|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com,
"kert" wrote: http://www.bealaerospace.com/spacenews.htm " We correctly targeted the alive and well geo-stationary market and additionally hoped for some space station resupply missions. We were naively lured into business by NASA's constant remarks about wanting to encourage privatization and new launch service providers. When Congress and NASA targeted $10 billion to fund competing launch systems, we threw in the towel. We simply could not compete with such government funded boondoggles." Emphasis on "NASA's constant remarks about wanting to encourage privatization" Yes, I know, but the current Administrator seems more serious about it to me than previous ones. Griffin continues: "Indeed, we will issue this fall a request for proposal for such capabilities, with the development to be done on a commercial basis, much like that in the commercial communications satellite market. This is a priority for NASA. Utilizing the market offered by the International Space station's requirements for cargo and crew will spur true competition in the private sector, will result in savings that can be applied elsewhere in the program, and will promote further commercial opportunities in the aerospace sector." Has NASA ever issued such a request for proposals before? Best, - Joe ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote: It might look like that, but analyze it from the other direction -- the greatest discoveries, and many of the greatest inventions, depended on somebody stumbling around with the faith that something would be found, or even just stumbling around until tripping over something and saying, "Huh? That's funny...' And stumbling about in space (with multi-gigadollar projects) is better than stumbling about in terrestrial labs? You can do a whole lot more stumbling down here for your research dollar. Unless you have some reason to think that space stumbling is going to be more productive than non-space stumbling, your point would suggest that space isn't a good place to do this random exploration. There's good reason to think that space stumbling will be more productive at developing space (*) than stumbling around on the Earth. And that's the sort of development that Griffin was referring to: that which leads to expansion of humanity beyond the Earth. (*) ...where by "developing space" I mean learning to live and work in space, as well as developing the infrastructure that makes such living and working in space easier, safer, and more affordable. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Strout wrote:
There's good reason to think that space stumbling will be more productive at developing space (*) than stumbling around on the Earth. Yet, you fail to provide the reason. Instead you substitute circular log "stumbling around in space will be more productive in developing ways to stumble around in space". And that's the sort of development that Griffin was referring to: that which leads to expansion of humanity beyond the Earth. Only the wildest dreams lead to any useful expansion I.E. completely self sufficient. Anything less is living behing a canvas seawall. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Strout wrote: In article . com, "kert" wrote: http://www.bealaerospace.com/spacenews.htm " We correctly targeted the alive and well geo-stationary market and additionally hoped for some space station resupply missions. We were naively lured into business by NASA's constant remarks about wanting to encourage privatization and new launch service providers. When Congress and NASA targeted $10 billion to fund competing launch systems, we threw in the towel. We simply could not compete with such government funded boondoggles." Emphasis on "NASA's constant remarks about wanting to encourage privatization" Yes, I know, but the current Administrator seems more serious about it to me than previous ones. Griffin continues: "Indeed, we will issue this fall a request for proposal for such capabilities, with the development to be done on a commercial basis, much like that in the commercial communications satellite market. This is a priority for NASA. Utilizing the market offered by the International Space station's requirements for cargo and crew will spur true competition in the private sector, will result in savings that can be applied elsewhere in the program, and will promote further commercial opportunities in the aerospace sector." Has NASA ever issued such a request for proposals before? Yes, look up the AAS program and what became of it. Here's a good place to start: http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/arc...aryHudson.html -kert |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Second, NASA will initiate development of a Crew Launch Vehicle, derived from Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters with a new upper stage, for human spaceflight missions. Consistent with my belief that we can't afford to have a four-year gap in our nation's human spaceflight capability, we will bring this vehicle online in the 2011-12 time frame." So its full speed ahead for the White Elepant. A HLV with 125 tons capability. 100 tons would be cheaper I assume. What are the design changes needed to take the HLV from 100 tons to 125 tons? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
nmp wrote: Similarly, the best way to improve at working in space is to work in space. This is called learning from experience. I can't imagine why you had difficulty with this concept. I guess they were meaning that you did not provide a reason *why* anyone would want to improve at working space in the first place. Ah, well that would have been a valid question. Unless you're talking about some limited timeframe, this is complete nonsense. Humanity *will* live with self-sufficiency beyond Earth someday; the only question is when and who that will be. Now *that* is romantic. Nothing wrong with that, but it still is. You may have a hard time selling projects based on romanticism, unless that romanticism is shared with a majority. It's not romanticism; it's population dynamics. Any population of reproducing organisms will expand to fill all available niches. As human technology progresses, space becomes an available niche. Ergo, we will expand into it. People who argue against this point, I think need to go back and study some basic principles of biology. The only possible way this would not (eventually) happen is if we are completely wiped out. But that seems unlikely (though not impossible). When? Not in 200 years (so says my crystal ball) It'll be hard to say exactly when "self sufficiency" is achieved. Certainly within 200 years I would expect that any reasonable definition of it would be satisfied, but then we'll always have people like Derek who adopt unreasonable definitions to support their views (such as claiming that SS1 didn't actually reach space, for example). Of course I could be wrong, in that it might take longer. It's only inevitable that it will happen *eventually*, not that it will happen in any particular timeframe. Who? Does not matter. They will be a race/nation of their own, not having much interests in common with those on Earth that sent them anyway. After all, you said "self sufficient". Well, whether it matters or not is a judgment call, but it is an interesting question to some. Will that independent race/nation be speaking mostly English, or mostly Chinese? Or maybe Japanese or Russian, or something else? It may not matter to you, but it will matter to them, at least as much as what language we're communicating in now matters to us. That was apparently Griffin's point, anyway, and it seems a reasonable one to me. Best, - Joe ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com,
"kert" wrote: Has NASA ever issued such a request for proposals before? Yes, look up the AAS program and what became of it. Here's a good place to start: http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/arc...aryHudson.html Good point. Well, here's hoping that this time it will work out better! - Joe ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Oberg" wrote in message .. . It might look like that, but analyze it from the other direction -- the greatest discoveries, and many of the greatest inventions, depended on somebody stumbling around with the faith that something would be found, or even just stumbling around until tripping over something and saying, "Huh? That's funny...' Absolutely that is an essential part of the process. But my hobby tells me that a random search, dreaming or inspiration is exactly half of the creative process. The chaotic half. But for this system to self-organize, to take on a life of it's own and reach full potential, the other half of static or tangible benefits must be in balance with the random component. At the same time. My hobby tells me that any system that is dominated by one realm, or the other, is unnatural and weak. The math also tells me that if we start with the random component first, in order to later find the tangible, that this is a linear approach that prevents both aspects from occurring at once. The system cannot reach potential or even survive long with ...one after the other. But beginning with the tangible realm, if the goal is large enough, can and will inspire the dreams and with it a chaotic frantic search. The two exist at once and the system spontaneously organizes. The power of evolution and nature is applied and the best possible outcome is virtually assured. You won't even have to 'maintain' it. A proper design will grow, fund and drive us into the future all by itself. Nothing 'religious' about it, J -- it's historical extrapolation, and the only 'faith' is in existing precedents being repeatable. Pattern recognition! This is the core, the heart and soul of the chaos and complexity sciences. And a careful scientific examination of such global patterns teaches us how to design a system which produces the patterns, or output, we desire. I feel we should be beyond a simple random search by now. This system, Nasa's long term goals, connects strongly to all our hopes and dreams. It effects the future for us all, even to the very core of our existence with the search for life elsewhere. It's too important not to try our very best to make sure that this time 'we get it right'. We should have a tangible goal that goes to the heart of our greatest future fears and dreams. Our oil and blood mix freely now. And energy prophecies inspire post-apocalyptic nightmares or infinite 'di-lithium' dreams. A Trekkian Utopia is possible. As I read the Nasa Administrator's speech, my instincts told me Nasa just might've 'sold it's soul' for another ride to the moon. Please, let that not be true. Please! "Say it aint so, Joe" Jonathan s "jonathan" wrote This borders on a religious-like faith that if we go, then something good and rewarding will result. Somehow someday, somewhere something spectacular! That's the plan! To randomly stumble about the heavens in search for a reason to be there..... No no wait a minute, it just dawned on me what's really going on here. This huge long-term program is being justified with nothing but fluff. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
richard schumacher wrote:
They did seem to want to do everything the hard way (that is, re-invent it themselves) but has not the law also changed in the interim? You mean, there was a law prohibiting them from launching geostationary satellites for commercial customers (their intended market)? Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A positive leap second will be introduced in UTC on 31 December 2005 | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | July 11th 05 05:23 PM |
Space Calendar - March 25, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 25th 05 03:46 PM |
Space Calendar - March 25, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 0 | March 25th 05 03:46 PM |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Policy | 145 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |