One application for Block 0 could be to lift MPCV and a fully fueled existing upperstage to orbit, which would then be able to do a TLI burn. So using that formula, you could start to send 20-30 ton payloads BEO, which sounds like the current payload mass. So rather than going all out, we can stretch out the s/c and optimal upperstage development. I dont think the core will get much larger than Block 0, and would rather all the development money spent on core upgrades being moved to payloads.Edit: Also want to diversify s/c procurement. Try to get the Russians/ESA/JAXA involved like they were for ISS. Maybe do seed/commercial contract for things like landers.
I don't know the answer to this exactly....but if commercial shuttle were in the mix, certain costs and re-starts absorbed by that, much of the "overhead" being put to real use instead of just paying for it in "sustaining" costs, and Block 0 could just focus on the DDT&E aspects, could a moderate upper stage be evaluated that much sooner?Food for thought.....
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/25/2011 01:46 pmI don't know the answer to this exactly....but if commercial shuttle were in the mix, certain costs and re-starts absorbed by that, much of the "overhead" being put to real use instead of just paying for it in "sustaining" costs, and Block 0 could just focus on the DDT&E aspects, could a moderate upper stage be evaluated that much sooner?Food for thought..... Why would Commercial Shuttle + Block-0 be /cheaper/ than Block-0? -Alex
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 03/25/2011 01:48 amThe Lagrange points are stepping stones in space - they lead to the Moon and Mars.NASA has no need for such stepping stones
The Lagrange points are stepping stones in space - they lead to the Moon and Mars.
Quote from: Jim on 03/25/2011 08:08 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 03/25/2011 01:48 amThe Lagrange points are stepping stones in space - they lead to the Moon and Mars.NASA has no need for such stepping stonesAnd that points to the underlying problem. The United States public does not want to pay to go to the Moon or Mars. Leaving NASA without a major mission.
The other big problem is that cargo is being launched via commercial which leaves how much cargo to be carried? Likely none. The last shuttle mission is supposed to stock the ISS for 1-2 years.
Quote from: Jim on 03/25/2011 08:53 amBut in the end, I am a realist. I see where the country and the world is going. The visions of the 60's and 70's are not applicable to today. NASA nor the US gov't is not going to settle space. Nor is it going to lead manned exploration of the solar system.It sounds like you've lived your dreams. Why are you so opposed to others having their own?
But in the end, I am a realist. I see where the country and the world is going. The visions of the 60's and 70's are not applicable to today. NASA nor the US gov't is not going to settle space. Nor is it going to lead manned exploration of the solar system.
There is a difference between realism and despair. I for one still have hope for the American space program. And no, it's not just the role of unpaid R&D for corporations too cheap and short-sighted to do their own.
Quote from: alexw on 03/25/2011 03:18 pm A large part of the reason those dreams were never realized was that the US space programs got sidetracked by a thing called Shuttle, to the exclusion of a great deal else. So misguided. Yawn.
A large part of the reason those dreams were never realized was that the US space programs got sidetracked by a thing called Shuttle, to the exclusion of a great deal else.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/25/2011 03:20 pmQuote from: alexw on 03/25/2011 03:18 pm A large part of the reason those dreams were never realized was that the US space programs got sidetracked by a thing called Shuttle, to the exclusion of a great deal else. So misguided. Yawn. If, in 1970, you were dreaming of spending the next forty years developing and flying a vehicle, launching it a mere ~135 times, carrying a few hundred individuals into LEO, a few commercial satellites, a few DOD satellites, a few internal science payloads that amounted to precious little major-journal peer-reviewed publication, a few planetary probes and telescopes, and finishing a 6-man spacestation at the end of those 40 years... then you were dreaming awfully small. Shuttle's done useful things. No question. She's been our Flagship. But humans haven't gone beyond LEO in 40 years, and only a handful of robots did from Shuttle. (To be fair to Shuttle, the rest of humanity's record was about as pitiful.) To each their own dreams. -Alex
I could have come up with a dozen ways to meet the demands of the USAF for the shuttle program without the compromises which came out of it. Also had a way to meet the political demands as well, and to reduce the cost and improve the systems safety.
Quote from: kirghizstan on 03/25/2011 01:25 amthe problem with just visiting EML1/2 is that they are just points in space. to the lay person it would be probably less interesting than visiting ISS because at least that is a location they can understand. that The Lagrange points are stepping stones in space - they lead to the Moon and Mars.It is a lot easier to cross the river when there are stepping stones. Sometimes we are lucky and God builds the stepping stones for us. Other times we have to build the stepping stones our selves, this is one of those cases.p.s. The viability of spacestations at EML-1 and EML-2 was discussed in this threadhttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20147.0
the problem with just visiting EML1/2 is that they are just points in space. to the lay person it would be probably less interesting than visiting ISS because at least that is a location they can understand. that
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 03/25/2011 03:01 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/25/2011 08:08 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 03/25/2011 01:48 amThe Lagrange points are stepping stones in space - they lead to the Moon and Mars.NASA has no need for such stepping stonesAnd that points to the underlying problem. The United States public does not want to pay to go to the Moon or Mars. Leaving NASA without a major mission.Ahhh. So somehow you speak for the entire United States public and can make such declarative and absolute statements.....