Author Topic: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?  (Read 25263 times)

Offline MP99

Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #20 on: 09/06/2010 11:08 AM »
The Senate compromise is just as nebulous on it's time lines and goals

But note that the same bill mandates a commission to determine time lines & goals. It recognised they are required, unlike the original FY11.

cheers, Martin

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #21 on: 09/06/2010 01:09 PM »
lisb0n,

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361835main_08%20-%20ULA%20%201.0_Augustine_Public_6_17_09_final_R1.pdf

If the business case is there for ULA to proceed with Phase 2, why do they not do that then?  If they did, then perhaps you would have a point.  However, NASA need not pay ULA to develop an entire "spectrum" of Atlas 5 replacements just so you can have your "modular HLV" and not have a SDLV, which in reality I believe is probably where much more of the weight of your opinion lies. 

Maybe it is because of this.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/05/commercial-crew-eelv-and-avoiding-repeating-history/

Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #22 on: 09/06/2010 02:00 PM »


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.


I guess I need to debate this point.  Being a fiscal conservative is one thing, saying it can't be done because other nations, etc don't do it either is another. 

The USA used to be a Nation that was not afraid to be different and did not worry about "what other nations do" in order to be like them.  That is the difference between being a leader and a follower.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2010 02:02 PM by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #23 on: 09/06/2010 03:18 PM »
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.


Does the crew "fly" the shuttle uphill? 

I think you may find that statement is a bit too far. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #24 on: 09/06/2010 03:20 PM »
Is running an Aerospace program well below it's projected costs ever a good idea?

Will it be tight?  Yes it will be.  Will everyone and everything have to be efficient?  Yes.  Is that not what everyone wants?

Do you think the Senate just threw numbers at a dart board when deriving these numbers and wanted to spend money for the sake of spending money?  I know what you, and likely others will say, but that makes no logical sense. 
« Last Edit: 09/06/2010 03:34 PM by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #25 on: 09/07/2010 01:42 AM »
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.
    Where does this impression stem from? Glancing at her bio, it doesn't seem like she has sought any elected political office, and all her work has been in the area of space policy. What personal agenda outside space policy, for which space policy is supposedly just a tool, are you referring to?
    -Alex

Offline Space Invaders

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Europe
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #26 on: 09/07/2010 09:32 AM »
It's just a feeling, nothing more. Don't take it as anything more than my opinion.  :)

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?

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #27 on: 09/07/2010 12:06 PM »
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?

Nobody is trying to limit anyone to LEO.  Different people have different opinions on what the future budget profile of NASA will be, and different levels of confidence that NASA has it in them to produce another self designed LV. 

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.

I feel the future for NASA is going include a lot of budget cutting like is happening at the ESA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090603880.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

If that's the case we could end up at best with a HLV and barely enough to operate it, much less develop payloads for it, or at worst a 2/3 developed HLV, no budget to finish it in a timely manner, and no budget for serious payloads.  Considering that would basically be the end of NASA (and congress would yet again blame NASA for not delivering, even though they where never given a real chance), it's a future I want a 0 percent chance of.

I seriously hope I am wrong, and others are right, and the future is full of 1 & 2 billion a year budget increases for NASA, but this year has reduced my confidence in this outcome.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #28 on: 09/07/2010 12:29 PM »
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.

Why do you believe Congress would even consider funding fuel depots before establishing a definite, near term beyond LEO destination? And other than LEO fuel depots, what in space infrastructure do you foresee being valuable?

As for future NASA budget woes, those concerns suggest that commercial space advocates should embrace this suggestion by Mary Roach, author of recently popular book "Packing for Mars" (See page 251-252)
 
Quote
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.

= = =

Edit to add:

If a House / Senate compromise bill passes unanimously (or near unanimously) then fears of future NASA budget cuts could be exaggerated since such cuts can only come from Congress.

And, I believe actually flying the Jupiter 130 as soon as possible is NASA's best defense against future budget cuts.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2010 01:08 PM by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12939
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4001
  • Likes Given: 761
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #29 on: 09/07/2010 01:31 PM »
And, 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". 

A photo of a real Jupiter rocket, the von Braun team's first "modern" space-age rocket, is attached.  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 first U.S. satellite was launched on a slightly modified Jupiter C renamed, practically after the fact, "Juno I".

The name has deep historical significance.  Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"!

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/07/2010 01:49 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #30 on: 09/07/2010 02:04 PM »
The name has deep historical significance.  Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"!
 - Ed Kyle

Jupiter 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?

Offline mjcrsmith

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 193
  • Harvard, IL
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #31 on: 09/07/2010 02:15 PM »
The name has deep historical significance.  Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"!
 - Ed Kyle

Jupiter 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?

Like Enterprise???

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Online JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #32 on: 09/07/2010 02:16 PM »
Quote
Which one of these is the major launcher of science missions, supports our defense forces, and provides the greatest service to the private sector?

Wait, wait: Don't tell me...

Quote
...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 hear that.  Which gets to one of the arguments I make regarding guarantees of accomplishment.  There are so many moving targets and so many organizations pulling the rug out from other organizations; hardly a wonder that our progress is in fits and starts.  Just me whining about lack of cooperation and the mal-effects of politics run amok. "Our experts in Utah", indeed.

Quote
I suggest we get used to it.

A bit of jumping the gun.  We'll get used to it sometime after it happens.  I cherish the thought of there soon being that time.  Until then, we have to concern ourselves with creating a new government owned LV, and that in an expeditious, responsible fashion.  At the same time, we need to get the mission priorities straight; which puts NEO's down on the list; Moon first, particularly prop ISRU; and Mars second, particularly the exo-biology question.  The depot/hotel infrastructure, probably first in LEO needs to be concurrent with the first two.  Then we will have what it takes to study NEO's at our leisure, and to whatever advantage they may provide.

Quote
Trust me on this, the management reserve in these bids is going to overwhelm the differences in cost efficiencies or design efficiencies,

Trust me on this...  They are not willing to work in cost or design efficiencies anyhow, no matter the contract language.  They being management, whether government or private.  The casual analysis calls it greed, because such risk aversion seems unrealistic as a cause.  Elsewhere, I suggest putting four or eight probes on a launcher.  "OH NO!  We can't do that!"  Those who would know best how to do this will not discuss it.  I dunno, does the FAR have some language in it about avoiding efficiency at all costs?

SpacexULA:

[/quote]FY2011 as written by the administration would have subjected NASA to a similar reform to what we forced the Air Force though 20 years ago.  It served them well, and 20 years from now this reform would have served NASA well.[/quote]

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.

There's still too much premature program cancellation, due to lack of program oversight and too many alternative legal paths which limit accomplishment.  Witness the perfectly legal terminations from some months ago; the current pad demolition operations soon to be underway; the tower abandonment accompanied by calls for a new tower, sans LV.

So we still need reform.  I would say, maybe:  No new LV till I say so?  Don't make me turn this planet around....

Quote
In that time, it has made only six launch attempts...

...and I've made how many attempts?  Oh.  Right. This is not about me.  People are gonna complain:  Look, Ares was painted a different color than Falcon.  You can't compare apples and oranges, but that's wrong.  In this business, I think it's about time to start comparing apples and oranges.  Why does this delicio.us little red apple cost $500M, but this huge, pulpy orange cost $13B?  What apple do you get when you give pre-reform NASA $500M?  Hint: we're sending it to the scrapyard, unused.

So yeah, NewSpace is somewhat behind schedule.  And the "experts in Utah" are ahead of schedule?

Quote
I whole heatedly agree, too bad some people like to refer to others opinion as, assanine, amusing,  or internet-feed.

Point taken, I hope?  It's not personal, OV.

Quote
But note that the same bill mandates a commission to determine time lines & goals.

Another good point made, and a valuable tool towards accountability.

Froma that SpacePolitics article that OV posted:

Quote
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.

I don't know why that is, but these vehicles could launch something inanimate to the ISS, and a fair amount of something at that.  I expect to be told that they use square docking rings, not round ones, and thus it would be impossible to even discuss the possible use of these reliable launch vehicles; the continuation of  five or six shuttle flights; the temporary delay of new LV construction; and the proving of NewSpace abilities.

Also, the article talks about the $4B that these poor, destitute, disadvantaged companies, with virtually no Congessional support, and not a negative cash flow to be seen in their statements, and ... Wait a minute.  Do I hear violins in the distance?

Quote
... before establishing a definite, near term beyond LEO destination ...

Can you say, "Goodnight Moon?"  Not you personally, just in general.  I bet Mary Roach can.  Just call the new LV "Alice".  Like the way Mr. Gleason used to say it: "One of these days... to the Moon, Alice!" 
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10607
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2741
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #33 on: 09/07/2010 03:56 PM »
And, 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

Ed, Vehicle and vessel names are reused all the time. It's the significance and history of the name that's important. Unlike sports star jersey numbers, these names are never retired. There is no reason not to reuse an honored name for a new vehicle.

For example, we selected the name "Jupiter" for several reasons; all of them related to the original Jupiter rocket and its true successor the Saturn.

Like the original, the Jupiter-130 is the core of something greater. Von Braun had a much larger LV in mind when he flew the Jupiter. He was thinking about Nova, which eventually became the Saturn-V. The J-130 is also the core of something bigger the J-246. There is a series of historical articles in the annals of LV development called "They Would Be Giants" that you will find fascinating.

Like the original, DIRECT's Jupiter reuses the existing tooling and infrastructure to create something bigger, something better than its predecessor. Like the original, it seeks to honor its predecessor as it builds upon itself in the same way.

Finally, in a nod to what brought the DIRECT team together in the first place is Griffin's desire to build the biggest rocket in the world. He wanted the Ares-V to be bigger and more powerful than the Saturn-V. So we named it "Jupiter" because the planet Jupiter is bigger than the planet Saturn, the name of the rocket that Griffin wanted so much to eclipse.

Having said all that we really don't care what they call it, we never have cared. We needed a good name and designation series that would honor where all this came from as well as describe what was sitting on the pad. But we always stated that once NASA took ownership that we fully expect them to call it something else, perhaps even "Ares" again. We really don't care. So your distaste is, I believe with all my heart, to be short-lived. I don't know what they will call it but I'm reasonably sure it will not be "Jupiter".
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #34 on: 09/07/2010 06:30 PM »

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.

 

I can very comfortably assure you I have not missed any important points. 

I and many others have a job to do.  Jobs that are key to whatever nebulous future that someone, somewhere, at some point decides will be the future direction.

I, and others, have not asked or expected special treatment.  Our futures though are at stake.  As of right now, we are the living dead.  Still required to do the job and achieve the goals this Nation and this agency currently have, but expendible enough that we stand ready to be jettisoned at the first oppurtunity. 

With that, we, if we so choose, can particpate in the debate about the "reform" as you call it.  Yet, there are absolutes.  Ideally, flying the shuttle longer as you suggested was the correct strategic move in the first place.  That did not and will not happen.  Within these absolutes there are certain realities.  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 some of the more important technical know-how, cost and schedule benefits.  We also realize there are some who do not want this in any way.  That is fine too but what we have been called on "the internet" by some is nothing but uninformed, rude and insulting. 

If SDLV does not happen, fine too.  It is beyond time to choose a path and try to make something happen.  No one is going to be totally happy, let alone the "space community" and the "internet".  However, I promise you and everyone this, any HLV will happen much further in the future and will be more expensive or, at very least but unlikely, no less expensive to develop. 

The reasons are simple.  One being that there is not any technology on the horizon that is on the cusp or revolutionizing transport to orbit.  It will all involve smoke and fire.  Second, when creating a launch vehicle there are a lot of DDT&E costs, vendors that must be brought online and certified, facilities that this must be done at as well, etc.  You can minimize that by starting further in the chain with something one has now, understands and using that to get where you need to be.  Especially in this fiscal climate.

I understand and appreciate ULA too and what others have said about EELV.  Yet, at the same time, some are missing the finer points.  The devil that lives in the details if you will.  ULA is not going to provide, at their expense, an HLV to NASA so NASA then just has to pay for the trip.  What ULA has shown publically about how to evolve the EELV's is perfectly valid.  Yet it is not just strap an extra core to it and we're done.  To get to the SDLV-lift class there is a lot of work that has to be done.  There is new infrastructure that is needed.  In the end, they are "new" rockets.  Yes, they may have heritage to EELV but SDLV has the same heritage to Shuttle.  Mind you with SDLV, the orbiter, the most expensive hardware piece within the Space Shuttle Program, is gone.  I have seen nothing official from anyone that shows an EELV-based HLV will have major and life-altering lower fixed costs than a SDLV.  Again, that may be because the "standard" EELV and EELV-HLV will be so different.  It should not be NASA's function to provide ULA with the money to develop a whole new family of Atlas, the phase 2, just so we can one day have the "modular HLV". 

There are those who say we don't need an HLV.  Fine, I respect their opinions.  But, in the end, they are just that.  Given the "nebulous" future, there is no certainty on prop depots, how they will be serviced, by who, by what and when, etc.  There is no certainty that everything can be launched on EELV-class payloads.  There is no certainty that you do not miss the "sweet-spot" where one is spending more to assemble everything in orbit, the launches required, etc than if an HLV was in the mix.  So it is a choice.  A choice ultimately made by the powers-that-be with the technical advisements of NASA and industry.  One day, if commercial operations support a true "commercial HLV" that NASA can buy the services from because the market has driven companies to invest their money in that development, the SDLV should and will be retired.  That is not today however. 

For those that say we should wait.  Well, then it comes down to spending more money long term and every organization that has been charged officially to study it, has officially said, as a body, we will need an HLV.  This is another one of those "realities and absolutes" that the decision makers see and they see there is no reason to waste resources to recreate what essentially exists now. 

There are teams in work studying how this new architecutre is implemented.  How it uses SDLV and commercial launchers.  How it using Orion (MPCV) and potential commercial space vehicles (not just the rockets).  The results of these studies need to be documented.  They need to be studied and analyzed by others.  They need to reviewed by the "space community" before arbitrarily being shouted down, with the same shallow rationale that is repeated over and over again by "user names on the internet".

So, all of this to say and help you understand that I do get it.  I don't only get it, I am part of it.  I, and many others, hope to continue to be a part of it, knowing full well it won't be the job we have today if we are even lucky enough to continue with an industry we love and cause we believe is just.  Yet we need to finish this job, and finish it well, and we strive for that every day.  All the while wondering what tomorrow brings. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #35 on: 09/07/2010 07:18 PM »
Quote
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...


1.  Just as long as we're clear, that I'm not in charge here.  "Reform" is indeed a good term to use, and it is needed all up and down the line.  FY2011 can certainly be characterized as "nebulous", and I would say that the "reforms" is sorta sideways hinted at were also "nebulous".  The fact of the matter, taken as a whole, there's too much wasted money and too little mature oversight, at least, for example, if I'm reading Sutton correctly, on that one issue.

2.  Well, I'm not giving up just yet on that opinion of mine, for what that's worth.

3.  I couldn't agree more.  We both know that the devil is in the details, and you more than I, in the SD part of that.

4.  Fine, if that's what it takes to slap some sense in these pols.  I will not be happy, tho.

5.  And I wish the Administration would never bring that wispy, mushy subject up again.

6.  I pretty much agree with your fairly well reasoned remarks in that paragraph.  That's the kind of discussion that will move progress forward.

7.  I say, wait a bit, and let the future capabilities evolve some more.  I acknowledge your later argument about the definite need for HLV; I think it should more probably be at least 100t.  If the first Jupiter is "only" 70t, fine.  But there should be new RP-1 boosters which make 100T the new "floor".  Commercial will catch up in due course.

8.  There should be certainty on this issue.  Legislative certainty.  Fixed masses.  Call it ACES-41, which is doable by current EELV's, no? and don't change it.  Endless study over the last few ounces of propellant are killing the idea.  It could upgrade to ACES-71 or ACES -101, pending the new commercial developments.

Let's not worry so much about the theoretical optimization of some uncertain "sweet spot".  All of the assumptions are vanity.  Vanity, vanity, vanity...  Ooops.  I'm rambling.

No matter what, we have to get good at in-space assembly and prop transfer.  Let the interplanetary ships get as big as they need to get.  Let's go from LEO to L1 and the Moon with fewer bigger pieces.  Drop the prop from the Moon and then I believe the sweet spot will be the all-too maligned LEO.  Don't fight it.  Embrace it.

Quote
the same shallow rationale that is repeated over and over again by "user names on the internet".

At least I don't do that.  Some of those other posters (I know who you are, OV) would change their tone if they were brave enough to have real names.  And perhaps our bandwidth wouldn't be so clogged with emotion.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #36 on: 09/07/2010 08:53 PM »
...
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.
....

Orion's pilots will have in-the-loop control on many phases of operation, such as launch abort, orbital burn abort, 6DOF proximity ops, docking, remote control from other spacecraft, and entry/landing (roll).

Buran was launched and landed without pilots inside, so the "capsules don't need pilots" statement means nothing. Winged spacecraft may not need pilots... so what ?!

It's the mission that matters, not the shape of the vehicle. I apologize if it sounds like I'm lecturing you, but your statements are shocking.

« Last Edit: 09/07/2010 09:29 PM by renclod »

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #37 on: 09/07/2010 09:23 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.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10607
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2741
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #38 on: 09/07/2010 09:31 PM »
I have said this on other threads and it is just as true here.

It is a dangerous thing to ascribe motive to anyone for the things that they do.
We would all do well to examine what she has or has not done and discuss the implications of those, but steer clear of making pronouncements wrt to "why" she did or did not do something. There is really no way of knowing short of asking her. Has anyone on this thread actually done that?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11187
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Why is Garver so pro Commercial Space?
« Reply #39 on: 09/07/2010 10:17 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.


I.  NASA HSF doesn't matter, US HSF is what matters
2.  The 5 strategic needs are NASA's and not Garver's
3.  NASA's charter says nothing about  manned space exploration

Tags: