vt_hokie - 4/1/2006 11:19 PMQuoteBogoMIPS - 4/1/2006 10:17 PMIf we wait for each sucessive presidential administration to come up with a different vision, we'll just see more of the same, where each system architecture gets cancelled for the next "flavor of the month". Well, after all of the worthwhile programs that have been cancelled, I'd hate to see this lame program be the one that survives!
BogoMIPS - 4/1/2006 10:17 PMIf we wait for each sucessive presidential administration to come up with a different vision, we'll just see more of the same, where each system architecture gets cancelled for the next "flavor of the month".
QuoteI agree that a reliable, reusable TSTO system, with maintenance costs an order of magnitude cheaper than the partially/mostly-reusable systems available now would be great, and probably better than CEV/CLV and the SDHLV. These certainly aren't (or at least I *hope* they aren't) the last vehicles we design.They will be for another 20 or 30 years, if NASA follows through on its drawn out "Apollo on steroids" plan.
I agree that a reliable, reusable TSTO system, with maintenance costs an order of magnitude cheaper than the partially/mostly-reusable systems available now would be great, and probably better than CEV/CLV and the SDHLV. These certainly aren't (or at least I *hope* they aren't) the last vehicles we design.
QuoteI hope we can do both! Get a reliable, safer system, based on our current technology, that builds on tested methods. Then, continue looking towards the future, with more revolutionary designs.We should be looking towards the future now, and developing improved access to LEO before we worry about going beyond. CEV is a major disappointment to me, and I would much rather see VentureStar revived than see us return to the 1960's.
I hope we can do both! Get a reliable, safer system, based on our current technology, that builds on tested methods. Then, continue looking towards the future, with more revolutionary designs.
vt_hokie - 5/1/2006 3:51 PMWinged/lifting body vs capsule and reusability, primarily. But it's also the fact that this vehicle will fly no more frequently than previous manned spacecraft, will cost as much to fly as previous generation spacecraft (probably more than Soyuz), and with a smaller crew than the space shuttle. This vehicle will do nothing to open up access to space to more people or payloads. It's a surefire way to ensure that the my generation and the next has nothing more to look forward to than my parents and grandparents did.
Martin FL - 5/1/2006 9:48 PMDo not compare a delievery truck with an ocean cruiser.
vt_hokie - 5/1/2006 3:51 PMWinged/lifting body vs capsule and reusability, primarily.
But it's also the fact that this vehicle will fly no more frequently than previous manned spacecraft, will cost as much to fly as previous generation spacecraft (probably more than Soyuz), and with a smaller crew than the space shuttle. This vehicle will do nothing to open up access to space to more people or payloads. It's a surefire way to ensure that the my generation and the next has nothing more to look forward to than my parents and grandparents did.
Dobbins - 5/1/2006 9:54 AMQuotebraddock - 5/1/2006 8:39 AMDoes anyone know anything more about that metalic thermal protection system? It looked like nothing more than a titanium plate with an insulation pad on the back. Is that all that is required for a reusable TPS?Is there some advantage that tiles have that I don't realize? Weight? Tiles always seemed kind of an exotic solution.http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2002/aiaa/NASA-aiaa-2002-0502.pdf
braddock - 5/1/2006 8:39 AMDoes anyone know anything more about that metalic thermal protection system? It looked like nothing more than a titanium plate with an insulation pad on the back. Is that all that is required for a reusable TPS?Is there some advantage that tiles have that I don't realize? Weight? Tiles always seemed kind of an exotic solution.
vt_hokie - 5/1/2006 9:52 PMQuoteMartin FL - 5/1/2006 9:48 PMDo not compare a delievery truck with an ocean cruiser.This ain't no ocean cruiser, it's an overpriced row boat. I'd rather see 50 or 100 or 1000 people a year fly into LEO than see 4 people go to the moon a couple of times per year.
vt_hokie - 5/1/2006 9:52 PMThis ain't no ocean cruiser, it's an overpriced row boat. I'd rather see 50 or 100 or 1000 people a year fly into LEO than see 4 people go to the moon a couple of times per year.
British NASA - 6/1/2006 2:45 PMCan't we do both?
vt_hokie - 6/1/2006 1:10 PMIf we want to engage in any serious exploration on a significant scale, we need to reduce launch costs and increase flight rates. Otherwise, we'll be spending the entire NASA budget in order to send maybe a dozen people per year to the moon for weeklong excursions. That's barely more than we were able to do during Apollo.
Dobbins - 7/1/2006 6:03 AMQuotevt_hokie - 6/1/2006 1:10 PMIf we want to engage in any serious exploration on a significant scale, we need to reduce launch costs and increase flight rates. Otherwise, we'll be spending the entire NASA budget in order to send maybe a dozen people per year to the moon for weeklong excursions. That's barely more than we were able to do during Apollo.We have already traveled the road of trying to make a spaceplane more viable by artificially boosting flight rates. It led to the events of 28 January 1986.It's best to avoid repeating that mistake.
Mark Max Q - 6/1/2006 10:58 PMAvron my dear man, the USA wants to do this, not watch China, while we dither around in LEO.