-
#100
by
rcaron
on 13 Jan, 2006 04:38
-
Concerning national relevancy, the Vision tried to articulate it, to give America a reason to be proud of NASA again. Alas, Communism and armageddon scenarios do a much better job at getting the public's attention.
If one actually reads my previous post (I apologize for my long-windedness), I would contest that NASA has always had direct national relevancy. I think the greater issue is that the public as a whole isn't educated enough to see it to know why its relevant. Our education system system is a mess, and has been so for awhile now. We rank near, if not at, the bottom of most education tests. That's the biggest problem.
Apollo showed that it played at least a small part in inspiring children who later created the surge of college grads and PhDs we saw a decade later.
A strong space program can inspire education. One needs an education to value and continue the space program. Its a cycle that we've seem to have broken.
Nobody said this would be easy.
-
#101
by
Doug Stanley
on 13 Jan, 2006 04:43
-
-
#102
by
rcaron
on 13 Jan, 2006 04:44
-
I'm sorry, saying NASA excels at nothing is far from accurate. We have MER, Cassini, Voyagers & Pioneers, MESSENGER, Deep Impact, New Horizons about to leave and Stardust about to come home. We have a lot to be proud about, especially when we consider our own and international failures (Beagle 2, Cryosat, Nozomi, the troubled Hayabusa, Cosmos 1). The vision/ESAS is designed to fix what isn't working so well, and thats the purpose and implementation of our manned space program.
-
#103
by
Avron
on 13 Jan, 2006 04:44
-
rcaron - 13/1/2006 12:38 AM
A strong space program can inspire education. One needs an education to value and continue the space program. Its a cycle that we've seem to have broken.
QUOTE]
Thats a great insight, --- humm, no spaceflight =>less education => poorly educated workforce=> less work.. fear angle
-
#104
by
Jamie Young
on 13 Jan, 2006 04:46
-
Doug Stanley - 12/1/2006 11:29 PM
Yes, I am THAT Doug Stanley...I just stumbled across this forum and you all seem very well informed and reasonable. Many of you have read our ESAS Report. What do you think of it and the architecture (good and bad)?
Welcome Dr Stanley. It is a very exciting and informative report. It took a long long time to read, but it was very interesting and people here with experience did help with pointers to key sections. I really can't wait for it to become real.
-
#105
by
Sergi Manstov
on 13 Jan, 2006 04:49
-
Doug Stanley - 12/1/2006 11:29 PM
Yes, I am THAT Doug Stanley...I just stumbled across this forum and you all seem very well informed and reasonable. Many of you have read our ESAS Report. What do you think of it and the architecture (good and bad)?
It was very good. You should come work for RCS Energia
-
#106
by
rcaron
on 13 Jan, 2006 04:55
-
Of course it troubles me. I'm sure it troubles the Administrator. We're really in a bad spot trying to maintain Shuttle and bring the Vision online. We have to honor our committments to our partners, and we have to give our manned program a mission that's worth risking astronaut's lives. The other things will be crunched over the next few years until we can end the Shuttle program. Then we can resume our astronomical and deep space missions and everything else that had to be put on hold.
The question we all need to ask ourselves is a hiatus of some of the activities that we have gotten fairly good at worth the the gains of actually extending mankind's presence in the solar system? I think it is.
-
#107
by
Avron
on 13 Jan, 2006 04:57
-
Doug Stanley - 13/1/2006 12:29 AM
Yes, I am THAT Doug Stanley...I just stumbled across this forum and you all seem very well informed and reasonable. Many of you have read our ESAS Report. What do you think of it and the architecture (good and bad)?
Welcome,
a good architecture IMHO, one based on the number one item - Crew saftey - it is also based on knowns, is simple (KISS) , provides options and can be expanded, its flexible but at the same time clean, can I guess with the limits of time and money a workable solution.
-
#108
by
rcaron
on 13 Jan, 2006 04:59
-
I think the architecture is fantastic, although I admit I'm only through Ch5. I just want to make sure we stick to it, seems like we're already making comprimises.
-
#109
by
rcaron
on 13 Jan, 2006 05:10
-
We just got over a two year hiatus and we're going to have another one before too long in our manned space program. I think we'd both agree that between manned space and unmanned space, manned space is in worse shape. It needs the attention, the fixing. Our manned space program now has definition, and it needs to switch gears before it can be the success it once was.
I don't think deep space exploration is being sacraficed substantially. We have MRO, MSL is in the works, New Horizons will yield more data from its Jupiter flyby than it will about Pluto, JWST will give us an incredible view in the IR. Dawn should hopefully launch this year to investigate Ceres. MESSENGER is onroute. We have the LRO coming up too.
Its all the other stuff NASA does, that doesn't directly require a space mission, that's getting hurt. Especially aeronautics. Aeronautics always gets the bad rap.
-
#110
by
rcaron
on 13 Jan, 2006 05:25
-
You're right, my examples are late in the queue and we will have a hiatus, and its going to suck. There's no denying it, many deserving programs (even stuff that will help ESAS in the long run) are being cut back. We can't do everything, at least not all at once. That's the lesson that needs to be learned. But the important thing is that we will get deep-space back.
Its been refreshing to have a good debate go back in forth; I haven't done this in since the space.com message boards (I left in early 2004 when their servers crashed and lost all their forum threads)
You're right, no need goes unpunished.
-
#111
by
Dobbins
on 13 Jan, 2006 06:44
-
I had mixed feelings about Methane from the start. It is something that I would like to see done even if Mars wasn't part of the long term planning because Methane has huge advantages over LH2 for handling and storage, and it doesn't have the toxicity problems of hypergolics. However I don't like seeing new technology being developed as part of an operational vehicle program. That is just asking for cost overruns and delays.
Developing the SSMEs and the tile TPS caused huge delays and cost overruns in the shuttle program in the 1970s. On the other side of the coin I was disappointed that the metallic TPS and the Aerospike engine went down the tubes when the VentureStar program got the ax. We have had the worst of both worlds here, the new technology holding the larger product hostage with the Shuttle, and the larger product killing the development of the new technology with the VentureStar.
When NASA was still the NACA it did a lot of important work on systems and subsystems that were "on the shelf" items that were ready to be used by anyone developing aircraft. Things like the NACA airfoils, the work on nacelle placement, and retractable landing gear. We need that old NACA style of developing new technology as elements that can be placed on the shelf for future use when it comes time for NASA or a commercial entity to design a new spaceship.
Using the Shuttle technology as part of the ESAS design is an example of what can be done with off the shelf development of a design, but the shelf wasn't as full as it would have been if NASA had been using a NACA approach and doing smaller projects to stock the shelf instead of all of those spaceplane designs that were dropped before their technology was developed.
If we had a Methane engine and a non-hypergolic thruster setting on the shelf now we wouldn't be looking at having to drop them from the CEV because time line and cost problems. If we had the Aerospike engine, the metallic TPS and other projects that got dropped or didn't get funded setting on then shelf the ESAS team would have had more options in the design study, and we might have gotten a better system.
There isn't much that can be done about this at the present because we are in a funding crunch because we are stuck with an absurdly expensive to operate shuttle and an ISS that has eaten money like some kind of finical blackhole. Congress isn't going to let us walk away from the ISS because of international commitments we made, and even if they did let us drop the ISS they still aren't going to let us walk away from the Shuttle. Griffin had to promise to speed up the CEV from 2014 to 2012 to keep the Senate from inserting a requirement into the Authorization act that would have kept the Shuttles in service beyond 2010. We are stuck with these legacy projects for the next 4 years, like it or not.
Once we get past this funding crunch the question is are we going to learn our lesson and start developing components that can be used in future designs or to upgrade the CEV, or are we going to return to the model that got us in this fix, only trying to develop new technology as part of some big project.
-
#112
by
Chris Bergin
on 13 Jan, 2006 10:14
-
Doug Stanley - 12/1/2006 11:29 PM
Yes, I am THAT Doug Stanley...I just stumbled across this forum and you all seem very well informed and reasonable. Many of you have read our ESAS Report. What do you think of it and the architecture (good and bad)?
A very warm welcome to the site!
Given this thread is splitting in several directions, I've set up a specific thread on your question to save you trawling through many an unrelated post.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1258&start=1
-
#113
by
Rocket Nut
on 13 Jan, 2006 11:02
-
Chris Bergin - 10/1/2006 7:52 PM
Right, time to move this into the CEV section seen as the article is on site.
I went to KSC yesterday so my daughter could experience the tours. I hadn't been there for quite a while and there were a lot of changes.
One of the changes was a very detailed "briefing" conducted by an "employee of Delaware North". I think he may also have been a bus driver for the SSPF tour.
He gave a very detailed briefing about the CEV and the VSE. He was not aware of the change to the Methane requirement, but had a lot of good facts at his fingertips. He gave a very good briefing that was otherwise very up to date. Lots of switches to various live tv feeds of processing facilities. Watched as they moved one of the SSMEs into place.
One very interesting aspect was on several of his briefing slides...I had to chuckle when he credited NasaWatch.com and Spaceref.com for his CEV and CLV graphics. I have to say I recognized the pictures when they flashed up on the screens.
Cheers,
Larry
-
#114
by
rcaron
on 13 Jan, 2006 11:33
-
I should point out that
Aviation Week now has the methane story. Its about time the other outlets found this! One thing's fore sure though, nasaspaceflight.com is now part of my regular news checking regimen (includes spaceflightnow.com, spacedaily.com, nasawatch.com, planetary.org) Has anybody else seen the methane story elsewhere? Im just curious if I missing a major outlet.
Also,
NASAWatch has referenced both the WhiteHouse and the ESAS report itself in defense of methane. I'm curious to see how, if it all, the ESAS report will be modified to support this new methane-less direction.
-
#115
by
Chris Bergin
on 13 Jan, 2006 12:57
-
Thanks for that
We've got bigger stories to come yet....
-
#116
by
HarryM
on 13 Jan, 2006 17:09
-
http://www.usspacenews.com/"NASA has dropped the requirement for a methane based propulsion capability for CEV.
However contractors can propose it as part of Phase 2 CEV effort. Methane propulsion will
be picked up again as part of Block 2 development. Our source indicate this will actually
wait until 2018 when the Mars effort is in full swing."
Other interesting details also.
-
#117
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Feb, 2006 16:18
-
New info.
NASA is now reviewing the decision to drop methane.
There is a "trade study to compare methane, hypergols, ethanol, etc…NASA will also examine the contactors’ proposals before making a final decision"
-
#118
by
CuddlyRocket
on 07 Feb, 2006 16:27
-
Chris Bergin - 7/2/2006 5:18 PM
NASA is now reviewing the decision to drop methane.
Just a (friendly!) correction - there was no decision to drop Methane. What was dropped was the requirement to include it, but it was open to the contractors to opt for it if they wanted. (Although, you could take it as a pretty big hint!)
-
#119
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Feb, 2006 16:32
-
Indeed, excuse my context
Article to come on the current state of play.
We've got bigger stories to come yet....