Ares and Altair are ONLY required if your only interest is to make CxP's precise ESAS-derived solution.To produce the same mission capabilities you do NOT have to use those specific vehicles. You must first, however, be willing to step outside of the one, single box as as been defined by CxP.There are a number of viable alternatives both to replicate the same mission capabilities (Lunar First), or a different set of acceptable Exploration capabilities (Flexible Path).Ross.
If you talk with Gary Hudson of HMX, you will find that propane has some sticky operational thermal issues that methane does not have. For chemical rocket based lunar or Mars landers, I vote for methane/LOX and so does the NASA/JSC propulsion folks, provided they have a say in the matter that is.
I vote for methane. Line up 1,000,000 cattle and have them all burp into bottles to capture the methane so it doesn't destroy the planet via global warming.
Not sure exactly where to put this, so feel free to move (or delete if it's redundant)...SpacePolitics blog entry with an overview of Senator Shelby's speech on the Senate floor on Monday:http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/10/07/shelby-augustine-report-unsatisfactory-and-disappointing/A link is provided to the (prepared) text of the speech in the blog; reproduced here:http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=29c3144c-802a-23ad-41ca-2a2b75c6f687
The problem with that method of methane capture is separating out all the mercaptans...
Wow, what a contradiction with reality.Quote from: psloss on 10/07/2009 08:35 pmNot sure exactly where to put this, so feel free to move (or delete if it's redundant)...SpacePolitics blog entry with an overview of Senator Shelby's speech on the Senate floor on Monday:http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/10/07/shelby-augustine-report-unsatisfactory-and-disappointing/A link is provided to the (prepared) text of the speech in the blog; reproduced here:http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=29c3144c-802a-23ad-41ca-2a2b75c6f687
Quote from: Danny Dot on 09/30/2009 07:33 pmI vote for methane. Line up 1,000,000 cattle and have them all burp into bottles to capture the methane so it doesn't destroy the planet via global warming. Danny, <whispers>the bottles go on the opposite end.
Quote from: DigitalMan on 10/07/2009 09:43 pmWow, what a contradiction with reality.Quote from: psloss on 10/07/2009 08:35 pmNot sure exactly where to put this, so feel free to move (or delete if it's redundant)...SpacePolitics blog entry with an overview of Senator Shelby's speech on the Senate floor on Monday:http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/10/07/shelby-augustine-report-unsatisfactory-and-disappointing/A link is provided to the (prepared) text of the speech in the blog; reproduced here:http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=29c3144c-802a-23ad-41ca-2a2b75c6f687He's talking like a politician. Important political realities, like the fact that Cx was supported by both Republican and Democrat-majority congresses, are different than important technical or even economic realities. Which of the latter two Congress understands less I've stopped feeling certain of over the last year or so.It's encouraging that he strongly supports human spaceflight, but at the same time he either thinks he's in a position to challenge the commissions findings, or somehow missed the part about how much money the status quo will take to execute.
The contradiction with his position is that he refuses to cede leadership yet insists on supporting the most expensive, least flexible option. The statistics are not on our side in this case.As far as political support, the Democratic and Republicans in congress both recognized the need for more funding years ago when they offered more of it to Administrator Griffin. His hands were tied however and could not accept the offer and that was the end of that. As far as I can tell, "refuse to cede leadership" is only a visual and not an actual plan.It wouldn't bother me to this degree if it wasn't my own party that dropped the ball.Quote from: iamlucky13 on 10/07/2009 10:04 pmQuote from: DigitalMan on 10/07/2009 09:43 pmWow, what a contradiction with reality.Quote from: psloss on 10/07/2009 08:35 pmNot sure exactly where to put this, so feel free to move (or delete if it's redundant)...SpacePolitics blog entry with an overview of Senator Shelby's speech on the Senate floor on Monday:http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/10/07/shelby-augustine-report-unsatisfactory-and-disappointing/A link is provided to the (prepared) text of the speech in the blog; reproduced here:http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=29c3144c-802a-23ad-41ca-2a2b75c6f687He's talking like a politician. Important political realities, like the fact that Cx was supported by both Republican and Democrat-majority congresses, are different than important technical or even economic realities. Which of the latter two Congress understands less I've stopped feeling certain of over the last year or so.It's encouraging that he strongly supports human spaceflight, but at the same time he either thinks he's in a position to challenge the commissions findings, or somehow missed the part about how much money the status quo will take to execute.
Quote from: DigitalMan on 10/07/2009 10:21 pmThe contradiction with his position is that he refuses to cede leadership yet insists on supporting the most expensive, least flexible option. The statistics are not on our side in this case.As far as political support, the Democratic and Republicans in congress both recognized the need for more funding years ago when they offered more of it to Administrator Griffin. His hands were tied however and could not accept the offer and that was the end of that. As far as I can tell, "refuse to cede leadership" is only a visual and not an actual plan.It wouldn't bother me to this degree if it wasn't my own party that dropped the ball.Quote from: iamlucky13 on 10/07/2009 10:04 pmQuote from: DigitalMan on 10/07/2009 09:43 pmWow, what a contradiction with reality.Quote from: psloss on 10/07/2009 08:35 pmNot sure exactly where to put this, so feel free to move (or delete if it's redundant)...SpacePolitics blog entry with an overview of Senator Shelby's speech on the Senate floor on Monday:http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/10/07/shelby-augustine-report-unsatisfactory-and-disappointing/A link is provided to the (prepared) text of the speech in the blog; reproduced here:http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=29c3144c-802a-23ad-41ca-2a2b75c6f687He's talking like a politician. Important political realities, like the fact that Cx was supported by both Republican and Democrat-majority congresses, are different than important technical or even economic realities. Which of the latter two Congress understands less I've stopped feeling certain of over the last year or so.It's encouraging that he strongly supports human spaceflight, but at the same time he either thinks he's in a position to challenge the commissions findings, or somehow missed the part about how much money the status quo will take to execute. For the past three years, NASA has been authorized by the Congress (in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, for FY 2007 and 2008, and in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act for FY 2009) to spend funding at the levels for Cx that were projected in the original FY 2005 Budget request--the funding levels that would have gone a long way towards avoiding the present situation, as the Augustine panel noted.However, those funding levels were never REQUESTED by the Bush Administration in their budget submissions for those fiscal years, as the record shows.The Appropriations committees, at the subcommittee level where such things are addressed, never saw fit to appropriate funding that was not REQUESTED, even though it was clearly a) Authorized, and b) NEEDED to keep Cx on track.Senator Shelby was Chairman of NASA's Appropriations Subcommittee in 2005-2006, and Ranking Republican on that subcommittee since 2007. No one would have been in a better position than him to argue for increased funding to the levels needed to preserve the program.Just sayin'........
Quote from: rsp1202 on 10/01/2009 01:09 amQuote from: Danny Dot on 09/30/2009 07:33 pmI vote for methane. Line up 1,000,000 cattle and have them all burp into bottles to capture the methane so it doesn't destroy the planet via global warming. Danny, <whispers>the bottles go on the opposite end.Actually Danny had the bottles on the correct end....
Senator Shelby was Chairman of NASA's Appropriations Subcommittee in 2005-2006, and Ranking Republican on that subcommittee since 2007. No one would have been in a better position than him to argue for increased funding to the levels needed to preserve the program.Just sayin'........
Quote from: Retired Downrange on 10/07/2009 10:17 pmQuote from: rsp1202 on 10/01/2009 01:09 amQuote from: Danny Dot on 09/30/2009 07:33 pmI vote for methane. Line up 1,000,000 cattle and have them all burp into bottles to capture the methane so it doesn't destroy the planet via global warming. Danny, <whispers>the bottles go on the opposite end.Actually Danny had the bottles on the correct end....LOL. Thanks for the compass heading. Will steer (!) clear of all farm-related subjects in future.