Comments on: Cygnus success generates a few reactions

By: Samantha Volk

Samantha Volk — Sun, 01 Dec 2013 20:53:40 +0000

If NASA only sent robots and satellites into space how much money would they be saving each year?

By: Robert Clark

Robert Clark — Sun, 06 Oct 2013 23:20:58 +0000

The success of the commercial space approach is becoming more and more obvious with the successes of both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. At NASA’s recent workshop on the asteroid mission, unfortunately cut short by the shutdown, several participants suggested a commercial approach for reducing the costs of such a mission:

Commercial Firms Push Alternative Approaches for NASA Asteroid Initiative.
By Irene Klotz | Oct. 4, 2013
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/37559commercial-firms-push-alternative-approaches-for-nasa-asteroid-initiative

Bob Clark

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 22:18:38 +0000

CharlesHouston said:

“Where is the EVA capability?”

Orion/MPCV doesn’t really have EVA capabilities either, since you end up venting the entire vehicle just to get outside. Transport vehicles don’t need EVA anymore, since the destinations (space-only spacecraft, space stations, etc.) have that capability.

“SRMS?”

I assume you mean a robotic arm, right?

If so, then apparently you haven’t been watching what’s going on with the COTS/CRS vehicles, where they just sidle up to the ISS and get grabbed by the station robotic arms. Why should a vehicle that travels to/from Earth have to carry that? If you’re building something new, you send up a “constructions shack” that has all the basic components you need to capture and assemble the rest of the structure.

“Rendezvous radar?”

Again, the COTS/CRS vehicles have systems that get them close enough to be captured for cargo. For crew, they have their own approach systems.

“We are saving a lot of money but there is a â€œcostâ€ of lost Shuttle capability.”

Actually you’re looking at it the wrong way. It was far more expensive to operate a “jack of all trades” vehicle than it is to send up specialized hardware. We should have done it before we built the ISS actually, but regardless, we’re there now.

“Dragon does not have radiation hardened avionics and so cannot go into the Van Allen radiation belts.”

My opinion on this hasn’t changed. I don’t see anyone going exploring in a capsule. We’re way past that point now. We will leave LEO in some sort of space-only vehicle.

The question becomes what do we use for a lifeboat on a space-only vehicle, and how do we get back to Earth. If we built a dedicated LEO-to-EML transportation system, then you would only need to get back to EML if you had to “abandon ship”. That could be done in a smaller space-only vehicle.

I think Musk plans to use his Dragon’s to land on Mars, not for transporting people to Mars. As for returning to Earth, if someone has that EML-to-LEO transport system in place, I’m sure he’s use that.

My $0.02

By: CharlesHouston

CharlesHouston — Sat, 05 Oct 2013 21:34:39 +0000

As a long time aerospace guy… Sure Dragon and Cygnus reproduce many of the capabilities of the Shuttle but not some of the most critical. Where is the EVA capability? SRMS? Rendezvous radar? We are saving a lot of money but there is a “cost” of lost Shuttle capability. And sure people will instinctively react “but we don’t really need those capabilities” and since we don’t have them we don’t plan missions that require them.

I fully expect to see MPCV cancelled but we are gonna have to spend money to upgrade other vehicles to be able to do its mission (as soon as it has a deep space mission!). Dragon does not have radiation hardened avionics and so cannot go into the Van Allen radiation belts. The CST-100 is designed to be a low cost vehicle and does not plan to be able to survive a rentry from lunar return trajectories. Cygnus can go through the Van Allen belts but has no plan to be modified to carry people. We have to piece together a single system that has the planned capability of the MPCV.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 18:16:28 +0000

since liberty went no where, wouldn’t that mean their marketing, though more money was put into it and it was more intense, failed? so it was less effective?

By: Bill Ketchum

Bill Ketchum — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 15:08:10 +0000

Lots of interesting comments here.
What I find most interesting is the fact that America now has a space transportation system of it’s own again, servicing the ISS with supplies, next with astronauts, at a much lower cost than previously with just government systems.
Having myself been in the space business for most of my life, I have seen a slow but continuous progress to the day when space travel will be routine.
It hasn’t been easy but through trial and error we are getting there.
I just wish I could be here for another 50 years to see it.

By: Phil Spampinato

Phil Spampinato — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:31:38 +0000

Perhaps, as was the case with my company, reaction to the Orbital success was done privately. We sent congratulations to some of the people who spent years making this program a success like former astronaut Carl Walz and Bob Richards. That said, here is the public reaction from ILC Dover: Great job, well done! This was a long time coming but you preservered and found success! Take some time to apprecite the significance of your accomplishment!

By: A_M_Swallow

A_M_Swallow — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 19:34:08 +0000

Just make sure Orion and CST-100 use the right chip. NASA sending a letter to their chief designers copied to the quality departments can save a lot of money and embarrassment.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 18:38:08 +0000

using an old 10bit chip instead of the ISS’s 13 bit protocal.. that should have been tested on the ground… yes .. brilliant.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 18:36:01 +0000

Stephen C. Smith wrote:

“But SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are still open.”

GREAT POINT

No more will space activities be a single string fault systems operated under the vulgarities of the porkonauts in congress.