I do believe that Musk's pockets are deep enough to carry SpaceX at least five years,
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/22/2010 02:27 pmYeah, I see your point. It is all about money. Nothing more. Thanks again. I think these guys are a bit jaded. I know quite a few inside of Boeing, and they do, actually, have more scruples than just out for a buck. If the last tanker competition had not changed the rules mid-bid, Boeing likely would not have protested, for example. They could have thrown a fit over the issues with the first tanker bid as well, but didn't.I will not write this move up to pure greed, altho making money is definately within Boeings mindset, it is not all that is within their mindset.
Yeah, I see your point. It is all about money. Nothing more. Thanks again.
Quote from: jimgagnon on 04/22/2010 06:09 pmI do believe that Musk's pockets are deep enough to carry SpaceX at least five years, He has said his pockets aren't deep enough to weather more than 2 failures.
Five years to research, plus 5-7 years to build, plus no guarantee that the thing will work or be financially sustainable, or be more productive or useful that what is available now. The Obama plan is not a space program. Its a way to sweep HSF under the rug. A Direct Jupiter 130 with an Orion could be launched within five years, uses proven tech and maintains a skilled work force.
Five years to research, plus 5-7 years to build, plus no guarantee that the thing will work or be financially sustainable, or be more productive or useful that what is available now. The Obama plan is not a space program. Its a way to sweep HSF under the rug.
Quote from: brejol on 04/22/2010 08:29 pmFive years to research, plus 5-7 years to build, plus no guarantee that the thing will work or be financially sustainable, or be more productive or useful that what is available now. The Obama plan is not a space program. Its a way to sweep HSF under the rug. HLV != HSF
QuoteHLV != HSFHLV => Exploration.
HLV != HSF
Quote from: MP99 on 04/22/2010 10:01 pmQuoteHLV != HSFHLV => Exploration.It didn't from 1981 - {2010, 2011}.HLV + money-for-Exploration-payloads => Exploration
Not surprising that folks here equate HSF with HLVs. The HLV fetish is strong here with the non-experts here, and many of the experts here who work with HSF are using a system that's basically like an HLV (I.e. Shuttle) and think that an HLV, especially a SDHLV, will preserve their jobs (EDIT:I don't blame them, either).I am with Martijn. We need spacecraft more than we need to sink billions into developing a new launch vehicle that doesn't reduce the fixed costs of the Shuttle architecture by that much. I mean sure, that path makes sense if we already have a lander and transfer vehicle and plenty for a healthy r&d program and unmanned precursor missions. I would advocate such an architecture if NASA had 1% of the federal budget. Otherwise, the fixed infrastructure eats into other stuff. And spending billions more building another EELV-class launch vehicle (I.e. Ares I) for no more reason than "sunk costs" and workforce is not worthwhile (EDIT: IMHO, and the opinion of quite a few others more qualified than I). DSDHLV at least gives us additional capabilities. Ares I does not, and is, in fact, inferior to current EELVs in a number of areas (EDIT: IMHO, and the opinion of quite a few others more qualified than I). EDIT:That's not to reflect on those who are working on it. A poor design requires more ingenuity (and money and time) to actually make work than a good design...
We need support from Congress.I don't mean for pork, but sparking of more general interest by NASA delivering meaningful exploration missions starting this decade (or at least to begin in 2021 as ISS is splashed).This implies that early missions need to deliver to the simplest possible model, eg short Lunar sorties using ISS-style life support, whether closed- or open-loop.HLV allows these early "brute force" missions to be launched without worrying or even caring about some extra mass.The vision would then be that research would allow longer stays through more sustainable Life Support and technologies touted in FY2011. Delivery of early results would encourage Congress to keep funding for ever more sophisticated missions.The intermediate HLV would have ~20 years of workhorse status before Boldens "hope it's ready by the early 2030's" HLV takes over for the moons-of-Mars missions.cheers, Martin
EELV Phase I is fine with LLO/EML1/2 rendezvous of the capsule and lander and refueling the ACES upper stage in LEO before each side embarks to the Moon.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/23/2010 12:44 amEELV Phase I is fine with LLO/EML1/2 rendezvous of the capsule and lander and refueling the ACES upper stage in LEO before each side embarks to the Moon. EELV Phase 1 is an HLV and the upper stage doesn't even have to be refueled, although you would want that eventually.