-
#140 by Elmar Moelzer on 10 Apr, 2013 12:42
-
The commercial crew programme is the best thing NASA has done for manned spaceflight in 30 years. They should cancel the useless SLS, not commercial crew.
-
#141 by yg1968 on 10 Apr, 2013 12:42
-
Quote
Hardly seems worth even having a commercial crew program, doesn't it?
That's what some committee leaders in Congress are asking.
Bolden has answered their question during hearings and stated that their intent is to extent ISS to 2028. -
#142 by yg1968 on 10 Apr, 2013 12:50
-
The commercial crew programme is the best thing NASA has done for manned spaceflight in 30 years. They should cancel the useless SLS, not commercial crew.
If one of the two programs must be cancelled, I would also cancel SLS/MPCV and replace it with a BLEO commercial crew program.
One option suggested by Mike Griffin is to have commercial companies involved in a moon base:
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/02/former_nasa_administrator_mike.html#incart_river_defaultQuoteGriffin wants America to build a permanent base on the moon. Such a base multiplies the logistical challenges by a factor of 10 over the station, he said, and it would require long-term services ranging from life support to housing. "That market is 10 times larger and 10 times longer than the space station," he said, and it could support a space industry.
-
#143 by Elmar Moelzer on 10 Apr, 2013 12:54
-
Yeah, IMHO they should use something simillar to COTS for everything related to transport, maybe also other things.
-
#144 by Jim on 10 Apr, 2013 13:56
-
The commercial crew programme is the best thing NASA has done for manned spaceflight in 30 years.
A biased and unsubstantiated statement. -
#145 by Robotbeat on 10 Apr, 2013 14:10
-
At two flights per year, more like six than 12.
Hardly seems worth even having a commercial crew program, doesn't it?
Unless, ya know, your primary goal is something other than servicing the ISS until 2020.
The intent is to extend the ISS until 2028. But even if that doesn't happen, NASA is unlikely to abandon LEO altogether.
No, you're doing it wrong yg! You're supposed to hamstring the argument for commercial crew with unrealistic assumptions about splashing ISS as soon as possible and then NASA never ever using the vehicles ever again.
*sigh* I'm sick of this argument, by supposed experts on here even, that ISS is going to be splashed in 2020 therefore commercial crew is worthless. Might of well have said CRS was a waste, since ISS was to be abandoned in 2015, right? Come on, have a little intellectual honesty! -
#146 by Chris Bergin on 10 Apr, 2013 14:13
-
I concur. There's absolutely no chance at all the ISS will be splashed in 2020.
Anyone using that argument as the concern is being silly. -
#147 by Chris Bergin on 10 Apr, 2013 14:19
-
The commercial crew programme is the best thing NASA has done for manned spaceflight in 30 years.
A biased and unsubstantiated statement.
And Jim was being kind there. Because I'd say that's close to trolling, Elmar. Improve your posts from this point in. -
#148 by Robotbeat on 10 Apr, 2013 14:20
-
Agreed. ISS is a spectacular achievement.The commercial crew programme is the best thing NASA has done for manned spaceflight in 30 years.
A biased and unsubstantiated statement.
And Jim was being kind there. ... -
#149 by yg1968 on 10 Apr, 2013 14:40
-
Agreed. ISS is a spectacular achievement.The commercial crew programme is the best thing NASA has done for manned spaceflight in 30 years.
A biased and unsubstantiated statement.
And Jim was being kind there. ...
It is. But if reusability works out, SpaceX and Blue Origin will have achieved something great. -
#150 by Robotbeat on 10 Apr, 2013 14:44
-
That's not terribly relevant to NASA's commercial crew, though. Both were working on reusability before. I agree reusability would be a breakthrough. But ISS is still spectacular.
Agreed. ISS is a spectacular achievement.The commercial crew programme is the best thing NASA has done for manned spaceflight in 30 years.
A biased and unsubstantiated statement.
And Jim was being kind there. ...
It is. But if reusability works out, SpaceX and Blue Origin will have achieved something great. -
#151 by Lar on 10 Apr, 2013 14:59
-
That's not terribly relevant to NASA's commercial crew, though. Both were working on reusability before. I agree reusability would be a breakthrough. But ISS is still spectacular.Agreed. ISS is a spectacular achievement.
It is. But if reusability works out, SpaceX and Blue Origin will have achieved something great.
It is even MORE spectacular when one reviews the tortuous history of its early conception/design/funding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Station_Freedom ... we got lucky it got built and it has turned out to be truly awesome. Worth 100 billion? hard to say. but splashing it, EVER, would be bad.
Is Commercial Crew the "best thing in 30 years"
probably not... but it IS one of the best things to happen related to NASA in quite a while, and when it comes to pass things will change. Incrementally, but they will change.
SLS, on the other hand... well I think everyone knows my views on the overall uselessness of it so I won't repeat them. -
#152 by Robotbeat on 10 Apr, 2013 16:24
-
Unfortunately, there will be a day when it will need to be splashed. 15 years from now is maybe appropriate... 30 years in orbit is a lot of thermal cycles for aluminum pressure vessels with tight margins.
That's not terribly relevant to NASA's commercial crew, though. Both were working on reusability before. I agree reusability would be a breakthrough. But ISS is still spectacular.Agreed. ISS is a spectacular achievement.
It is. But if reusability works out, SpaceX and Blue Origin will have achieved something great.
It is even MORE spectacular when one reviews the tortuous history of its early conception/design/funding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Station_Freedom ... we got lucky it got built and it has turned out to be truly awesome. Worth 100 billion? hard to say. but splashing it, EVER, would be bad.
$100 billion includes a lot of research and other stuff besides the actual physical hardware of ISS in orbit. There is the possibility of some of ISS's heritage, logistics methods (yes, that means commercial cargo and commercial crew, though Cygnus would need to be launched on, say, Atlas V to get there) and organizational structure living on in an exploration gateway, though that's just a possibility and nothing certain (15 years out, pretty much nothing CAN be more than a possibility even if it were loudly embraced right now).QuoteIs Commercial Crew the "best thing in 30 years"
Commercial crew (and cargo!) definitely is an important change in how human spaceflight is done for NASA. It can free up significant resources for expensive/large payloads (landers, habs, advanced deep space stages, etc) that are usually tied up in simple logistics (rockets, to-LEO transport, consumables), but only if parts of NASA that currently do logistics-related work transition to payload-related work. probably not... but it IS one of the best things to happen related to NASA in quite a while, and when it comes to pass things will change. Incrementally, but they will change.
...
If it's just a parallel program without the political possibility for NASA to actually utilize it, it's not terribly helpful to NASA. Luckily, NASA is getting used to using these sorts of services, now that CRS is coming online. That is cause for encouragement, as the only way to convince skeptics is for this approach to actually work (and that is as it should be). -
#153 by Lar on 10 Apr, 2013 16:32
-
Unfortunately, there will be a day when it will need to be splashed. 15 years from now is maybe appropriate... 30 years in orbit is a lot of thermal cycles for aluminum pressure vessels with tight margins.
Point me to the right thread please... but I do not understand why ISS as a whole needs to be splashed, that is, why a program of continuous replacement of components as they reach end of life can't be carried out.
Modules can be removed and replaced, renewing the whole thing, for far less than building an equivalent facility from scratch. Or so I always assumed. Some parts presumably have longer lifetimes than others (the trusses, for example would be longer life one would think) Why is that incorrect? -
#154 by Go4TLI on 10 Apr, 2013 16:37
-
Unfortunately, there will be a day when it will need to be splashed. 15 years from now is maybe appropriate... 30 years in orbit is a lot of thermal cycles for aluminum pressure vessels with tight margins.
Point me to the right thread please... but I do not understand why ISS as a whole needs to be splashed, that is, why a program of continuous replacement of components as they reach end of life can't be carried out.
Modules can be removed and replaced, renewing the whole thing, for far less than building an equivalent facility from scratch. Or so I always assumed. Some parts presumably have longer lifetimes than others (the trusses, for example would be longer life one would think) Why is that incorrect?
For example, you need to replace the US Lab module. What do you do then as it is the heart of the USOS segment and has so many other modules attached to it in some way or another.
A life extension study has been going on for years. -
#155 by Robotbeat on 10 Apr, 2013 16:37
-
It's incorrect because you can't swap out these modules, they are incredibly interconnected now. It'd be better to start over, to be honest. And this has been rehashed about a dozen times on this site. Just do a google search for the following (first hit is one of many):
Unfortunately, there will be a day when it will need to be splashed. 15 years from now is maybe appropriate... 30 years in orbit is a lot of thermal cycles for aluminum pressure vessels with tight margins.
Point me to the right thread please... but I do not understand why ISS as a whole needs to be splashed, that is, why a program of continuous replacement of components as they reach end of life can't be carried out.
Modules can be removed and replaced, renewing the whole thing, for far less than building an equivalent facility from scratch. Or so I always assumed. Some parts presumably have longer lifetimes than others (the trusses, for example would be longer life one would think) Why is that incorrect?
site:forum.nasaspaceflight.com Jim swap out ISS modules
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12677.45 -
#156 by Lobo on 10 Apr, 2013 17:36
-
Congress is pushing NASA to spend more money on SLS and less on commercial crew. Shouldn't the blame for the resulting commercial crew delays rest with Congress?
Absolutely!
I believe they were attempting to stop Bolden and company from taking money out of SLS to make up for shortfalls in Commercial.
NEVER have they tried to spend MORE money on SLS. That's a lie spread by the handful of anti-SLS/anti-NASA people on the internet.
What is stupid is paying several companies hundreds of millions of dollars when only one has any chance of making it to providing the role. Paying hundreds of millions of dollars to the Russians and paying hundreds of millions of dollars to lay off 1000s of skilled workers from the one program we had that allowed us domestic access to space.
Well said. I understand competition in the true sense is a great thing. But that really applies to the free market producing better products that consumers can then choose from that offer the most value for the dollar.
In a government program like this, the government is paying several companies to develop the same product for them. Which really isn't the same. No one is probably going to build spacecraft on their own in the free market, so I get that. But wouldn't a better way to do it to maybe pay for a preliminary design review (to compensate the proposers for that design work), where NASA could check their proposals and proofs of concepts. And then of the concepts NASA things are legitimate and valid, they could solicit a bid to provide a spaceship for X number of crew missions over Y amount of time. And then pick the cheapest price that meets the specification, and go with them.
Isn't that how it's normally done? -
#157 by Lobo on 10 Apr, 2013 17:48
-
I want to thank you for that joek. I fully appreciate yours and others incredible grasp of the acronym soup that is NASA. I mean that, so don't be offended by what I am about to say. OT, so delete at will.
What the hell happened to us? The bureaucracy is mind numbing. Can't do this under that contract but you can do that under this contract as long as....WTF? Too many layers, too many complications, too many bureaucrats, too many rules written by too many lawyers.
It's a wonder anything gets done in any reasonable amount of time and budget.
+1
I couldn't agree with your post anymore if I could.
Yea, I gotta say, all of this is making me a little discouraged on NASA..in a way I don't think I've ever been. Seems like it's gone the way of the rest of the public, so I suppose it's not surprising.
It's gone from having drive and vision to victimhood, mediocrity and protecting the status quo...like the rest of us...
And yea, I realize Congress and the President have ultimate authority over them, but to blame all of the bad decisions and vapor-lock on them is to play into the victimhood mentality.
It really has needed realism, pragmatism, loud advocacy, and strong leadership for a long time its seems like, and the last two Administrators have not had all of those qualities. Griffin seems to have a little stronger leadership and advocacy, but lacked realism and pragmatism.
Boldin appears to have no advocacy or leadership at all, but maybe a little more realism and pragmatism. But even if so, he never focused NASA and sold it to Congress.
And with Boldin's lack of leadership, it just seems like the the tiller is spinning without any hand at the helm...
-
#158 by deltaV on 10 Apr, 2013 17:54
-
Lobo: those would be interesting comments in a space policy thread.
-
#159 by Lobo on 10 Apr, 2013 18:00
-
which is why Congress should've done their fracking jobs.I'm sick and tired, of the use of the term sequestration as a cover for everything going wrong.
X2!
It's becoming a catch all phrase to excuse and cover up government waste and inefficiency in all aspects
No kidding...the "supercommitee" couldn't find a single dollar anywhere in the budget to cut? Not even one?
Patty Murray, the Senator from my state was part of that failure, and then had the audacity to stand on the Senate floor and complain about how horrible the sequester will be once it goes into effect. Even though that's a complete lie, the more blatent insult is her ignoring that she was one of the 12 responsible FOR us having it!! If she'd done her job, then we wouldn't -have- it. BUt there wasn't one penny she could find in the budget that she'd agree to cut...not one...
Man....only in DC can such a thing happen and someone like her get away with it...and the other 11 in the supercommittee. But as my senator, Murray really irked me when she did that.
probably not... but it IS one of the best things to happen related to NASA in quite a while, and when it comes to pass things will change. Incrementally, but they will change.