Comments on: Is space settlement a long-term goal of NASA? Should it be? http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/09/is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: pathfinder_01 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/09/is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be/#comment-356147 Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:25:39 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5061#comment-356147 “I dont understand why they dont just recover the boosters at sea, much like the SRBs? It would not be as difficult as making it carry extra fuel for a hard landing! They could still be recovered via a nose first water landing and then taken back to the launch pad.”

SRB’s are basically empty solid steal tubes. Liquid fueled rockets are not, they are built more like airplanes or pop cans. A land landing would be prefered(no salt water to deal with and fewer crew needed to bring it back) and gentler on the structure.

]]> By: common sense http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/09/is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be/#comment-356134 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:58:38 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5061#comment-356134 @ Rick Boozer wrote @ October 20th, 2011 at 2:41 pm

“Until SpaceX releases more details about what they actually plan, neither of us knows the answer.”

Indeed. Maybe ;)

“At best what either of us have is what my undergraduate physics professor would have referred to as a SWAG: Scientific Wild Ass Guess.”

Possibly but you at least almost figured my other name… Scientific Wild Ass Guy

]]> By: Rick Boozer http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/09/is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be/#comment-356109 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:41:51 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5061#comment-356109 @common sense
“Nope I don’t think so.”
Until SpaceX releases more details about what they actually plan, neither of us knows the answer. At best what either of us have is what my undergraduate physics professor would have referred to as a SWAG: Scientific Wild Ass Guess. As the Zen master said in the ancient parable, “We shall see.”

]]> By: Dennis http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/09/is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be/#comment-356103 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:47:35 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5061#comment-356103 I dont understand why they dont just recover the boosters at sea, much like the SRBs? It would not be as difficult as making it carry extra fuel for a hard landing! They could still be recovered via a nose first water landing and then taken back to the launch pad.

]]> By: Vladislaw http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/09/is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be/#comment-356094 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:39:06 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5061#comment-356094 DCSCA wrote:

“In fact, it is a backdoor subsidy.”

In fact it is not. A subsidy has to support the institution to keep it from failure, NASA’s represents less then 5%. VG’s business will not rise or fall on NASA. NASA bought a service, end of story. You can type subsidy another 1000 times, it will not make it true. Happy typing.

]]> By: common sense http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/09/is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be/#comment-356092 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:30:30 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5061#comment-356092 @ Rick Boozer wrote @ October 19th, 2011 at 10:17 pm

“Looks like TPS to me.”

Nope I don’t think so.

BUT here is a piece of pretty good news from nasawatch.com. Very nicely done.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/10/nasa-approves-s.html

]]> By: DCSCA http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/09/is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be/#comment-356070 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:59:11 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5061#comment-356070 Vladislaw wrote @ October 17th, 2011 at 12:38 pm

In fact, it is a backdoor subsidy. Just as Romney never hired illegal aliens– he let his contractors do the dirtywork– and the yardwork for him.

]]> By: Rick Boozer http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/09/is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be/#comment-356059 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:17:13 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5061#comment-356059 Looks like TPS to me.

]]> By: common sense http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/09/is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be/#comment-356043 Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:01:16 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5061#comment-356043 @ Rick Boozer wrote @ October 18th, 2011 at 6:04 pm

Oh and btw what you see on top of the first stage is not TPS but rather the tank.

]]> By: common sense http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/09/is-space-settlement-a-long-term-goal-of-nasa-should-it-be/#comment-356039 Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:12:03 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5061#comment-356039 @ Rick Boozer wrote @ October 18th, 2011 at 6:04 pm

“Ergo, no “nozzles first” reentry.”

Possible but highly unlikely. Think about it, first you have to flip the vehicle “nose” down to go past max-heating and max-q and then you have to flip it again nose up to land with nozzles first. And the last flip you have to do in pretty thick atmosphere. It ain’t no ol’ F-16 if you see what I mean. ;)

]]>