Why fight Congress head on when you can get what you want without the fight?
"Obama has chosen to be that someone..." An interesting observation, but I'm not sure that it's true.
"Obama has chosen to be that someone..." An interesting observation, but I'm not sure that it's true. He didn't make a big deal out of space in the campaign. Now, I'm guessing it's more important to him as his aides inform him of the deep level of debate going on. At the same time, maybe this will become an issue which he might be able to work to his polititical advantage. The NASA budget is so small compared to so many other budgets. Perhaps the President's advisors will be able to cut here and there, such that NASA gets more money.
Why fight Congress head on when you can get what you want without the fight? Unless it's ideologically driven?
Quote from: mmeijeri on 03/09/2010 01:23 amQuote from: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:20 amI simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.Yes, and if Mike Griffin had not shut it down we would have private taxis to LEO whether or not we get commercial crew to ISS. Commercial crew simply is NOT the linchpin, here.Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.
Quote from: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:20 amI simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.
I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.
Quote from: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:27 amQuote from: mmeijeri on 03/09/2010 01:23 amQuote from: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:20 amI simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.Yes, and if Mike Griffin had not shut it down we would have private taxis to LEO whether or not we get commercial crew to ISS. Commercial crew simply is NOT the linchpin, here.Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.You've said this before, and I'll ask the same question I did before: Why should NASA make announcements about something that NASA won't be involved in?
Remember, precedent has been established with Dan Goldin & MirCorp and the rumored smack-down by Mike Griffin of a private crew taxi for Bigelow. If NASA does not repudiate these past precedents then we cannot assume - as Danderman asserts - that non-NASA LEO destinations are part of the new plan. Danderman and others argue that we should support the new plan because this plan will lead to non-NASA destinations in LEO.How can we accept Danderman's argument when there is no evidence the U.S. government intends to allow non-NASA destinations in LEO?
As for Obama, I believe he desires that NASA not cause him any headaches. Otherwise he doesn't much care.
Quote from: Bill White on 03/09/2010 01:36 amAs for Obama, I believe he desires that NASA not cause him any headaches. Otherwise he doesn't much care.How do you square that with the April 15th summit? Who was the last president that spent that much time and attention on NASA - especially in the midst of a national crisis?I submit that if Obama really didn't care about NASA and US spaceflight, he simply would have submitted yet another status quo budget that would have kept the impossible goals and underfunded them, leaving the hard work of devising a realistic new direction for another administration - the way a certain previous president did.There would have been no summit, no new direction, no Augustine Commission, and certainly no additional funding.
Anyway, aren't you in the Orphans of Apollo video?
Obama's already on record as "not caring" so your point is moot.He's already expressed his desires to stop NASA for a period of time in order to use the money for his education plans.
Congress is not a unified block. The vast majority of Congress appears to hold no strong opinions over the course which NASA takes. Why would they, a majority, and a democratic majority, choose to go against the President's wishes concerning NASA on the behalf of a small predominantly self interested republican minority?
Somewhat ironic that I, who am often described as being cynical, <snip>
the only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble to space without bigger rockets is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...
Quote from: Serafeim on 03/08/2010 08:31 pmthe only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble to space without bigger rockets is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...You are wrong: Not the lack of a HLV, but the lack of funding for a telescope (payload) is the reason for not having one.
Quote from: jimgagnon on 03/08/2010 09:14 pmQuote from: MP99 on 03/08/2010 08:35 pmQuote from: jimgagnon on 03/08/2010 04:26 pmCompare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.Reminder: DIRECT also has an ACES upper stage.How does the development cost for a 140mT Atlas compare with J-24x/J-24xSH? Upper stage costs would be the same, I presume.I presume that not requiring an upper stage helps the costs for LEO SD-HLV launches.I would love to see a comprehensive comparison of costs of Atlas V Heavy vs. Direct. However, the important point I want to get across is that NASA shouldn't build or operate its own heavy lifter; if it does, then it's impossible for a free market in heavy lift to get established. Rather, the technology should be transferred to a private company that would have incentives to minimize costs that are never present in a Federal program.AFAIK, the Atlas V Phase 3B (the 8.4m-diameter 140t IMLEO version) would use the ACES-41 common upper stage and would need four twin-engine 5.4m-diameter kerolox strap-ons.
Quote from: MP99 on 03/08/2010 08:35 pmQuote from: jimgagnon on 03/08/2010 04:26 pmCompare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.Reminder: DIRECT also has an ACES upper stage.How does the development cost for a 140mT Atlas compare with J-24x/J-24xSH? Upper stage costs would be the same, I presume.I presume that not requiring an upper stage helps the costs for LEO SD-HLV launches.I would love to see a comprehensive comparison of costs of Atlas V Heavy vs. Direct. However, the important point I want to get across is that NASA shouldn't build or operate its own heavy lifter; if it does, then it's impossible for a free market in heavy lift to get established. Rather, the technology should be transferred to a private company that would have incentives to minimize costs that are never present in a Federal program.
Quote from: jimgagnon on 03/08/2010 04:26 pmCompare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.Reminder: DIRECT also has an ACES upper stage.How does the development cost for a 140mT Atlas compare with J-24x/J-24xSH? Upper stage costs would be the same, I presume.I presume that not requiring an upper stage helps the costs for LEO SD-HLV launches.
Compare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.
The SDLV-Inline like DIRECT Jupiter would have an "ACES-181" a much larger upper stage.
A "free market" in heavy lift isn't going to happen as NASA is a sole customer right now. The "market" wouldn't support more than one system unless something very launch-intensive and requiring sustained effort over years emerges.
IMHO, commercial launch capability will stall at 25t IMLEO until cryogenic fuel depots are available. Even after that, there will mostly only the most limited BEO opportunities (unless a Moon Outpost goes ahead). A truely commercial LV of IMLEO above 50t is unlikely.SDLV only makes sense if you want to do stuff with it during the last half decade of the ISSP. If you don't need that capacity before then, then you might as well develop new technologies and try to develop a better 'clean sheet' design. For what could you need such lift capability? Well, there is still the upmass issue (I'm still not convinced that the ISS will last to 2020 without something to replace the shuttle's lift capability). I will also admit that I would like to see early BEO missions running in parallel with the ISS (lunar flybys, lunar orbiters and maybe even the earliest lander tests).