Comments on: More voices in the CCDev chorus http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/25/more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus 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: Coastal Ron http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/25/more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus/#comment-356604 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:51:04 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5100#comment-356604 Dennis wrote @ October 27th, 2011 at 11:03 am

“Until the cost levels reach more into the range of what an airline ticket costs, Only the few privy will make the journey into space.”

Dennis, that is a pretty silly statement.

There are 2.75 Billion people expected to fly on airlines this year, and with an average price of $233 that would equal $6.7 Trillion in spending. By comparison space travel is a niche market, not one for the masses.

Let’s change your sentence and see if you understand this better:

“Until the cost levels reach more into the range of what an airline ticket costs, Only the few privy will make the journey on corporate jets.”

Now if you said that to any business jet owner, they would laugh at your statement, and the success of the business jet market is proof of that.

So it is with space travel, where for the foreseeable future it will be limited to countries and businesses that want to do work in space, and those few individuals that can afford a short journey on an extra seat. Tourism will NOT be driving the space transportation market, and NOBODY is relying on tourism.

]]> By: Dennis http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/25/more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus/#comment-356565 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:03:37 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5100#comment-356565 If NASA works with both MUSK and BIGELOW, I believe they can carry out extended Mars missons. A Bigelow habitat, would go a long ways toward allowing a crew to depart for Mars. I do not see low cost to space as a hope that will be fullfilled anytime soon. Even if Musk can pull off 20 mil. a seat, that is not cheap and few, except for NASA paying customers, will fly. Until the cost levels reach more into the range of what an airline ticket costs, Only the few privy will make the journey into space.

]]> By: Beancounter from Downunder http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/25/more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus/#comment-356545 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:19:53 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5100#comment-356545 Dennis. Your quite correct, the bugs were worked out. I know of no bugs that were present in the 2nd F9 flight and successful return to Earth of the COTS-C Dragon space craft. Looks like December launch for the COTS-C 2/3 mission.
Wrt Mars, I don’t think NASA has the balls any longer for that sort of mission. It’ll be up to private/commercial. Certainly the only ones who have seriously worked toward such an effort are Musk and Bigelow. Others have launched powerpoints but that’s about all.

]]> By: Frank Glover http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/25/more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus/#comment-356538 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:43:20 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5100#comment-356538 @ almighty wind:

“This is an gross extravagance that we simply cannot afford as a nation.”

(shrug) Okay. So, what were those SLS development estimates, again?

How many competing entrants to provide a heavy-lift service on that?

Oh, that’s right…

“SLS/Orion is a launch architecture and a serious program for BEO space transportation.”

Well, the ‘launch architecture’ is the only part Congress seems willing to spend money on, and lots of it. Not a word about, or dime for ‘serious’ BEO projects (or anything else) to put on it.

I can live with continuing Orion alone (it can still at least be sent to LEO on EELVs, then made part of some orbit-assembled and fueled system to go deeper, if we need to) but that’s all…

]]> By: Coastal Ron http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/25/more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus/#comment-356502 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:22:12 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5100#comment-356502 Explorer08 wrote @ October 25th, 2011 at 10:26 pm

“There is so much name calling and general nastiness by posters on this site. It’s no wonder HSF is failing”

If you’re just another drive-by commenter, then have a nice day.

If you really mean what you say though, you’ll stick around and “elevate the discourse” with thoughtful discussion of the topics. Lead by example, so to speak.

So which is it?

]]> By: Dennis http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/25/more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus/#comment-356497 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:31:59 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5100#comment-356497 You know all this talk of Falcons second stage spinning out of control, well it still placed the Dragon into space, so the accomplishment was great. Bugs will have to be worked out no doubt, but she still flew. Lets hope the next effort will be as successful. Meanwhile lets also hope Mars is mans next destination via government and or commercial.

]]> By: Rick Boozer http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/25/more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus/#comment-356495 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:43:27 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5100#comment-356495 @Explorer08
“There is so much name calling and general nastiness by posters on this site. It’s no wonder HSF is failing – – the space advocacy community is made up of middle schoolers.”

If you let a little bit of name calling distract you from evaluating the validity of what is being said based on its merits and verifiable factuality, than you are a lot less mature than you think you are.

]]> By: Beancounter from Downunder http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/25/more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus/#comment-356487 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:39:02 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5100#comment-356487 Can’t see the addition of the IG on the panel makes much sense at all other than perhaps as a balance of arguments against the success of CCDev Program so far. Since the program is milestone-driven and the commercial companies don’t get paid unless they successfully complete the milestones then what role does the IG Office play? None. Doesn’t matter what the report may say, the milestones are all that count and it seems that they are being ticked off one by one for all four companies.

]]> By: Fred Willett http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/25/more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus/#comment-356485 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:15:37 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5100#comment-356485 Meanwhile over at NASAspaceflight.com
“Teams at the main NASA centers are continuing to build up their involvement in the Space Launch System”.
It’s no wonder SLS is going to cost so much. All the centres are now scrambling for their seats on the SLS gravy train. This is why government (NASA) programs cost so much and commercial programs don’t.
$18B to build SLS vs $700M to build Falcon 1 AND falcon 9 AND Dragon
$1B a flight for SLS vs $125M a flight for Falcon Heavy.
1 flight every 2 years for SLS vs up to 10 a year for Falcon Heavy.
Now look at CCdev. It’s developing 4 crew carrying spacecraft for just $850M a year for 5 years vs SLS/MPCVs $3B a year for a 10 year program. It’s no wonder the SLS crowd resents CCdev and wants to knee-cap the commercial effort. It shows them up.

]]> By: Rhyolite http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/25/more-voices-in-the-ccdev-chorus/#comment-356483 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:54:08 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=5100#comment-356483 “NASA has divided its attention over 4 CCDev programs. This is an gross extravagance that we simply cannot afford as a nation.”

We could fund all four if we just canceled MPCV.

]]>