We don’t know who the next NASA administrator is going to be, nor what the new administration’s space policy plans are, nor what sort of budget the administration will request, but that’s not stopping some advocacy groups from pressing their agendas on Congress. The National Space Society is planning its annual Legislative Blitz in conjunction with the Space Exploration Alliance on February 22-24. As in past years, this event will feature teams of space activists meeting with Congressional offices to push the theme that “space must be a national priority”, although they have not disclosed any policy specifics.
The Planetary Society is also stepping up its Congressional outreach in support of “Beyond the Moon”, its space exploration roadmap released in November that deemphasizes a human return to the Moon while making Mars the ultimate long-term goal for human spaceflight. The organization plans to distribute copies of that report to all members of Congress early this month. “By reaching out to Congress early in its term,” the group notes, “the Society is making sure that its voice and that of its members will be heard when the time comes to make difficult budgetary decisions.”
Both the above organizations failed to consider the one fatal flaw in the NASA’s future… the launch cost factor. There is a space mission planner old axiom; “You got to get it in space before you can use it in space.†This nation’s has failed to control its launch cost factor and with this dire economy we now can’t “use it in space†because we can’t afford to “get it in space.†nasaproblems.com
The cost of using the existing heavy lift launch vehicles to replace the space shuttle exceeds that of the shuttle and the payload cost per pound to orbit for the so called “emerging†private transportation services is twice that of the shuttle. The manufacturating cost of these expendable vehicles is the prime negating cost factor and was the primary reason the “reusable” space shuttle was developed.
However, NASA failed to achieve the goal of low cost shuttle operations when they failed to pursue the privatization of the shuttle transportation system. Regrettably this failure may cost the lives of another shuttle crew as one of the cost saving features of the privatized shuttle would have been crew escape pods…a fatal flaw.
The Obama NASA transition team is also heading down the same road map to disaster by not addressing the launch cost factor. Bottom line is if this nation wants to stay in the space game, we got to address the launch cost factor.
NASA failed to achieve the goal of low cost shuttle operations when they failed to pursue the privatization of the shuttle transportation system. Regrettably this failure may cost the lives of another shuttle crew as one of the cost saving features of the privatized shuttle would have been crew escape pods…a fatal flaw.
What in the world (or out of it) are you talking about?
What in the world (or out of it) are you talking about?
Adult stuff, Rand. The adults are in charge now. You wouldn’t understand.
if this nation wants to stay in the space game, we got to address the launch cost factor
And we won’t, as long as we cling to the comforting fantasy that “private vs. public” rather than total volume — number of launches, number of design cycles, sheer experience — is the biggest factor in determining launch cost.
“The cost of using the existing heavy lift launch vehicles to replace the space shuttle exceeds that of the shuttle and the payload cost per pound to orbit for the so called “emerging†private transportation services is twice that of the shuttle.”
Evidence?
“The manufacturating cost of these expendable vehicles is the prime negating cost factor and was the primary reason the “reusable†space shuttle was developed.”
Shuttle, for all intents and purposes, is not reusable. The engines and TPS are practically rebuilt after each flight and many other systems have to be inspected and repaired after every flight.
The biggest “cost factor” in anything (launch vehicles or otherwise) is workforce. And the workforce associated with turning around the Space Shuttle is much, much larger and more expensive than that associated with any existing ELV. Privatization is not going to appreciably change this — the vehicle simply requires a number of man-hours that greatly exceed the man-hours required to build and launch any existing ELV.
This is not an argument against reusability — but to be economically successful, future reusable vehicles will have to require a smaller workforce and fewer man-hours for operations than the Shuttle and existing ELVs.
“Regrettably this failure may cost the lives of another shuttle crew as one of the cost saving features of the privatized shuttle would have been crew escape pods…”
How can adding a crew escape system to anything be considered a “cost saving feature”?
FWIW…
[…] over at Space Politics, I saw a very peculiar comment: …NASA failed to achieve the goal of low cost shuttle […]
Adult stuff, Rand.
It’s hard to imagine “adult stuff” coming from a pseudonymous moron calling itself “Drama King.” Particularly considering what a non sequitur the comment is.
I’m guessing that it’s another imbecilic comment from Elifritz.