Author Topic: George Abbey sees limits in private spaceflight  (Read 8187 times)

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Last Edit: 12/14/2010 01:45 AM by Chris Bergin »
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10484
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 19
As the Augustine committee said, if you extend Shuttle, then a Shuttle-Derived becomes the most logical solution.

Visa versa, if you want a Shuttle-Derived solution, then extending Shuttle makes a lot of sense in order to keep the infrastructure and experienced workforce in place throughout the transition period.

I don't see anything in Abbey's statement to suggest he doesn't support SLS.   In fact, I see a lean in the exact opposite direction.


And as for Abbey's comments regarding Dragon being insufficient for ISS, it sure looks promising for cargo delivery capabilities in the near future, but it will be a long while before Dragon can try to replace any of Shuttle's crew capabilities, so he has a point.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2010 11:20 PM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17812
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 464
  • Likes Given: 4594
He has some great comments in there. Thanks for the link.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I don't see anything in Abbey's statement to suggest he doesn't support SLS.   In fact, I see a lean in the exact opposite direction.
Disagree. A "back away" from SLS - otherwise he'd of addressed it. As you know. Back to a "longer goodbye" for Shuttle. Nothing more here.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28614
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8581
  • Likes Given: 5595
Dragon has pretty good cargo return capability... it can return subracks, and has 3-tons down-mass capability. I would say his statement "The (SpaceX) capsule would be a way of bringing a small amount of cargo back, but it can't carry very much cargo" is disingenuous. As well as this statement: "If it is modified to carry humans, it will be able to carry even less cargo." So, he thinks SpaceX would throw away the ability to do cargo Dragon if they develop manned Dragon? Unreal.

If he were to say Dragon can't return significant unpressurized cargo, he'd be absolutely correct, but that's not what he said.

And almost all the questions were soft-balls. This was essentially a pure opinion piece. I'm not impressed.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2010 12:07 AM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32471
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11238
  • Likes Given: 333
Dragon has pretty good cargo return capability... it can return full racks, and has 3-tons down-mass capability. I would say his statement "The (SpaceX) capsule would be a way of bringing a small amount of cargo back, but it can't carry very much cargo" is disingenuous. As well as this statement: "If it is modified to carry humans, it will be able to carry even less cargo." So, he thinks SpaceX would throw away the ability to do cargo Dragon if they develop manned Dragon? Unreal.


Dragon can not carry racks

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28614
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8581
  • Likes Given: 5595
Dragon has pretty good cargo return capability... it can return full racks, and has 3-tons down-mass capability. I would say his statement "The (SpaceX) capsule would be a way of bringing a small amount of cargo back, but it can't carry very much cargo" is disingenuous. As well as this statement: "If it is modified to carry humans, it will be able to carry even less cargo." So, he thinks SpaceX would throw away the ability to do cargo Dragon if they develop manned Dragon? Unreal.


Dragon can not carry racks
Dragon cannot carry ISPRs, but it will carry SpaceX's racks. Editing my statement...
« Last Edit: 12/14/2010 01:59 AM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28614
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8581
  • Likes Given: 5595
Dragon has pretty good cargo return capability... it can return full racks, and has 3-tons down-mass capability. I would say his statement "The (SpaceX) capsule would be a way of bringing a small amount of cargo back, but it can't carry very much cargo" is disingenuous. As well as this statement: "If it is modified to carry humans, it will be able to carry even less cargo." So, he thinks SpaceX would throw away the ability to do cargo Dragon if they develop manned Dragon? Unreal.


Dragon can not carry racks
Technically, if it was absolutely essential, there's enough room in Dragon and the CBM is wide enough (wider than Shuttle's APAS) to fit full racks, but it's not an especially efficient use of space, so I doubt it will be used that way. But it could be done, if necessary.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32471
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11238
  • Likes Given: 333
If it is not an ISPR, then it is not relevant in terms of ISS racks. 

Dragon can not do an ISPR.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6182
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
I don't see anything in Abbey's statement to suggest he doesn't support SLS.   In fact, I see a lean in the exact opposite direction.
Disagree. A "back away" from SLS - otherwise he'd of addressed it. As you know. Back to a "longer goodbye" for Shuttle. Nothing more here.

I agree with Ross. With all due respect, your assessment of Abbey's position is completely unsupported by anything in the article. In my opinion the mods should re-title this thread.
JRF

Online Chris Bergin

Re: George Abbey sees limits in private spaceflight
« Reply #10 on: 12/14/2010 01:50 AM »
It is traditional to go with the article's title - which I've edited into the thread, renaming "Rice expert" with "George Abbey" to help it on searches, etc.

PS: It's no use to post a request to the mods on a thread. You have to report the thread or there's a very good chance the request will go unseen.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3356
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 6004
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: George Abbey sees limits in private spaceflight
« Reply #11 on: 12/14/2010 02:15 AM »
 Let's see...He says the shuttle can carry 60,000 pounds of cargo. How much can it carry to the ISS? Payload ain't cargo.
 He says 5 to 6 years for anyone to have the ability to get people to orbit. People could have gone to orbit last week. Just not safely enough to meet standards. But I'm betting that anyone who can do what SpaceX has in less than 9 years can get Dragon up to human par in less time than that.
 He says that the smart thing to do is extend the shuttle to close the gap. How practical is that at this stage?
 His statement that Dragon can only handle a "small" amount of cargo has already been commented on.
 The man's comments look like they're based a little more on an agenda than an objective evaluation to me.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2010 02:17 AM by Nomadd »

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7457
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 185
Re: George Abbey sees limits in private spaceflight
« Reply #12 on: 12/14/2010 02:18 AM »
Just not safely enough to meet standards.

Probably not, but we don't really know that. We do know that it is not provably safe enough, which, rightly, is the criterion.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28614
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8581
  • Likes Given: 5595
Re: George Abbey sees limits in private spaceflight
« Reply #13 on: 12/14/2010 02:24 AM »
Let's see...He says the shuttle can carry 60,000 pounds of cargo. How much can it carry to the ISS? Payload ain't cargo.
 He says 5 to 6 years for anyone to have the ability to get people to orbit. People could have gone to orbit last week. Just not safely enough to meet standards. But I'm betting that anyone who can do what SpaceX has in less than 9 years can get Dragon up to human par in less time than that.
 He says that the smart thing to do is extend the shuttle to close the gap. How practical is that at this stage?
 His statement that Dragon can only handle a "small" amount of cargo has already been commented on.
 The man's comments look like they're based a little more on an agenda than an objective evaluation to me.
The only way to close the American manned spaceflight gap would've been: provide plenty of money a few years ago to either launch Orion on an EELV or get the commercial crew providers going earlier. In addition to extending Shuttle.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline OpsAnalyst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Mary Lynne Dittmar
  • Washington, DC
    • MaryLynneDittmar.com
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: George Abbey sees limits in private spaceflight
« Reply #14 on: 12/14/2010 03:11 AM »
Let's see...He says the shuttle can carry 60,000 pounds of cargo. How much can it carry to the ISS? Payload ain't cargo.
 He says 5 to 6 years for anyone to have the ability to get people to orbit. People could have gone to orbit last week. Just not safely enough to meet standards.

All due respect, but I've heard this several times in the past week and it's just bad luck that I exceeded my quota right here right now. 

When the appraisal of an admittedly great achievement by SpaceX is elevated to an assertion that people could have flown Dragon last week, it begs the question as to how well people understand the complexities of human space flight.  Those just _start_ with the vehicle and the launch system.  They certainly don't end with it.

I'm a supporter of NASA.  And of SpaceX - and Orbital, and Sierra Nevada, etc.  However, I am concerned that in the haste to embrace New Space, there is a sneaking bias re: the endeavor of flying human beings that is dismissive of just how difficult and unforgiving this endeavor is.

NASA is a gov't agency and as such it does make things complicated.  At the same time, HSF is a really tough, really risky business, and woe to those who don't get it.  Or forget it.  Recall, the shuttle was considered an operational, not developmental system at one time, with spaceflight back and forth to LEO viewed as "routine".  What did that get us?  Dead astronauts.

Human beings could NOT have flown Dragon last week.  SpaceX does not yet have the culture, methodology, systems, training, or expertise necessary to get there.  And no one expects them to. 

Except, apparently, people who equate a wheel of cheese to a human being.

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7457
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 185
Re: George Abbey sees limits in private spaceflight
« Reply #15 on: 12/14/2010 03:13 AM »
Human beings could NOT have flown Dragon last week.

Could or should? I don't think anyone has said last week's flight should have been manned. But are you saying that if it had been someone would have died?
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline OpsAnalyst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Mary Lynne Dittmar
  • Washington, DC
    • MaryLynneDittmar.com
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: George Abbey sees limits in private spaceflight
« Reply #16 on: 12/14/2010 03:53 AM »
Human beings could NOT have flown Dragon last week.

Could or should? I don't think anyone has said last week's flight should have been manned. But are you saying that if it had been someone would have died?

No, I'm saying that repeated comments such as "humans could have flown Dragon last week" gloss over the difficulties involved and preparation required.  It's a sort of "woulda-coulda-shoulda" reworking of reality that leads people less sophisticated than many on this forum to believe you really can fly people with neither suspenders nor belt (unlike NASA which in the words of then Shuttle PM Wayne Hale flies "with suspenders _and_ a belt.") 

That in no way diminishes SpaceX's achievement.  On the development side of things, I'm super excited that a vehicle that's as far along as Dragon is did what it did when it did it. 

You were right when you earlier commented that the issue is _provable_ safety - however that's eventually defined.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: George Abbey sees limits in private spaceflight
« Reply #17 on: 12/14/2010 05:05 AM »
It is traditional to go with the article's title - which I've edited into the thread, renaming "Rice expert" with "George Abbey" to help it on searches, etc.
Its actual title is:
"Q&A: Rice expert sees limits in private spaceflight"

Usually the page editor of a "real publication" only uses an original title of say a wire story if it connects with the message to a readership.

Often times titles aren't chosen by the writer, but the editor - in the case of this story to reflect local interest. If you read the item, it sums to Abbey's point - "extend the space shuttle and fly longer".

Now, his evidence is Shuttle is "designed for 100 flights" and that "external tank and solid rockets are new on every flight". That implies to use what has been developed and use of budget for new things consumed by Shuttle to fly. There is no spare budget - where does all of this come from? Thus the "SLS ??". Are you this touchy?

Perhaps Chris you can get up a fund in L2 for the required tanks and solids? Ask ATK, maybe they'll give you a break on them out of the kindness of their hearts?

Abbey's no slouch, he knows the funding as well as any here. Its a zero sum game - for one to gain another must lose. If SpaceX doesn't because its actually having successes, and you run Shuttle long, that means SLS takes it in the shorts. How else do you get budget? Print money?

Personally think this nitpicking over a title is very thin skinned. A lot is going on now thats very exciting, that can't be talked about, possibly due to this kind of censorship - delete this fast Chris! Perhaps people prefer to stick fingers in ears and hum loud. I can't even select a title w/o creating a frenzy - sheesh!

I'm disgusted. Still on the enemys list I guess.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: George Abbey sees limits in private spaceflight
« Reply #18 on: 12/14/2010 05:14 AM »
I think I'm on good terms with both Chris and noone, so it's odd to see the animus.  Mayhap that few outside the southeast Texas swamps realize that "Rice expert" is not a culinary genius but rather a Houston scholar.

One must also consider that Houston is fulla shuttlehuggers, so it's not unusual that the hometown paper would give an outlet for someone to poopoo non-SDLV.

Also makes me wonder if Mr Abbey is still stopping at his bank every morning because he was too cheap to buy retail coffee.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6182
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: George Abbey sees limits in private spaceflight
« Reply #19 on: 12/14/2010 05:38 AM »
It is traditional to go with the article's title - which I've edited into the thread, renaming "Rice expert" with "George Abbey" to help it on searches, etc.
Its actual title is:
"Q&A: Rice expert sees limits in private spaceflight"

I find it funny that you'd invoke the original title now, after having added an editorial comment to it in your original post.

Quote
Personally think this nitpicking over a title is very thin skinned.

I would have had no problem with your post if you'd selected a neutral title and kept the opinions in the body of your post, such as "well Abbey favors continuing shuttle, but I don't see how NASA could fund SLS/MPCV while doing so". I might even have to concede agreement with that. But as you originally posted it, by appending the comment to "Rice expert sees...", you misattributed your opinion as Abbey's. There is nothing in the article that tips Abbey's actual position on the issue, so unless you've read something he wrote elsewhere, or have spoken with him personally, you're inferring something that's just not there. I am not a fan of Abbey but I absolutely will not tolerate misattribution. If you think that's thin-skinned, too bad.

Quote
A lot is going on now thats very exciting, that can't be talked about, possibly due to this kind of censorship - delete this fast Chris! Perhaps people prefer to stick fingers in ears and hum loud. I can't even select a title w/o creating a frenzy - sheesh!

I'm disgusted. Still on the enemys list I guess.

And now insinuations of censorship and a budding martyr complex. Don't you think you're being at least a little overdramatic here? If you want to select a title without creating a frenzy, it's simple - label your opinions as your own, and don't attribute them to others without evidence.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2010 05:45 AM by Jorge »
JRF

Tags: