Comments on: What will the new national space policy look like?

By: Kelly Starks

Kelly Starks — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:02:51 +0000

>Ferris Valyn wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
>
> As for how could the Russians could boost capacity â€“ youâ€™ll have
> to ask the Russians.

But often they lie.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:55:06 +0000

It appears to me that the following language has been excluded from the newly released Obama Space policy (it was included in the Bush 2006 Space policy):

Implement and sustain an innovative human and robotic exploration program with the objective of extending human presence across the solar system;

Did I overlook something?

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:34:31 +0000

Bigelow Aerospace is the one who have put up the largest piece of the pie, at this point. But they aren’t the only ones.

As for how could the Russians could boost capacity – you’ll have to ask the Russians.

By: byeman

byeman — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:30:48 +0000

“But this writer sees NASA needing to focus on the moon and manned spaceflight, and little else”

Which is the last thing NASA needs to do.

By: Kelly Starks

Kelly Starks — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:25:43 +0000

>Ferris Valyn wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 11:05 am

> Bigelow isnâ€™t the only one. There are more than just Bigelow.

Its the big dog in this as far as I can remember?

>== And its worth noting that Russia is increasing its production
> of Soyuz so it can answer the commercial market.

Curious – they said they couldn’t increase Soyuz production when Commercials asked for it a few years ago – adn their Soyuz production capacity is kind of unraveling. How cuold they boost it now beyond what they agreed to support NASA flights?

By: Bill White

Bill White — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:19:33 +0000

The new Space Policy has been released and it appears the press conference began and ended before many even knew it was scheduled.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:05:56 +0000

Bigelow isn’t the only one. There are more than just Bigelow.

And its worth noting that Russia is increasing its production of Soyuz so it can answer the commercial market.

By: Kelly Starks

Kelly Starks — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:52:04 +0000

> Ferris Valyn wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 10:31 am
>
> 3. We arenâ€™t keeping them at the high cost-low rate model,
> if there are more customers, (which evidences seems to be
> mounting that this is the case

Iâ€™m not sure Iâ€™ld say evidence. Bigelow has options for a huge number of flights â€“ but wonâ€™t say anything about who or how many customers hes lined up.

> 4. Support for SRBs were so strong that a program
> BUILT around them crashed and burned.

Yeah, Griffinâ€™s Constellation was a design to pork system. 2.5 times what NASA estimated it would cost to develop a RLV CATS system to go to the moon. In real money, they were going to spend nearly as much just developing Constellation as the cost of the total Apollo program including all the lunar mission costs!

Worse, not everyone figures thatâ€™s what a lunar program must cost, so donâ€™t try to do one.

By: Kelly Starks

Kelly Starks — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:46:57 +0000

> MrEarl wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 10:27 am
>
> I donâ€™t know why you keep trying to compare space technology
> with aircraft technology. Two completely different things. One flys
> in the atmosphere the other through the atmosphere.

Actually there is much less difference then youâ€™d think, though space craft tend to be simpler and not as well made, since they arenâ€™t driven to commercial degrees of ruggedness. It was really highlighted for me in â€™08 when I was shifted from working requirements no the Orion life support and thermal control systems, to 787 HVAC

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:31:59 +0000

Yes â€“ but were not planning to. Were planning at the moment to lay off most of our space industry. Keep launches in a high cost â€“ low rate model â€“ even more so then before. Droping sustainability or exploration efforts. And SRBs have a lot of political support â€“ some Iâ€™m percolates might be locked in for a while.

1. Yes, the Obama budget proposal allows for doing this.

2. We wouldn’t have been forced into this position if it weren’t for the Shelby amendment.

3. We aren’t keeping them at the high cost-low rate model, if there are more customers, (which evidences seems to be mounting that this is the case

4. Support for SRBs were so strong that a program BUILT around them crashed and burned.