected president, who will take the case of money being wasted directly to the American people and starts to wield his veto power. If that reformer is not pro-space, a government space program that has put all its eggs in the SLS basket will be in really big trouble. They didn't want the Administration to wait up to 5 years before deciding on a heavy-lifter: which, btw, Augustine strongly hinted at was a good thing to have; they wanted it NOW. If Rohrabacher was Chair of the House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a position to push his ideas to NASA, but he's not. Rep. Ralph Hall (R- TX) is the chair, and he's staunchly pushing JSC's interests, even though he's not from Houston. And the push for SLS was bipartisan, if you'll recall. JSC interests aka stated NASA policy *is* COTS / CCDev. At least for access to ISS. Today the engineering numbers say it should be COTS/CCDev for all access to LEO. Why suck up all of NASA financial resources on rebuilding the wheel? Let's focus the $$$ being spent on BEO on true Exo-Atmospheric Vehicles EAVs. IMHO NASA should be working in sync with private companies (as it always has in the past) to reduce costs to LEO. That will naturally lead to all sorts of BEO opportunities. We already know we can't afford SLS if its numbers to operate are at the same levels as shuttle. If we don't have a good handle on those numbers, logic says we should *stop* and do more cost studies until we do, not charge ahead full speed. But I did not start this thread as an SLS vs COTS debate. I want constructive suggestions as to how NASA should move forward. If that's a lunar colony, I'd like to hear it and the reasoning why. Personally, I favor a solar exploration vehicle for going to the inner planets (Venus and Mars) and to continue to explore the Moon with tele-robotics. I think surface exploration (initial surveys) can be done with a manned government program, but colonization or permanent habitation is not politically expedient and is best left to the NGOs. Government *can* provide important subsidies to provide infrastructure to enable that. Just as it has with roads and bridges. To further debate along these lines I propose the following question: If you *had* an EAV and *had* completed a manned Mars surface landing, what would you do next? Contrast those possibilities against those if you only had a mission-specific tasked Mars program with no ability to do tours of the nearby solar system. Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Plotting A New Course for NASA | David Spain | History | 69 | December 2nd 11 06:12 AM |
Plotting an orbit | metspitzer | Space Shuttle | 10 | March 18th 09 02:31 AM |
plotting orbits from photos? | Eric | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | December 26th 05 12:14 AM |
Plotting | Nog | Policy | 2 | July 28th 05 05:22 AM |
Form availability - a simple alt az plotting chart | canopus56 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | May 8th 05 12:40 AM |