Comments on: Senate defense bill offers mixed messages on RD-180 replacement, EELV competition

By: Hiram

Hiram — Sun, 01 Jun 2014 00:20:53 +0000

“I hope that Bigelow doesnâ€™t waste time and money trying to â€œman rateâ€ his facilities.”

Of course, that would mean that he doesn’t want to market them to NASA. That’s one marketing strategy, but not a very smart one.

The answer isn’t getting developers to avoid man rating, but rather some pressure to redefine it.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sat, 31 May 2014 23:37:06 +0000

It will need those things, but they don’t make it “man rated.” They make it habitable. I hope that Bigelow doesn’t waste time and money trying to “man rate” his facilities.

By: Neil

Neil — Sat, 31 May 2014 07:28:34 +0000

Which it did.

By: Neil

Neil — Fri, 30 May 2014 01:36:43 +0000

I believe NASA’s mission assurance costs are substantially less than DoD. As well, we don’t know how much of the billion dollar capability payment is assigned to underwrite each launch and whether or not they are distributed evenly or otherwise.
That makes any figure from ULA suspect IMO.
Cheers.

By: Ben Russell-Gough

Ben Russell-Gough — Thu, 29 May 2014 10:28:52 +0000

Agreed; you’re looking at dozens of cargo and crew flights to outfit the modules. Not entirely a bad thing; it would give SLS Block-1A something to do with its time (lots of launches may bring down costs a bit too) and developing an L1 cargo ‘railroad’ COTS-style might spur development of cheap cis-Lunar crew access in much the same way the original COTS led to commercial crew.

Nonetheless, as Hiram says, unless Bigelow can come up with some short-cuts such as opening ‘flower petals’ attached to the spine that carry the equipment, the relatively low mass of BA-330 isn’t a panacea by any definition.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Thu, 29 May 2014 03:04:34 +0000

The numbers from NASA support Gass’ comments here. Last December, NASA awarded ULA $160M for the launch of InSight on an Atlas V 401. A slightly enhanced version of the same launcher was recently bought by NASA for OSIRIS-REx for about $180M. Now, ULA doesn’t like to tell anyone what the USAF pays, but we know what NASA pays.

Of course, a F9 lifts about 40% more than a 401, and the cost is vastly lower. So while Gass may be correct that the costs for ULA launchers have been overstated, even when they aren’t overstated, the comparison strongly favors SpaceX.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Wed, 28 May 2014 15:54:59 +0000

“drones are routinely flown with delays approaching that number”

In fact, the time delay on military drones is closer to a second or two. You talk to these guys. They would LOVE for it to be shorter. Their productivity and decision making would be better. But the activity of flying and even targeting is actually not that hard with significant time delay. Remember, they aren’t looking through a gunsight that is shaking and wobbling. They’re just defining a target in a field of view for the system to lock onto. As in “hit that”.

“There will be â€œoneâ€ person who is doing the controlling of one device and that person will need to have a lot of input from the folks on the ground”

Just like the astronauts that many would hope we’d send there, right? Seriously, if you’re going to send an astronaut to the surface of the Moon to do something, a capable telerobot, controlled from nearby, is going to offer the same advantages and handicaps. But you can have those telerobots at a wide range of sites, and 24/7 operation.

The argument is that capable telerobots can’t offer the perception, dexterity, and mobility of a suited human. That’s changing quickly.

“I dont see the need for any big government project/program in spaceâ€¦its time in my view to go another direction”

That’s a very different flavor of objection. I actually think it makes a lot of sense. But to the extent that Congress sees that NASA needs to be leading a big government project/program in space, the question becomes, what should that project/program be to offer maximal value.

By: E.P. Grondine

E.P. Grondine — Wed, 28 May 2014 14:10:42 +0000

http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/40637news-from-the-30th-space-symposium-responding-to-critics-ula-discloses

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Wed, 28 May 2014 14:01:05 +0000

Generally these committee hearings contain a lot of accusations that NASA climate research is causing global warming.

By: Stephen C. Smith

Stephen C. Smith — Wed, 28 May 2014 10:05:30 +0000

Rand Simberg wrote:

What is a â€œman rated spacestationâ€?

One rated by a man, obviously.