It’s a little quiet on the policy front right now, although that will change tomorrow when the House Science and Technology Committee holds a hearing on NASA’s proposed human spaceflight plans. The hearing is very similar to the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the topic earlier this month, including repeat appearances by Charles Bolden, Neil Armstrong, and Gene Cernan; also appearing will be Tom Young. It’ll be interesting to see if this hearing covers any new ground compared to the Senate hearing two weeks ago.
One difference is that the hearing will coincide with the second day of the two-day NASA Exploration Enterprise Workshop in Galveston, Texas. Today will feature a number of presentations from NASA officials on studies performed to date within NASA on various aspects of the new plan, some of which have already led to the release of RFIs, such as one for commercial crew released on Friday. Today’s sessions will be webcast, and the slides for those presentations are already available.
Later this week the International Space Development Conference, the annual conference of the National Space Society, kicks off in Chicago. Notable speakers include Charles Bolden (the dinner speaker Friday night) and NASA deputy administrator (and former NSS executive director) Lori Garver at Saturday’s luncheon. Jeff Greason will be speaking about “The Augustine Committee and U.S. Space Policy” on Friday as well. Saturday afternoon features what conference organizers are calling, perhaps a bit hyperbolically, “The Great Debate”: after a presentation by Scott Pace of GWU’s Space Policy Institute on the president’s new NASA policy, Rusty Schweickart and Bob Zubrin will debate it, taking the pro and con positions, respectively.
It’ll be interesting to see if this hearing covers any new ground compared to the Senate hearing two weeks ago.
Probably not. It’ll probably end up being a Bolden Butcher like the rest of them.
It’s beyond me why he lets these people beat up on him like that, other than he figures he’s being a good Marine for his President.
dad2059 wrote:
It’s beyond me why he lets these people beat up on him like that …
What’s he supposed to do? If you watch C-SPAN, government bureaucrats get beat up every time they appear before a Congressional committee. They understand the Congresscritter has to pontificate in public, to pander to the local electorate. If the bureaucrat lets the Congresscritter have his little dog ‘n pony show, then they’re more likely to get what they want behind the scenes.
Any bureaucrat who told a Congresscritter to stuff it would be out of a job pretty quick.
Now is the time for opponents of Obamaspace to go for the kill. I am glad to see our big guns are out. (Give’em heck Neil!) At the very least Bolden and Garver must go. I am disheartened to see equal time given to cranks.
What’s he supposed to do? If you watch C-SPAN, government bureaucrats get beat up every time they appear before a Congressional committee
That maybe true, but he can correct them on obvious lies and misconceptions, i.e. Ares1-X = Ares1. (Yes, I know he tried to correct various Congress-critters on that.)
Yeah we’ll probably hear the same ‘ol talking points once again…
These Congressional sessions are for the members of Congress to score points for later election speeches, no actual work gets done. We might see some trial balloons – for additional Ares tests, for potential Orion configurations, etc. We could see what sort of response these trial balloons draw, and get some insight into what sort of proposals might be in discussion behind the scenes.
“Ares1-X = Ares1. (Yes, I know he tried to correct various Congress-critters on that.)”
The successful flight of Ares I-X is an inconvenient truth for proponents of Obamaspace. I believe it will be the key to the survival of Constellation. There simply are no other credible plans for HSF.
The successful flight of Ares I-X is an inconvenient truth for proponents of Obamaspace.
Not that it was all that successful, but there’s nothing “inconvenient” about it. But the notion that it was a test of Ares I is a convenient lie.
I am please to see the champions of the past are slowly fading into the mist. The astrofoggies and geezernauts have relived their past glories and we are all appreciative but enough is enough so lets move on.
But the notion that it was a test of Ares I is a convenient lie
Unfortunately, repeating a lie often enough gives it an air of truth.
No matter how foul.
Izuki:
) are not fading into anywhere. We ARE moving our efforts from the mental masturbation of this site to more productive venues of trying to influence congress and general public opinion.
The “astrofoggies” (I like that better than “geezernaughts”
Agreed that both are very uphill battles BUT if successful will actually do something meaningful for space exploration.
Jeff:
No offense meant, this site is excellent for honing an argument, you’ll really find out where the holes are, but while bringing Rand or Oler over to the Dark Side of Constellation support would be a very satisfying personal victory, it wouldn’t help HSF one bit.
“No offense meant, this site is excellent for honing an argument,”
Sure, I am not offended by someone calling me a mental masturbator doing nothing meaningful.
Got to hell.
I mean, Go to hell. Really.
Izuki Nomura wrote @ May 25th, 2010 at 10:56 am
“The astrofoggies and geezernauts have relived their past glories and we are all appreciative but enough is enough so lets move on.”
Yes, by all means lets give the neo-Keynesian leftists a chance to ride to orbit on their ‘game changing’ unicorns. They won’t sign up for actual goals, mind you. That would harm their self-esteem. Can we please have a masculine space program again?
amightywind wrote @ May 25th, 2010 at 9:57 am
The successful flight of Ares I-X is an inconvenient truth for proponents of Obamaspace…
LOL but apart from the bizarre nature of the comment I am curious.
Since Ares 1X had almost nothing in common with the proposed ARes 1 and was basically suborbital.
IF Musk is able to go to orbit with his Falcon 9 and an actual demonstrator capsule…
would you then say that the success of his program is assured?
Curious
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote:
“Since Ares 1X had almost nothing in common with the proposed ARes 1 and was basically suborbital.”
Critics of Ares I have been going around for years publishing misinformation about the design: first the claims that the vehicle was roll unstable; then that it would be torn apart by pogo; it was too tall to guide; it had negative stability, it would hit the launch tower. All of these criticisms and more were refuted by the test. Of course it was a suborbital test vehicle.
As for Musk. I am eagerly waiting the launch of Falcon 9. If successful, Obamaspace could survive. If there is a catastrophic failure Obamaspace is dead. Musk would still probably keep his contract for ISS resupply. Falcon 9 will probably survive even in the event of failure. He will probably get several chances, just like Falcon 1. But talk of redirecting NASA to be centered on Falcon 9 will end.
then that it would be torn apart by pogo
No one who understands pogo claimed this.
But talk of redirecting NASA to be centered on Falcon 9 will end.
There is no such talk, except from uninformed idiots.
Rand Simberg wrote:
“No one who understands pogo claimed this.”
Do tell. Don’t leave us in suspense you condescending jackass.
amightywind wrote @ May 25th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
I was curious what the response would be. I sort of have you pegged but ever so often it is useful to retouch the data!
I dont know who you were reading about Ares but few if any made the claims about pogo or whatever. The vast majority of the questions about the Ares 1 design still remain. From “can the thing carry the payload” (not clear) to “the cost” to “what are the vibration levels of the stack” (still unclear). To the later point, “mass” objects whose load distribution is not representative of the final project do not count….ie walls of steel where AlLi walls go is not representative.
Falcon 9 will survive in any respect no matter what the outcome of the Obama policy change is.
Falcon 9 is at its heart an attempt to recapture the commercial satellite launching industry in The country. There are reasons that Musk wants to dovetail his COTS contract,,in terms of that effort, but the “cash” for Musk right now has to be on the commercial launch side…and if he can get a few test flights he will get payloads (they have some waiting now).
The question at issue is wheather or not human spaceflight is going to remain the province of a failing government agency or move forward.
If Musk makes it to orbit with this first flight, (and I give it about a 60 percent chance) opposition to the President’s policy crumbles.
watch
Robert G. Oler
I apologize for telling someone to go to hell and I hope I have not opened the floodgates of murderous acrimony.
amightywind wrote @ May 25th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
one more part (an edit issue)
in any event Constellation is dead. It is like Terry Schiavo…just waiting for the machines (the federal cash) to be pulled.
BEEEEEEEEEEEE
Robert G. Oler
“If Musk makes it to orbit with this first flight, (and I give it about a 60 percent chance) opposition to the President’s policy crumbles.”
It is not an impressive vehicle. 9 engines? I think they would have been better off building a copy of the F-1A and just going with one- or two. RP-1 second stage? After a half century of making liquid hydrogen work this seems like a big step backward. And I did not see any escape tower on the dragon- did I miss it or are the solids integral to the capsule or what? The raft seems kind of small for recovery- are they going to reuse the first stage or is this just for show. And of course the second stage and the stuff attached to the capsule gets expended. This is also a step backward.
Gary Chuch wrote:
I did not see any escape tower on the dragon …
My understanding is they would have technology on the bottom of the crew craft to push it away from the rocket rather than pulling it away.
9 engines?
My understanding is they can add or subtract engines as needed, depending on payload weight.
But it’s been a while since I’ve read about their approach, and I’m not an engineer.
Gary Church wrote:
Sure, I am not offended by someone calling me a …
People use offending and insulting language when they can’t make an intelligent and reasoned argument to support their position. The best way to deal with people like that is simply not to respond. By not giving them the reaction they wanted, you deal them yet another defeat and send the message that they’re not worth a response.
In short … Anyone using language like that is a loser. Treat him as such.
“I’m not an engineer.”
You do not have to be an engineer to understand what works and what does not. Intellectual bullying is one of the reasons we have monstrosities like the V-22 -and space planes.
You can play with numbers to justify making something more complex to resolve a failure mode, but 8 extra engines is 8 extra chances for something to go wrong. I am sure they can show everyone the math to justify it but I suspect it has more to do with making those smaller engines than using them. They said the shuttle would make money flying 50 times a year and nuclear power would be too cheap to meter, etc.
Gary Church wrote @ May 25th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
“If Musk makes it to orbit with this first flight, (and I give it about a 60 percent chance) opposition to the President’s policy crumbles.â€
It is not an impressive vehicle….
it is to me.
the entire notion of SpaceX vehicles is to try and build something AFFORDABLE for non government use. I dont care if they bundled Redstones together (or redstone knock offs) If that would 1) get the payload to orbit and 2) do it in a way that is affordable.
No one really cares about the technology just what the bottom line cost is….
that is why I think Musk is being so resistant (as would I) to gate crashing efforts in terms of the FTS or even the escape system. If he were to use, for instance the LAS from Orion, creator only knows how much the thing would cost and how that would bleed him.
if he can develop something in house that also has another use (like “retros”) makes sense to me.
Robert G. Oler
“You do not have to be an engineer to understand what works and what does not. ”
Level of understanding varies, roughly proportionate to the degree of education (obviously).
Gary Church wrote @ May 25th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
“After a half century of making liquid hydrogen work this seems like a big step backward.”
That’s what I think. Lockmart people would tell you the smaller tankage required by the first stage reduces the ISP penalty of Kerolox so the whole LH2 vs RP1 discussion is a wash. The idea of launching with 9 engines is kinda nutty. It is a little intricate for my taste.
Robert G. Oler wrote:
“If Musk makes it to orbit with this first flight, (and I give it about a 60 percent chance) opposition to the President’s policy crumbles.”
I have been making the converse of this statement for months on this forum. You don’t have an original idea in your head.
amightywind blew…
“Critics of Ares I have been…”
If all you listen to is critics and supporters, then no wonder you are poorly informed about what Ares I is and isn’t.
For instance, SRB’s have an inherent resonant vibration – this is a fact. The concern hasn’t been that Ares I would tear itself apart, but how it would affect the crew during launch. Ares I designers took this concern seriously, and were spending time and money to mitigate it’s effects. Ares I-X, having a shorter SRB than the proposed Ares I version, has a different resonance frequency, so the I-X test did not prove anything concerning Ares I vibration.
To prove anything about Ares I, you need to launch an Ares I, and at $1B/flight, that’s pretty expensive testing. Compare that to the cost of a Falcon 9, and you’ll begin to see what the difference is between government run programs and commercial ones.
Without facts, your conclusions are going to be misinformed.
Concerning Falcon 9, SpaceX will not suffer any short-term market effects from any perceived failures in their test program (it is a test program after all), but it is true that some directly view their test program as a validation of the government using the commercial space industry. These critics conveniently forget that SpaceX is only an emerging player in this industry, and that many other companies already define what the commercial space industry is, including Orbital Sciences, Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
Ignoring the facts only demonstrates how ignorant you are.
amightywind wrote @ May 25th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
I have been making the converse of this statement for months on this forum. ,,
<<<
yes but you believe that the WMD was in Iraq or that we were justified in going to Iraq and that Bush's efforts on the Babe were well done.
that puts you in the "entertainment" column.
Robert G. Oler
Gary Church wrote:
It is not an impressive vehicle. 9 engines? I think they would have been better off building a copy of the F-1A and just going with one- or two. RP-1 second stage? After a half century of making liquid hydrogen work this seems like a big step backward.
Every vehicle has it’s own combinations of engineering trade-offs. I’m relying off memory here, but you can do a search to find the whole story of what Musk went through to settle on the current designs and technology. It pretty much boils down to costs and reliability.
Reliability – If you read about the Shuttle main engines, you’ll see they blew up lots of them before getting them to start and run correctly. Instead of bigger, SpaceX went the route of building smaller engines (but still efficient), and grouping them. Saturn V used five engines, lots of other launchers use multiple engines, so it’s more a question of finding the right trade off of engine weight, thrust and complexity. The Merlin 1C is a single shaft engine, reducing it complexity, which raises it’s potential reliability (less moving parts, less to go worng). In grouping engines, you can also have more redundancy, since the loss of 1/9 of your thrust is easier to make up than 1/2.
Cost – In designing a simple engine, SpaceX is now able to build it in-house, which is much cheaper. Coming from a manufacturing background, outsourcing can add lots of time and cost to a project, so this gets eliminated by doing it in-house. They also could have bought an engine off the shelf, but apparently they decided the long-term costs favored them designing exactly what they wanted, and that they could respond to their own needs better than an outside company could.
Regarding the choice of fuel, it comes back to trade-offs. Hydrogen requires a larger storage volume and more attention to tank design and handling, so you have to weigh the negative costs over the positive ones. They were able to design a long, tall tube using the latest stir-friction welding techniques, and they ended up with a design that maximizes internal volume with a minimum of manufacturing costs (compare the Falcon 9 shape to Soyuz). Atlas V uses RP-1/LOX as well, whereas Delta IV uses LH2/LOX. It depends on what your market and design goals are.
Every vehicle has it’s own combinations of engineering trade-offs
The trade off is cheap vs. cheaper. You want to put payloads in orbit you launch the biggest vehicle you can. But that is not cheap. You want to put the biggest payload in orbit you use the most powerful engines and fuel you can. But that is not cheap. You want to actually build a space ship you put wet workshops in orbit. Or not.
The trade off is cheap vs. cheaper
This is obviously proportionate to my degree of education but I would say the reusability issue is key.
You can build something just well enough to use once and then it is junk and go cheaper that way, or you can build something extremely well in hopes of using it over and over again. The SSME’s were one extreme but the SRB’s are very simple devices that are burn themselves up but keep a shell that is reloadable. “Engineering trade-off’s” is a technobabble term frequently used to justify doing things…cheap.
Gary Church wrote @ May 25th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
“The trade off is cheap vs. cheaper.”
I’m not sure I understand what your point was, so let’s look at what it costs to put cargo into LEO. Using published or proposed costs and capacities:
Shuttle & Ares I are about $17,000/lb
Atlas V & Delta IV Heavies are about $6,000/lb
Falcon 9 & Falcon 9 Heavy are less than $3,000/lb
Fuel is fuel, and engines are engines. Only the end result matters, not the effort it took to get it.
Part of the reason Ares I is so expensive is because of the solid fuel it uses, regardless of the reusability of the casings. For the Shuttle, it had to be slung on the side of the LH2/LOX tank because it was so massive, and it was so massive because of how much the Shuttle weighs, regardless of the cargo it’s carrying. Being side-mounted, it turns out, also had safety ramifications.
Design trade-offs…
Gary Church wrote:
You can play with numbers to justify making something more complex to resolve a failure mode, but 8 extra engines is 8 extra chances for something to go wrong.
The converse is you’re putting all your eggs in one basket. Or perhaps 2-3.
Again, I’m no engineer, but I do see rockets launching over there which have strap-on boosters that jettison on the way to orbit. No one seems to particularly care about the extra engines and whether or not the more boosters increases the possibility one will fail.
But it does seem to me that in this scenario:
(1) A rocket with nine engines, one fails, that’s a loss of 1/9 lift power.
(2) A rocket with three engines, one fails, that’s a loss of 1/3 lift power.
… I’m better off with (1) than with (2).
(1) is more complicated. Musk probably has a dozen propeller heads trying to write guidance software for his ‘engine out’. Why bother? You don’t have to debug code that doesn’t exist. With the Ares I you just put the engine to the torch and go!
Musk probably has a dozen propeller heads trying to write guidance software for his ‘engine out’.
The code is already written and tested.
With the Ares I you just put the engine to the torch and go!
If you can afford it. It doesn’t make any economic sense. And you can’t shut it down if there’s a problem. The solid first stage is why the launch abort system for Orion is so heavy and expensive.
I am sure the 7 poor soles packed into a Dragon capsule will be glad they have a cheap abort system. Talk about monkeys in a bucket! But I really don’t think SpaceX has thought that far ahead.
Tell us, O’ mighty noise, Earl, Gary, DCSCA, et al., and all the rest of you EELV and COTS bashers, how is your own personal rocket coming along?
Ares I and Orion? Heh heh. Good luck with that. And Mr. Smith, sorry, but these people are the dregs of American society. When you have been in this business as long as the rest of us, you’ll know that nothing but scorn works.
The are the definition of ‘incorrigible’. The cannot be rehabilitated.
Incorrigible, maybe. Recalcitrant, definitely. NASA is one of the few things I get out of the federal government for my taxes, so I will register my opinion. Even among people who fancy themselves experts.
almightwind – exercising his right, as an American, to complain ignorantly about his taxes
“NASA is one of the few things I get out of the federal government for my taxes…”
And yet, amightwind, Ares I will be more than twice as expensive to put crew or cargo into space as Delta IV Heavy. How can you justify that to the rest of us taxpayers? And remember, Ares I is a paper rocket, whereas Delta IV is already flying successfully.
“abreakingwind” flatulated:
But I really don’t think SpaceX has thought that far ahead.
That sentence has six too many words in it. You could have just stopped at the fifth, and been more accurate.
almightywind – In all seriousness – what do you say to the fact that a majority of your fellow citizens disagree that NASA needs a lot more money, pulled from welfare programs?
“Fuel is fuel, and engines are engines. Only the end result matters, not the effort it took to get it.
Part of the reason Ares I is so expensive is because of the solid fuel it uses, regardless of the reusability of the casings. For the Shuttle, it had to be slung on the side of the LH2/LOX tank because it was so massive, and it was so massive because of how much the Shuttle weighs, regardless of the cargo it’s carrying. Being side-mounted, it turns out, also had safety ramifications.”
Only the last sentence is even partially correct. Your technobabble is pretty weak.
Your technobabble is pretty weak.
Pot? Kettle on line one.
The Ares 1X test did not elicit confidence. It is no Saturn 1B or Saturn V.
(1) A rocket with nine engines, one fails, that’s a loss of 1/9 lift power.
So you burn the remaining 8 longer.
(2) A rocket with three engines, one fails, that’s a loss of 1/3 lift power.
So you burn the remaining two longer.
… I’m better off with (1) than with (2).
That gamble worked for Lindbergh, but later on intercontinetal aircraft required four engines for safety.
@TheMen- “When you have been in this business as long as the rest of us, you’ll know that nothing but scorn works.” Never smart to belittle the people who pay the freight. Engineering arrogance makes it easier to cut programs and budgets.
@RobertGOler- They thought the ISS was dead, too. In this weak economy with so many jobs in jeopardy, particularly in the Gulf coast region where things are worsening, it’s difficult seeing this Congress killing Constellation. It needs retooled but ending it outright in an election year seems doubtful.
Never smart to belittle the people who pay the freight. Engineering arrogance makes it easier to cut programs and budgets.
With a thirteen trillion dollar debt, you aren’t even close to ‘paying the freight’, you are on the verge of default, and even the most trivial ‘next disaster’ will easily tip you over the edge. Just count yourself lucky that I’m not in the executive seat yet, because I would ZERO NASA’s human space flight budget without blinking, or even thinking twice about it. That’s how big of a screwup Constellation is, er … was.
DCSCA wrote @ May 25th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
@RobertGOler- They thought the ISS was dead, too. In this weak economy with so many jobs in jeopardy, particularly in the Gulf coast region where things are worsening, it’s difficult seeing this Congress killing Constellation….
actually it is quite easy for me to see Congress doing it. The American people have had it with programs that are “welfare” for a particular segment…and have little value for the cost.
If it is a choice between funding technowelfare or say “the schools”…well that is no choice…and we are about to get into a deep world of choices.
The politics are moving that way
Robert G. Oler
DCSCA wrote @ May 25th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
That gamble worked for Lindbergh, but later on intercontinetal aircraft required four engines for safety….
nope. They required them for performance.
Until recently (well 1980) one could not find the powerplants either turbine or piston that had adequate performance to “lift” the mass that was required for Atlantic, much less Pacific crossings without four engines.
The 707 you talk about a lot had four, because it needed them. The high bypass turbofan has made the “big twin” possible. They are entertaining however. On “one” they are minimal performers (they are sized to meet FAR 25) but on two they rock.
One day I was climbing out of Boeing field with a 757 that was “green” ie nothing in the back and we were climbing at 15000 fpm.
The 787 was not possible even oh 20 years ago.
Robert G. Oler
On the Falcon 9…one of the interesting “thought experiment” to do with mass calculations is what happens to the payload if they can “do an Atlas” ie on the way up the hill…drop 6..
Robert G. Oler
“Just count yourself lucky that I’m not in the executive seat yet”
Oh I thank God for it.
“climbing at 15000 fpm”
Yeah, I was working nights in Mobile Alabama about 20 years ago and there was a fed ex bird that would take off empty every thursday night I think at around 7 for a year or so and it got so we would line up outside to watch because the guy would climb out very very steep and then bank very very hard. and it was very very cool.
Gary Church wrote @ May 25th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
it is fun to take the big ones out for a “spin”
Robert
@ Everyone:
The one thing Elon Musk has going for him, above and beyond all the CEO’s of the LockMarts, Boeings, etc. etc. is….drum roll…he now has his Screen Actors Guild card having appeared, with a speaking part, in Iron Man 2!
I wonder if he’ll use his Hollywood connections to drum up capital for his Space X endeavors, or use it’s movie making machinery to advance his cause in cheap access to space.
(Wanted to lighten up this blog a bit guys…getting nasty today!)
Ferris Valyn wrote:
“what do you say to the fact that a majority of your fellow citizens disagree that NASA needs a lot more money, pulled from welfare programs?”
See you election day.
See you election day.
Whatever happens election day (and I hope that the current scoundrels are thrown out, and we get spending out of control), it won’t be about space policy. If you think otherwise, you are completely clueless.
Errrr…under control…
Very good Rand. Go to your happy place!
I love this blog btw; Very intelligent, and sometimes testy, conversation.
“Tell us, O’ mighty noise, Earl, Gary, DCSCA, et al., and all the rest of you EELV and COTS bashers, how is your own personal rocket coming along?”
Well, mine has two 260 inch monolithic solid rocket booster strap-ons for about 16 million pounds of thrust for lift-off. On either side of the strap-ons are steel balloon tanks holding liquid hydrogen for the second stage engines. The core is a wet workshop that holds lox in the bottom and payload in the top. The second stage engines have their own re-entry modules. The workshop masses over two hundred tons and stays in orbit. The balloon tanks are folded around the core stage and recycled as shielding. A capsule with an escape tower will not only carry astronauts but also nuclear bombs safely into orbit. The workshop is one compartment in a nuclear bomb propelled space ship that will upon completion be partially filled with lunar water to provide cosmic radiation shielding. It will be in the shape of a ring about 3000 feet in diameter and covering the middle of this ring is a woven alloy parachute for the bomb plasma to push against. The ring spins to provide 1G and the propulsion system has an ISP of about 40,000. And off we go to the asteroid belt prospecting. Meanwhile back in earth orbit we will start working on those space solar power stations. Not to send electricity to earth ( enough sun hits the deserts to supply all our energy needs several times over); we use the energy to first melt down ore to make Bernal spheres and later to beam “second stage energy” to the future microwave powered launch vehicles that will eventually bring the millions of people into space.
Oh and my launch vehicle; everything gets used or reused, except that second stage wet workshop, which stays up of course.
All out of crayons after drawing up that rocket Gary?
I like pencils.
You know, I have never seen a ring like I am talking about with a parachute as a spaceship. It could be a pretty original thought- like the Bernal Sphere back in 29. This could be my legacy. You guys need to help me out here and start referring to it as a “Church Ship.” It would work. And I will invite all of you to dinner with me and Musk and Stark and the other pioneers.
The Church Ship- a half mile diameter round trampoline in space with atom bombs pushing it. Tell your friends it is coming soon. But you can’t build it with a falcon 9 heavy. I will have to go to China; they are planning on building their own Saturn V. I read that in Aviation Week.
“Church Ship.†with a Chinese accent…
@NASA fan- it is amusing to keep in mind that as Apollo 15 cleared the tower on its first day toward the moon, Master Musk was into his fourth week of life.
@TheMen- “Just count yourself lucky that I’m not in the executive seat yet, because I would ZERO NASA’s human space flight budget without blinking, or even thinking twice about it.”
Fortunately better minds who occupied the corner office- and the Oval Office thought more than twice. That train of thought has been routinely rejected starting 49 years ago today, when JFK gave his speech to Congress launching America, and Apollo, to the moon.
@RobertGOler- “actually it is quite easy for me to see Congress doing it. The American people have had it with programs that are “welfare†for a particular segment…and have little value for the cost.” Doubtful. They love their military and their astronauts. National pride and all that. Engineers, not as warmly embraced, especially of late as they can’t seem to plug a hole on the ocean floor. The politics move with the tide. Again, in this weak economy with so many jobs in jeopardy, particularly in the Gulf coast region where things are worsening, it’s difficult seeing this Congress killing Constellation as so many contractors are based in that region as well. Killing it outright in an election year seems doubtful.
RE- 707. Recall reading years ago somewhere those four engine jet aircraft could make the transocean trip on two but safety regs required four. This writer liked flying inside a 707. Cigar tube with wings. Had the great accidental opportunity to climb aboard the first PanAm 747 at Heathrow on a press thing back in ’70. Seemed so new then, but the UK was still crowing over Concorde at the time.
I think that the comments on NASA’s new direction – both for and against – tend to focus too heavily on SpaceX.
As I recall, Orbital actually got a larger share of the station resupply contract than SpaceX. And ULA, with their very reliable Atlas launch vehicle, may be just as well positioned to launch crews with an Orion Lite as SpaceX is with Dragon.
One of the merits of the new direction is that NASA can afford to spread its bets and see who delivers.
DCSCA wrote @ May 26th, 2010 at 2:10 am
. They love their military and their astronauts….
the American people love their military they gave up on the astronauts a long time ago. See how few people care about the shuttle coming home.
Airplanes in Part 121 service (certificated under part 25) are designed to meet certain performance criteria, the most selective of which is takeoff. The 707 had three engines so that it could make “second segment” climb on takeoff at the weights needed for trans ocean flight.
If a 707 lost two engines going over the “pond” it would have two problems…it could no longer maintain altitude at a flight level consistent with any sort of range and as such it would not have the range to get to its destination or return as the POR was reached.
In the words of the industry it would have a “wet footprint” thats bad
Robert G. Oler
@RobertGOler- “the American people love their military they gave up on the astronauts a long time ago.”
Perhaps you have. Most of the astronauts are culled from the military and my 12 year old niece still was thrilled to meet and talk with Dr. Sally Ride. As for the Atlantis landing, this writer knows of several awake, coffee in hand, to watch it on cable or the web.
DCSCA wrote @ May 26th, 2010 at 7:33 am
12 year olds like firefighters and just about everyone. Dont confuse your own personal impressions with the rest of the American people.
There wont be many people watching the landing
Robert G. Oler
Gary Church whilst applauding your Fission Vision two references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Mag_Orion which I really hpe gets some funding under the new budget…
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA426465&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
See the section on Nuclear DC-X.
Naturally the development program would best be located on the Moon cos “Blowups Happen!”
Right on! thanks for the .mil doc. Looks cool; I devour stuff like this. I got the idea for the “Church Ship” from the Medusa project.
@RobertGOler- “12 year olds like firefighters and just about everyone.”
Uhhh… Dont confuse your own personal impressions with the rest of the American people.
Uhhh…”the American people love their military they gave up on the astronauts a long time ago. See how few people care about the shuttle coming home.”
Again… uhhh “Dont confuse your own personal impressions with the rest of the American people.”
To be sung:
“Oh what a mess,
what a glorious mess.
One man’s mess
is another man’s art.”