Comments on: Bolden uses Soyuz launch to press for commercial crew funding

By: Lynn

Lynn — Sun, 18 May 2014 15:24:55 +0000

Call it what you will commercial crew, private companies, competition, but commercial crews, private companies, and the competition that may make space flight cheaper and more frequent must answer to Congress if they us government funds to accomplish their private business. What all the other private companies in the past have learned, all those companies using their own seed money and developing their technologies have learned is be a little more humble when asking the Congress for the people’s money. My advice also would be not to use an international incident that could lead or may lead to sending our young men and woman in harms way, not use this incident as a wedge or a veiled threat. I am appalled that Bolden would do it also. A shot across the bow of a ship or a space ship should be carefully considered and NOT used by those who have their own personal gain in mind.

By: Frank Glover

Frank Glover — Thu, 03 Apr 2014 21:56:26 +0000

If all you want is to put Orion in LEO (which is all Ares-i would have done), Delta IV Heavy is adequate, and experienced.

By: Neil Shipley

Neil Shipley — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 02:04:07 +0000

Nope don’t think so. CST-100 isn’t designed for cargo and neither is DC IIRC.

I believe they can take some small amounts (bit like Soyuz) but significant quantities, doubt it.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:05:17 +0000

Not only that put if a Commercial carrier brings up 7 passengers, and only three are going to rotate those 4 extra people can run experiments for a week or two. If you have more rapid rotations you can really get some extra experiment time.

By: Gary Warburton

Gary Warburton — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:00:00 +0000

Thanks, Steven that was great. Charlie did great. I`m surprised with Posey`s comments. I think he is actually interested in space. In spite of his pushing SLS. Mo Brooks is a real dink though.

By: Ben Russell-Gough

Ben Russell-Gough — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:06:59 +0000

The “one and a half” launch concept originated from an over-interpretation of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report. It was never shown to be any more or less dangerous to launch crew with cargo, only that it was dangerous and unnecessary to launch a crew because you also had to launch cargo. In other words, putting everything on the shuttle was a recipe for disaster.

Simply put, there was never any need for a ‘specialist manned capsule launcher’. All you needed was a ELV with sufficient mass-to-LEO (say, Atlas-V-5H2 or a crew-rated Delta-IVH).

You are also misunderstanding the role of the Saturn-IB. It was not a ‘specialised manned capsule launcher’. It was a launcher for a lightweight Apollo without mission cargo to LEO only. It did not have the ability to launch a fully-loaded Apollo (yes, this came as a surprise to me too). To launch a lunar-ready Apollo to LEO required a Saturn-V. The parallel that NASA drew between Saturn-IB and Ares-I was entirely misleading. I’m hoping that it wasn’t deliberately mendacious but, knowing the behaviour of the Griffin/Cooke axis, I do wonder.

By: Malmesbury

Malmesbury — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:44:36 +0000

Ares I had less and less performance for more and more money.

To meet this target Orion had more and more capabilities hacked off it.

Despite which Ares I was a sub orbital rocket in the end – Orion would has to do its own burn to get into orbit!

A regen RS-68 would have been an order of magnitude cheaper.

By: Chris Castro

Chris Castro — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:25:59 +0000

@Malmesbury,…..Ares 1 could have worked, eventually, had enough & continued funding been acheived. But even if it had been deleted, surely some other similar sized rocket launcher could have fit the bill. This specialized manned capsule launcher, would’ve had the same function as the Saturn 1B, of decades past: a rocket system slated for the intermediate launching of an Orion craft into LEO, prior to its rendezvous with a trans-lunar space craft & earth-escape stage.

Keeping this portion of the Constellation plan in effect, for the interim, would’ve erased the seemingly current conundrum of having to man-rate the Heavy-Lift rocket. Orion shouldn’t be depending upon such a massive rocket at all. A small or medium booster for launching it, should’ve been the game plan, all along. Particularly during this time, that manned lunar exploration has become politically unviable, because of Obama & his liegemen. This administration has done all it can to block the way to the Moon. The path to manned deep space travel will continue being blocked, as long as Barack remains in the Oval Office.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:03:58 +0000

Actually I was wrong. Boeing and LM retain the right to do independant commercial launches but ULA has dones some commercial launches too.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 11:00:11 +0000

ULA is another joint private company making systems used by the government widely available to non-government entities.
No.
IIRC ULA is a joint venture of Boeing and LM to look after US govt launches. Commercial launches remain with the parent companies.