CEV to be made commercially available

Right now NASA is in quite a bit of a funding crisis. It seems it can't afford to keep flying the shuttle for ISS assembly flights and start CEV and stick development at the same time on its existing budget. They're not about to compound that development effort (and increase the development costs by billions) just to recover a few SSME's or start a LEO junkyard made up of spent upper stages

They would not need to spend a single dime to do so. You want the SSME?
Go get it. Can't be bothered to go get it? Then don't bitch that it's
not reusable.

How many times has *any* spent upper stage or launch vehicle engine that's in LEO, been recovered or reused?

How many fully resuable launch vehicles have flown? How many times have
commercial spacecraft launched passengers into orbit? I guess they're
all jsut impractical or even impossible....

their lunar mission architecture requires only a single docking in LEO before departing for the moon.

Good for them!

But bad for anyone proposing a use for spent upper stages.

Hardly. Teh stage is there. You want it? Go get it. If you want to
develop EVA procedures and tech... there's your chance.

However, those spent stages will still be property of the US government, so they really will need permission to do anything with them.

There's your first chance to do something. Get title transferred once
the stage is abandoned.

Resorting to name calling in a debate is always telling.

So is the whining I'm seeing so often. Don;t like being called a
whiner? Stop whining. Come up with somethign productive.

I'm just being realistic.

No, you're being defeatist.

But if you're so convinced this is a viable strategy, why not start your own company and work on a solution yourself?

I'm busy makign other ends of this project happen.

Which is why they should be buying launches, not developing new launch
vehicles.

Yeah. Great. So... who has a commercially available heavy lift launch
vehicle?

1. High launch costs

Hop to it.

2. Cumbersome, low pressure EVA suits and gloves

Centennial prize.

3. Better EVA tools

Goes with 2.

4. Better designs for hardware intended for assembly or swap-out during an EVA (e.g. ISS assembly and Hubble servicing)

One-use tech.

5. Refueling techniques for cryogenic fuels and oxidizers

No plans yet for orbital refueling, and you've already pooh-poohed the
concept.

6. Automated rendezvous and docking (useful for commercial ISS resupply)

Buy it from the Russians.

7. Inexpensive reentry and recovery techniques for large pieces of hardware (e.g. SSME's)

Buy it from the Russians.

NASA ought to work on enabling technologies and techniques to open up space

They did that in the '60's. Job accomplished. Now it's time to *use*
that tech for that purpose.

"snidely" wrote in message
ps.com...

Henry Spencer wrote:
No, it's the lack of a reentry system that could return it for reuse. I
agree that the hardware itself isn't inherently limited to a single
use --
as best one can tell, given how little detail exists -- but as currently
conceived, that stage is 100% expendable.

Demonstartor 2R tells us that cheap recovery systems for the SSME (and
CMGs when shuttle stands down) are still "just around the corner".

This is the kind of demonstrator I'd like to see NASA building and flying,
but it's not yet a proven technology.

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

On 19 Oct 2005 14:00:38 -0700, wrote:

We've already *done* that.

We've already cured diseases. Why do it again?

....Scott, *please* don't trim the sender headers from your quotes.
We'd like to know -which- idiot you're flaming this time without
having to dig through posts to find the smoking gun.

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:16:47 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

NASA does appear to be at a decision point here. If we go ahead with the
CEV, stick, and SDHLV, it's insuring that NASA will continue with its
business as usual approach to manned spaceflight.

....You are, as usual, ignoring the *real* reason that we should build
our own boosters instead of depending on ones built by foreign powers
and/or corporations: what guarantee is there that they'll always be
there and/or will be cooperative when some other geopolitical fiasco
occurs?

And besides, the French are involved in ESA, and where the Frogs go,
something *always* croaks...

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

wrote in message
oups.com...
And beyond that, what specific things can you do, things that are
actually worth doing, with Stick/CEV?

Building a space-based civilization. If somebody else can come up with
somethign else to do it with, great.

The stick/CEV will be too expensive for that. If your goal is truly to
build a space based civilization, then you'd better start by lowering the
cost of launching anything into LEO. In other words, invest in the start-up
companies who are attempting to do just that. NASA is decidedly
uninterested in lowering launch costs, since the stick and the SDHLV don't
look like they would do much of anything to lower launch costs, and even if
they did, they would only lower launch costs for NASA.

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

...Scott, *please* don't trim the sender headers from your quotes.

No trimming is done. As you can see, when one hits the "reply" button
while posting from Google groups, no such header is included in the
first place. I just can't be bothered to spackle in a new header.

And OM... if you don't know who I'm responding to in this message...
it's time to take a break.

On 19 Oct 2005 12:22:18 -0700, wrote:

Their "new" lunar mission architecture is so similar to Apollo that it's ...

... technologically boring. Which is *exactly* the right approach if
you want to actually *do* something.

....Amen, brother. Let's face it - unless you're building a superbox
for some gaming geek, flashy and exotic *never* gets the job done.

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:13:47 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Then I pick neither. Unless NASA is willing to do for manned spaceflight
what NACA did for air transport, then I don't feel it should be in the
business of manned spaceflight at all.

....Then it's a good thing you're not in charge of things, because it's
obvious as hell you'd **** it all up just like Mondale or Proxmire
would.

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

wrote in message
oups.com...
However, those spent stages will still be property of the US government,
so they really will need permission to do anything with them.

There's your first chance to do something. Get title transferred once
the stage is abandoned.

NASA doesn't officially abandon anything in space, so it's still government
property. I'm sure they'd be upset if someone else started messing with
their government property without their permission. Just ask Gus Grissom's
family. They'll tell you what happens when NASA claims something is still
their property.

Resorting to name calling in a debate is always telling.

So is the whining I'm seeing so often. Don;t like being called a
whiner? Stop whining. Come up with somethign productive.

I am. If CEV must go forward, I'm all for NASA using commercial launch
vehicles to put it into LEO. In fact, I'm all for NASA using commercial
launch vehicles for all programs, except for experimental vehicles of
course. I'm also for NASA doing research into technologies and techniques
that will open up space. I think they could do a lot more in the area of
space suits than they've been doing in the past.

I'm just being realistic.

No, you're being defeatist.

History backs me up. The glory days of Apollo funding will not return to
NASA. The budget cutting started before the first moon landing even took
place. It's the current NASA administrator who seems oblivious to this
fact, just as Admiral Dick Truly appeared to be.

But if you're so convinced this is a viable strategy, why not start your
own company and work on a solution yourself?

I'm busy makign other ends of this project happen.

Glad to hear it. I'm busy working on FEA software. It's a useful thing to
use if you're designing aerospace hardware. Aerospace is one of our bigger
markets. All those structures and dynamics classes I took to get my
Aerospace Engineering degree come in handy when working on this sort of
software.

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