The Senate compromise is just as nebulous on it's time lines and goals
This is where I will be really unpopular. As a fiscal conservative, I don't see NASA as being special enough to justify it's own HLV. If commercial interests don't need it, then no HLV for NASA. If exploration can not be done with commercially available launchers, no exploration for NASA. That's true for every other nation, it should be true here to.
In a capsule, the passengers will be almost completely out of the loop on the operation of the capsule. It will handle everything without there control. As far as the capsule & launcher is concerned, humans would be just very delicate cargo. Capsules don't need pilots.
Is running an Aerospace program well below it's projected costs ever a good idea?
I am under the impression that she just wants to keep furthering her personal agenda politically, and space is just a tool for her to do so.
I just find it weird that a true space advocate would want to limit us to LEO. What would you think if the head of the US Maritime Service suggested that American boats should restrict themselves to the continental shelf and no further?
My extreme pessimism about NASA's future budget leads me to want to get some type of LV man rated as fast as possible, and to obligate as little money as possible in the budget LV to development and as much as possible to near term development of in space infrastructure.
The Stratos Mission is funded in large part by Baumgartner's corporate sponsor, RedBull. Sponsoring extreme athletes is RedBull's way of telling the world that the brand stands not just for caffeinated pop, but for, as the press releases say, "pushing limits" and "making the impossible happen." Teenage boys with little hope of becoming pro skateboarders or record breaking BASE jumpers can nonetheless drink the drink and feel the feeling. NASA might do well to adopt the RedBull approach to branding and astronautics. Suddenly the man in the spacesuit is not an underpaid civil servant; he's the ultimate extreme athlete. RedBull knows how to make space hip.
And, I believe actually flying the Jupiter 130 as soon as possible is NASA's best defense against future budget cuts.
The name has deep historical significance. Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"! - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/07/2010 01:31 pmThe name has deep historical significance. Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"! - Ed KyleJupiter is a bit quick on the name reuse for my tastes, as well, but...With that mindset the present orbiter fleet would all need different names, as surely the great exploration ships and their names are sacred- wouldn't want to name another exploration ship after one, right?
Which one of these is the major launcher of science missions, supports our defense forces, and provides the greatest service to the private sector?
...any other company or organization for that matter, is any better with their political machines and lobbying tactics. In other words, it cuts both ways and again so many on here refuse to see that or acknowledge that because of political "bias"...
I suggest we get used to it.
Trust me on this, the management reserve in these bids is going to overwhelm the differences in cost efficiencies or design efficiencies,”
In that time, it has made only six launch attempts...
I whole heatedly agree, too bad some people like to refer to others opinion as, assanine, amusing, or internet-feed.
But note that the same bill mandates a commission to determine time lines & goals.
At one point in the 1990s Lockheed had a conservative forecast of 19 Atlas 5 launches a year; current launch rates are instead about five a year, virtually all for government customers.
... before establishing a definite, near term beyond LEO destination ...
Quote from: Bill White on 09/07/2010 12:29 pmAnd, I believe actually flying the Jupiter 130 as soon as possible is NASA's best defense against future budget cuts. I've had a problem with the DIRECT proposal from day one. I can't abide the use of the name "Jupiter". Jupiter served as the first stage of NASA's Juno II launcher, and tanks built using Jupiter tooling served as the core, the keel or foundation if you will, of Saturn, America's first super-booster. A series of test flights using Redstone missiles in support of Jupiter development led to the use of "Jupiter A" and "Jupiter C" vehicle monikers. The name has deep historical significance. Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"! - Ed Kyle
OV, I think you miss an important point. FY2011 sure seems to have been an attempt at "reform", and the ensuing debate sure has, to me, a "reformist" attitude about it. And there's plenty still to reform, which is why I would want the new LV delayed a bit more, while we fly the shuttle five or siz more times, and see how NewSpace delivers. These new "facts on the ground" will provide a good bit of information as to what the new government LV should be.
1. we, if we so choose, can particpate in the debate about the "reform" as you call it. 2. That did not and will not happen. Within these absolutes there are certain realities. 3. If shuttle is not going to fly longer, than in order to proceed with a SDLV then that work needs to be started sooner than later in order to capitalize on the end of shuttle and still get or retain ... 4. If SDLV does not happen, fine too. 5. There is not any technology on the horizon that is on the cusp or revolutionizing transport to orbit.6. I understand and appreciate ULA too ...7. There are those who say we don't need an HLV.8. ... there is no certainty on prop depots... There is no certainty that you do not miss the "sweet-spot" where one is spending more to assemble everything in orbit...
the same shallow rationale that is repeated over and over again by "user names on the internet".
...In a capsule, the passengers will be almost completely out of the loop on the operation of the capsule. It will handle everything without there control. As far as the capsule & launcher is concerned, humans would be just very delicate cargo. Capsules don't need pilots.....
...why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?
Quote from: JAFO on 09/05/2010 07:23 pm...why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?Lori Garver seems to be immune to the risk of killing existing NASA/contractors HSF expertise. Charlie Bolden - not so much. Lori Garver is an expert in politics. Charlie Bolden has flown the Shuttle. Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration. Charlie Bolden said Joe Shmuck won't make an ascan. Lori Garver finds a potential victory in the Senate Bill. Charlie Bolden is MIA.