I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.
Quote from: clb22 on 03/05/2010 06:49 am...I wonder why people can't stay objective...Me too.
...I wonder why people can't stay objective...
...Spaceships will probably have to follow sea ships and have home port regulation. The USA has never trusted the United Nations to act as a fair regulator.Once a law is passed creating a regulatory body to cover private sector versions of one of the outer space items it simplifies things if the same body also regulates the rest. The alternative of separate agencies and laws for each item would be just too complex and inefficient....One area that can usefully be regulated is interoperability of the different types of vehicles.... Since most vehicles will probably only have a single hatch the docking systems need to be compatible.
...Given that the wording of the bill refers to NASA having a government-operated system to support ISS until commercial comes proves itself reliable... This isn't just sticking Orion on top of a S-HLV, it is building a CCB-based archetecture with multiple applications...As Ross pointed out, following this path simply moves fuel depots to after the development of the HLV. The technology negates the need for the stretch-tank version unless you want direct cargo launch to the Moon and allows for single-launch crew lunar access and NEO missions. It also allows commercial providers with properly-equipped upper stages to launch heavier cargoes to the Moon too, something that would make a lunar outpost much easier: Instead of just J-24x but also the EELV-Heavies, F-9H and maybe even Ariane-5 launching cargo to the Moon. I'm pretty sure that with all that capability, landing 1kt on the Moon every year would be possible...If you maximise the utility of the spacecraft, then you reduce development costs and allow them to be focussed on mission-specific equipment instead of a unique spacecraft for each different application...So, in conclusion: "One Size Fits All S-HLV" - Definately no. "One Size Fits All Spacecraft" - Sort-of yes, and, to the degree it is true, not a bad thing.
Quote from: jongoff on 03/05/2010 03:22 amI'm starting to wonder if the union of "can get congressional buy-in", "can get the budgets necessary", and "will actually work in practice" is actually a null set.~Jon...This is why I advocate deployment of an EML-1 Gateway flagged to and operated by a small neutral power and for that facility to assist every spacefaring nation with the goal of achieving lunar surface access....Anyway, in my opinion, winning ITAR reform and getting non-NASA destinations into LEO as soon as possible is more important than winning a NewSpace monopoly over NASA access to LEO. Don't squabble over how to divvy up NASA funding, work to make a larger pie....
I'm starting to wonder if the union of "can get congressional buy-in", "can get the budgets necessary", and "will actually work in practice" is actually a null set.~Jon
The idea of your characterization is correct, I think, but some what exaggerated. It's more like proposing the interstate hiway system at the beginning of WWII. Forward thinking, doable with the tech at the time, but too forward thinking for the political establishment.
http://english.cri.cn/6909/2010/03/05/1361s554261.htm China is developing a new rocket with a capability to place 75 tons in low earth orbit.
We need to start flying missions ASAP, and then, with lessons learned, we can start building the appropriate infrastructure around those missions. Otherwise, you're left with massively too much front-end costs, and a long time before any actual return.
Quote from: robertross on 03/05/2010 12:54 amQuote from: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:48 pmP.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.That's funny...So the ISS is the same size as it was before, and nothing has been running since? I seem to recall a SARJ failure and a radiator delamination. Now we have a solar array mast issue and a swivel problem.You're right...no problem waiting for 2012. (rolls eyes) You may first want to check out documentation on upmass requirements before making bold assertions here.
Quote from: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:48 pmP.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.That's funny...So the ISS is the same size as it was before, and nothing has been running since? I seem to recall a SARJ failure and a radiator delamination. Now we have a solar array mast issue and a swivel problem.You're right...no problem waiting for 2012. (rolls eyes)
P.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
wow, this thread got all hijacked over individual master plans for conquest of the universe.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmwow, this thread got all hijacked over individual master plans for conquest of the universe.I've found a problem with this bill, I believe. While it provides for additional separate funding for the shuttle operations it also requires that existing ISS products currently not manifested be identified and evaluated but I do not see any funding for that task. Nor do I see any funding for any reconditioning, retesting, etc for any payloads that may be identified. Not much point in extending the shuttle if the payloads are unfunded IMO.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.
Noted in the post by 51D Mascot I linked to above -- $100 million in FY 2011 and FY 2012.
ISS alone cannot possibly sustain a robust commercial crew capability (not enough flights) and yet the proposal floated February 1st seems to do little, if anything, to hasten the arrival of non-NASA destinations in LEO, or elsewhere. And that is why I find NewSpace enthusiasm for the original February proposal to be rather odd.
Quote from: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.NO co-sponsors.
This latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.