Comments on: Commercial commitment

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:44:20 +0000

What I meant is that NASA should be a consumer and buy passage on the expendable launch vehicles.

I agree, provided that you mean American launch systems.

By: Mr. Walker

Mr. Walker — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:03:46 +0000

David,

If you reference any of my previous posts, you will note I am no fan of shuttle. I believe we should have shut it down after Columbia.
What I meant is that NASA should be a consumer and buy passage on the expendable launch vehicles. NASA needs to put its money into the payloads, not the launch vehicles.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:51:40 +0000

I think NASA would argue destination of new vehicle is a Lunar orbit, not low Earth. In reality it is an MCOTS f’ing joke. The hardware they “reuse” will constrain the design much more than it will help the cost. In fact, it will most likely drive the cost significantly higher than that of a clean sheet design. They will have to live with all the legacy mistakes, and make it work with a booster that’s 5 segments, not 4, and make those overly complex SSMEs work on the bottom of a main tank that’s not really a main tank any more. Its load paths are entirely different, and it has to react 1/3 more thrust from the boosters.

What a bunch of boobs! Vehicle design really is a lost art. When I worked on space station we often argued that NASA management (as well as our own) should be replaced with a coin flipping machine. For one thing, the coin flipping machine could make a decision – how incredibly refreshing that would be, a manager managing – and at least half the time it would make the right one. That would be an improvement over the current bunch by at least 1000%.

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:52:49 +0000

This is not the beginning of the space age, and NASA should allocate its funds to exploration, not developing new earth-to-LEO transportation systems.

Are you suggesting that the Shuttle stay in use forever? What is NASA supposed to do any manned space exploration with, in the absence of a new Earth to LEO spacecraft? And how is the new spacecraft to be obtained?

I suggest that a new earth to low orbit spacecraft is exactly what is needed. The way to obtain this spacecraft is to offer a sort of giant X-Prize, open to Boeing and LockMart as well as to new firms.

The functional requirements for the new spacecraft should fit on one single-spaced page of text. The document should allow designers to chose capsules, lifting bodies, or gliders to satisfy the functional requiremnts. In other words, wings or parachute landings should not be a requirement in the functional requirements.

By: Mr. Walker

Mr. Walker — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:02:57 +0000

“Our fondest desire would be to keep NASA on the very frontier of space activity, letting commercial provider fill in for those activities which are not frontier activities.”

If Griffin’s statement is truthful, he should cancel the shuttle derived nonsense now. Compared to the rest of VSE, going from the ground to LEO is not a frontier activity. Lockheed and Boeing have successfully done this for years. This is not the beginning of the space age, and NASA should allocate its funds to exploration, not developing new earth-to-LEO transportation systems.

By: kayawanee

kayawanee — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:21:25 +0000

Wow, he really sounds like he’s serious about continuing to throw his support behind the space “start-ups”. This bodes well for companies like t/Space.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:13:49 +0000

Wow, these guys really get it. I like this part: “[t]he Foundation believes that NewSpace companies, and any other players who want to be paid for results rather than effort, should be permitted to prove themselves by carrying astronauts and supplies to the space station.” What worries me, though, is that once these companies start doing business with NASA, they will go down the same road as the “dinosaurs” they, and I, are so critical of now.

I suppose new space is in a strange situation. It’s not necessarily in their best interest to call for major NASA procurement reforms, because the reforms would make the old space companies competitive again. Well, I say it would make them competitive, but the reality is, it would take years for them to transform back into competitive companies, and some would never make it. On the other hand, if NASA doesn’t make some changes, which they seem to be making slowly, the new companies will never get a foot in the door. Long term, if NASA doesn’t stop paying for failure, or more charitably paying for effort as the Space Frontier Foundation puts it, the alt space companies will turn into the dinosaurs they are vying to replace.