Comments on: NASA uses Soyuz deal to push for commercial crew funding

By: kevin J waldroup

kevin J waldroup — Wed, 08 May 2013 14:40:53 +0000

wow DCSCA. newspace is the future and Gov too

By: Scott Rankine

Scott Rankine — Wed, 08 May 2013 12:57:40 +0000

This is disgraceful pork barrel politics at its worse. Lets get real people. The SLS is a ‘rocket to nowhere’ that will never fly. Its a total white elephant along with the Orion project – both are dead ends. NASA needs to accelerate rather than put the breaks on private sector commercial crew launch capabilities. Traditional aerospace contractors like Boeing are very nervous about the disruptive effect new entrants like SpaceX are having on ‘its’ market and will do everything they can to delay and derail them. I personally hope that SpaceX pushes ahead with its DragonRider crewed vehicle and launches in 2015 as planned. That will put a bug up the ass of a lot of people, especially aerospace lobbyists and their Congressional lap dogs…

By: Arnold Theisen

Arnold Theisen — Tue, 07 May 2013 05:56:20 +0000

Thanks Justin for getting the conversation back on track. And John, for pointing out some more realities. I’ve been amused by reading the back and forth above, though it’s a shame that we space enthusiasts can’t come together no matter for whom we last voted. I just hate to see a huge project, paid for mostly by US taxpayers, thrown away because it’s not helping politicians to get re-elected very much anymore.
There are large numbers of people, who vote (some might say unfortunately), and aren’t inspired by anything past the next commercial break. They also helped pay for the station, but somehow think it cost them, individually, far more than it actually did.
For those who argue that it’s no longer good for anything, and never was anyway, I disagree completely. Politicians always have their knives handy for their opponents, and sometimes their supposed friends, whether we’re talking domestic or international politics. However, on the ISS we may have more than just the appearance of cooperation. That’s worth a LOT.
As for the future, we WILL move beyond LEO. People with vision WILL see that the best way to do that is with smaller steps. The long distance spaceships will be best built in space, not at the bottom of our huge gravity well because it will be far, far cheaper! The ISS will be a great place to build the beginnings of a “Space Dock”, especially when it has been expanded with Bigelow modules as was pointed above. These will be the construction quarters for the laborers to get the needed rest between shifts. During assembly of the ISS it was repeatedly pointed out that doing construction in space is much more strenuous than doing the same tasks on Mother Earth. Ask an apprentice steel worker how fatigued they are/were after a day on steel. I’ve had a taste of it and I know.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sat, 04 May 2013 17:53:24 +0000

I wouldnâ€™t be at all surprised if the trades showed it to be less expensive to just build a new outpost in lunar orbit using inflatable modules.

I’d be shocked if it came out the other way.

By: Guest

Guest — Sat, 04 May 2013 14:35:39 +0000

Well my friend, your proposal failed to attract NASA because you did not understand the requirements to the NIAC RFP.

All this statement demonstrates is that you are the kind of individual who sets requirements for two page white papers on TRL 1 technology.

I canâ€™t wait to see your effort next year to propose the same thing to NIAC.

I’m more interested in seeing their ‘requirements’ for 2014 NIAC Phase 1 white paper submissions. Will they demand times roman fonts? Will they reject the white paper if I use 3/4″ boundaries? Oh, the horror.

By: Mader

Mader — Sat, 04 May 2013 11:14:31 +0000

Yes, funny trolls exists. I meet them all the time in places that I regularly haunt.

By: JimNobles

JimNobles — Sat, 04 May 2013 03:39:35 +0000

-
Because it ainâ€™t producinâ€™ anything close to justify that expenditure in a post-Cold War world.

Isn’t it a “project of scale” and an American asset in “geo-politics”? I believe, going by the rhetoric you’ve exposed us to all so often, if might actually may be.

By: Justin Kugler

Justin Kugler — Sat, 04 May 2013 01:36:07 +0000

Yeah, it would be a logistical nightmare trying to maintain visiting vehicle traffic and crew rotations during the transition – with quickly diminishing returns.

Even with the planned year-long missions, the crew would easily exceed the allowable radiation exposure during the flight through the Belts. None of the partners would subject the crew to that risk.

By: Justin Kugler

Justin Kugler — Sat, 04 May 2013 01:28:18 +0000

VASIMR isn’t suitable for the ISS, either, without a complete overhaul of the solar array system. There isn’t enough power for continuous operations.

And, yes, I’m well aware of ion propulsion. You’re still talking about developing and building an entirely new propulsion module with enough fuel to make a significant delta-v for a very large system that was not designed to be moved. It’s not a trivial problem to solve.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the trades showed it to be less expensive to just build a new outpost in lunar orbit using inflatable modules.

By: Frank Glover

Frank Glover — Sat, 04 May 2013 00:59:51 +0000

ISS thermal control is designed around the assumption that it will be in earth’s shadow a little less than half the time. That would have to be addressed.

And a high-thrust orbital departure is impossible for that structure. A low-thrust electric rocket might be used, but that means weeks or more of gradually spiraling out from LEO…with a lot of time spent within the VanAllen belts, rather than cutting quickly across them, like most other deep space departures. Not good for crew, or a lot of the electronics…

Then there’s the re-supply issue…ISS wasn’t designed for that much autonomy.