-
#20
by
A_M_Swallow
on 09 Mar, 2012 03:43
-
"This new propulsion system would be gradually developed over the next 10 years, with a demonstration flight capable of readiness by 2014."
I'm not so good at math but I am suspecting that there may be an accidental '1' in place of a '2' in that analysis.
No, those two are not mutually exclusive. The presentation shows a demo using one of two existing satellite bus, with up to ~100kW with the Boeing 702 bus.
The article is talking about a 30kW SEP flying in 2 years time (2014) rather than 6 years a different thread mentioned a few days ago. This is great news and very fast.
-
#21
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 09 Mar, 2012 04:29
-
I don't see any Orion module attached to the habitat. The Orion stays at the L-2 gateway. I presume solar electric propulsion is used to transfer back to the gateway and then Orion's service module provides the propulsion back to Earth.
-
#22
by
Robotbeat
on 09 Mar, 2012 04:52
-
I don't see any Orion module attached to the habitat. The Orion stays at the L-2 gateway. I presume solar electric propulsion is used to transfer back to the gateway and then Orion's service module provides the propulsion back to Earth.
Yes, that's what I see, too!
It's nice to see Boeing consider a very minimalist architecture, since I think that sort of thinking (which was CRITICAL in Apollo's success, IMHO) will help us afford and actually execute new beyond-LEO exploration missions.
-
#23
by
Proponent
on 09 Mar, 2012 06:29
-
Is there any hint at all as to the cost of what Boeing proposes? I gotta say it seems to me that obliviousness to the budgetary situation is the common thread linking most discussions involving both SLS and BEO exploration.
-
#24
by
QuantumG
on 09 Mar, 2012 06:33
-
Is there any hint at all as to the cost of what Boeing proposes? I gotta say it seems to me that obliviousness to the budgetary situation is the common thread linking most discussions involving both SLS and BEO exploration.
Heh, "Assembly at ISS would allow build and test to occur over a period of several years while MPCV and SLS development are being completed" indicates clearly that they're unaware that all the budget is being consumed doing MPCV/SLS. Or just in denial.. which is not unusual at all.
-
#25
by
woods170
on 09 Mar, 2012 06:35
-
Is there any hint at all as to the cost of what Boeing proposes? I gotta say it seems to me that obliviousness to the budgetary situation is the common thread linking most discussions involving both SLS and BEO exploration.
Heh, "Assembly at ISS would allow build and test to occur over a period of several years while MPCV and SLS development are being completed" indicates clearly that they're unaware that all the budget is being consumed doing MPCV/SLS. Or just in denial.. which is not unusual at all.
My thoughts exactly.
Where's the funding? Answer: it does not exist.
All-in-all this is just another Powerpoint dream.
-
#26
by
apace
on 09 Mar, 2012 07:30
-
I don't see any Orion module attached to the habitat. The Orion stays at the L-2 gateway. I presume solar electric propulsion is used to transfer back to the gateway and then Orion's service module provides the propulsion back to Earth.
Yes, that's what I see, too!
It's nice to see Boeing consider a very minimalist architecture, since I think that sort of thinking (which was CRITICAL in Apollo's success, IMHO) will help us afford and actually execute new beyond-LEO exploration missions.
Huh? If such a mission is viable without a MPCV, why we develop Orion? If it's not needed, we can use this funding for the deep space infrastructure and getting this package together before the end of this decade...
-
#27
by
QuantumG
on 09 Mar, 2012 07:33
-
Huh? If such a mission is viable without a MPCV, why we develop Orion? If it's not needed, we can use this funding for the deep space infrastructure and getting this package together before the end of this decade...
Because it's a "fact" that you need a "big" rocket and a "big" capsule to go BEO. Don't you know the facts?!
-
#28
by
apace
on 09 Mar, 2012 07:40
-
Huh? If such a mission is viable without a MPCV, why we develop Orion? If it's not needed, we can use this funding for the deep space infrastructure and getting this package together before the end of this decade...
Because it's a "fact" that you need a "big" rocket and a "big" capsule to go BEO. Don't you know the facts?!
I'm still looking to download the solid plan, from which the NASA Administrators talks all the time. Perhaps there I can find the answer.
-
#29
by
Davinator
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:28
-
Great article. This is a very exciting and viable proposal.
No, I don't buy into the the usual handful of posters who continue to infect the threads by posting far too many times for their own good with lies about how there's no money. They always fail, and fail hard on how SLS and Orion are CHEAPER than Shuttle was per year.
I hope people don't listen to lies.
-
#30
by
CitabriaFlyer
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:29
-
Can the NEA spacecraft with all of those solar wings be lofted with one SLS flight?
Does SLS send the ship to EML2 via a chemical 3rd stage or does SLS boost to LEO and then the spacecraft spirals to EML2 with its electric thrusters?
How many pounds of xenon does it take to move a ship that size from EML-2 to the NEA back to EML-2?
-
#31
by
QuantumG
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:32
-
No, I don't buy into the the usual handful of posters who continue to infect the threads by posting far too many times for their own good with lies about how there's no money. They always fail, and fail hard on how SLS and Orion are CHEAPER than Shuttle was per year.
Read above silly.. we're talking about Boeing's suggestion that this puppy could be built
at the same time as SLS/MPCV. Surely you don't think there's a budget profile for that, do you?
-
#32
by
Chris Bergin
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:37
-
NSF, you are a Spitfire putting out the lead.
Heh, thanks! Appreciate the Spitfire reference too! (Great plane).
-
#33
by
Chris Bergin
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:38
-
Great article. This is a very exciting and viable proposal.
No, I don't buy into the the usual handful of posters who continue to infect the threads by posting far too many times for their own good with lies about how there's no money. They always fail, and fail hard on how SLS and Orion are CHEAPER than Shuttle was per year.
I hope people don't listen to lies.
Easy tiger, it's a forum thread for the article.
Readers are entitled to an opinion once they've read it.
Some opinions will be good, some will be bad, some will be insightful, some will be "OMGZ!"
Welcome to the internet!
-
#34
by
Davinator
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:54
-
OK!
But you must get tired of a few people just posting "no money for it"?
-
#35
by
MATTBLAK
on 09 Mar, 2012 10:59
-
Almost as tired as I am - for a multitude of reasons...
-
#36
by
Chris Bergin
on 09 Mar, 2012 11:06
-
OK! But you must get tired of a few people just posting "no money for it"?
Don't want this to digress, so let me answer that and then we can all talk about the article.
Look, I'm no fan of negativity, that's just how I am. But "no money for it" is more realism (maybe, maybe not, but money is a problem) than negativity - the difference between "Boring, never gonna happen" and "Cool, but never gonna happen"
This one is viable for a write up as this Exploration Platform plan is building internally, and it's our duty to report the content surrounding it. Also, we've never been about cost on this site, we're more about the hardware.
What upsets me the most is when people don't care either way. All I want is for people to read the articles and comment on them with debate. Such as there was a recent Orion article, which did gain a lot of readers, but the associated thread was a few "nice article" comments and that was it. That's a bit boring to be honest.
A good civil debate with counter views and such might result in us all learning something.
-
#37
by
MATTBLAK
on 09 Mar, 2012 11:26
-
If a re-elected Obama or newly-elected Romney can be persuaded to push funding for SEP, Habitats, modules etc, I think that Nelson, Hutchinson, Mikulski etc and the other usual suspects will get behind it. That's cautious hope and optimism - but tethered in my case by - "Nice to have, but will the budget Hawks go for it?"
Or the negatives who say (or whine): "Meh - none of this is
ever gonna happen..." (
And sadly, they could have a point).
But I know which frame of mind and future
I'm going to hope/push for!!
-
#38
by
MATTBLAK
on 09 Mar, 2012 11:35
-
NSF, you are a Spitfire putting out the lead.
Heh, thanks! Appreciate the Spitfire reference too! (Great plane).
(I hope Chris wont mind). My 'local' Spitfire. I love how they keep these old birds flying.
-
#39
by
Namechange User
on 09 Mar, 2012 14:23
-
I think that Nelson, Hutchinson, Mikulski etc and the other usual suspects will get behind it.
Hutchinson is retiring this year from the Senate. Nelson may not win re-election.
Readers are entitled to an opinion once they've read it.
But you must get tired of a few people just posting "no money for it"?