A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 8th 09, 06:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php

I spotted this posting on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php:

NASA should design its rockets so that they can launch
manned space craft built by the private sector. This
would encourage a larger private sector for space flight.
These manned space craft could be built by private companies,
universities, and advanced amateur aircraft builders.

This is the dumbest idea ever. This person has it completely backwards.
Plus this person is obviously ignorant of history. The space shuttle was
called STS because it was to be the one and only US Space Transportation
System. In this advertised role the shuttle failed miserably. Do we really
want to repeat that mistake twice?

The US already has several launch providers (dinosaurs and early mammals).
Why should NASA be in this market at all? In fact, it's barred by law from
competing in this market (this was put into place post-Challenger because it
became obvious to everyone involved that the US government was a very poor
substitute for a commercial launch provider).

Some argue that NASA should still build its own launch vehicles (i.e. Ares I
and Ares V), but I find the arguments for this position to be weak and
ineffective. EELV's exist now and can be adapted to launch Orion. Larger
launch vehicles could be built, if needed, by those same launch providers.

But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit
refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge
constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be a
paradigm changing technology.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #2  
Old July 8th 09, 07:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php



Jeff Findley wrote:
But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit
refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge
constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be a
paradigm changing technology.

And whom, pray tell, is going to take the fuel up to the orbiting fuel
depot?
Shouldn't that be privately done also?


Pat
  #3  
Old July 8th 09, 10:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php

"Jeff Findley" wrote:
Some argue that NASA should still build its own launch vehicles (i.e. Ares I
and Ares V), but I find the arguments for this position to be weak and
ineffective.


Mostly because you've decided in advance that NASA shouldn't be in the
launcher business no matter what.

But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit
refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge
constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be a
paradigm changing technology.


And here Jeff trots out his favorite hobby horse again. The paint is
a bit worn, but enough of the outline can still be seen to allow one
to recreate the fantasy.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #4  
Old July 9th 09, 09:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php



Derek Lyons wrote:
And here Jeff trots out his favorite hobby horse again. The paint is
a bit worn, but enough of the outline can still be seen to allow one
to recreate the fantasy.


Remember years back the guy who was costantly arguing here in favor of
his superconducting electrical storage cell that was going to change
everything, and people kept trying to explain to him that no more energy
was going to come out of it than you put into it?
This is the space equivalent of that concept. :-)

Pat
  #5  
Old July 9th 09, 02:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Jeff Findley wrote:
But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit
refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge
constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be a
paradigm changing technology.

And whom, pray tell, is going to take the fuel up to the orbiting fuel
depot?
Shouldn't that be privately done also?


Nope. You invite participating countries to launch fuel in exchange for
seats on lunar missions. You get *them* to pay for the launch vehicles, so
the US doesn't have to.

This keeps participating countries off the "critical path" and it gives the
US a key spacefairing technology which will enable bigger missions which can
travel further from Earth. By far the biggest part of a Mars mission (mass
wise) will be fuel. Getting other countries to foot the bill for launching
that is a good thing. Set the precedent now rather than later.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #6  
Old July 9th 09, 02:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
Some argue that NASA should still build its own launch vehicles (i.e. Ares
I
and Ares V), but I find the arguments for this position to be weak and
ineffective.


Mostly because you've decided in advance that NASA shouldn't be in the
launcher business no matter what.


US law says they should not be in the commercial launch business. EELV's
can easily replace Ares I. There is no need for it.

But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit
refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge
constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be a
paradigm changing technology.


And here Jeff trots out his favorite hobby horse again. The paint is
a bit worn, but enough of the outline can still be seen to allow one
to recreate the fantasy.


In orbit refueling would replace Ares V and would open up the architecture
for other nations to participate (by delivering fuel to the depot) in a way
that keeps them off the critical path. Also, it's a key enabling technology
for a Mars mission. If you think NASA is going to get funding for a launch
vehicle even bigger than Ares V to launch a manned Mars mission, I've got a
bridge I'd like to sell you...

And yes, I don't believe NASA should be in the launch vehicle business
anymore than NACA should have been in the passenger airliner business.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #7  
Old July 9th 09, 04:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...

Derek Lyons wrote:
And here Jeff trots out his favorite hobby horse again. The paint is
a bit worn, but enough of the outline can still be seen to allow one
to recreate the fantasy.


Remember years back the guy who was costantly arguing here in favor of his
superconducting electrical storage cell that was going to change
everything, and people kept trying to explain to him that no more energy
was going to come out of it than you put into it?
This is the space equivalent of that concept. :-)


LEO refueling depots don't require unobtainium to produce. In fact, near
term tests could be done using modified EELV upper stages. Today's EELV
upper stages have some pretty amazing cryogenic storage capabilities,
especially when compared to what NASA is trying to baseline for Ares V.
NASA just isn't on top of the current state of the art in upper stage
cryogenics. :-(

The part NASA needs to work on are the technologies needed to move cryogenic
propellant from one tank to another, make reliable (leak free) cryogenic
connections between two spacecraft, automated rendezvous and docking (this
one is just about off the shelf already), and etc.


Russia has been transferring non-cryogenic propellant from one spacecraft to
another since what, the 1970's? Can't we please update this in the 2010's
to include cryogenic propellants?

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #8  
Old July 9th 09, 04:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
hdakotatelephone...
:
:
: Jeff Findley wrote:
: But even better would be to have NASA invest in developing in orbit
: refueling technologies so that launch vehicle size is no longer a huge
: constraint to launching a lunar mission. In orbit refueling would be
a
: paradigm changing technology.
:
: And whom, pray tell, is going to take the fuel up to the orbiting fuel
: depot?
: Shouldn't that be privately done also?
:
:Nope. You invite participating countries to launch fuel in exchange for
:seats on lunar missions. You get *them* to pay for the launch vehicles,
so
:the US doesn't have to.
:

It'd be cheaper to just launch the fuel ourselves.


I don't understand how getting another country to launch fuel costs the US
more money than launching it ourselves. Unless you assume NASA gets a big,
cheap, launch vehicle out of nowhere.

:This keeps participating countries off the "critical path" and it gives
the
:US a key spacefairing technology which will enable bigger missions which
can
:travel further from Earth. By far the biggest part of a Mars mission
(mass
:wise) will be fuel. Getting other countries to foot the bill for
launching
:that is a good thing. Set the precedent now rather than later.
:

This is still a 'chicken and egg' thing. If you don't have a use for
the stuff it's a waste. If you *do* have use for the stuff, then it's
one somebody's critical path for whatever missions intend to use it.


If the plug gets pulled on Ares development and NASA is told that they're
out of the launch vehicle business for good, then the need for LEO refueling
becomes far greater.

The way the politics are working out, I personally doubt NASA will get the
funding it wants for Ares V (or any big SDLV). NASA will be forced to "do
more with less".

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #9  
Old July 9th 09, 04:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php

Fred J. McCall wrote:

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:This keeps participating countries off the "critical path" and it gives the
:US a key spacefairing technology which will enable bigger missions which can
:travel further from Earth. By far the biggest part of a Mars mission (mass
:wise) will be fuel. Getting other countries to foot the bill for launching
:that is a good thing. Set the precedent now rather than later.
:

This is still a 'chicken and egg' thing. If you don't have a use for
the stuff it's a waste. If you *do* have use for the stuff, then it's
one somebody's critical path for whatever missions intend to use it.


Jeff is fully aware of the 'chicken and egg problem', but he sees it
as a feature rather than a bug - because it allows subsidies to
launcher operators without actually calling it a subsidy.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #10  
Old July 9th 09, 04:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Spotted on http://hsf.nasa.gov/topics.php

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

By far the biggest part of a Mars mission (mass wise) will be fuel.


So what? In terms of the cost of the program, it's nearly down in the
noise.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
http://sidewalkastronomy.info/nucleus/ Starlord Misc 0 October 8th 06 08:01 PM
http://rapidshare.de/files/25705110/Bathing_MMS.rar sSharma Amateur Astronomy 0 July 13th 06 02:18 PM
New, old topics [email protected] Research 10 June 7th 06 09:54 AM
you can see Alan Erskine on this Security Camera http://149.137. see Alan Erskine on this Security Camera next to h Policy 0 September 7th 04 04:50 AM
Error accessing http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ [128.32.18.151] Robi SETI 20 November 16th 03 01:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.