Enough of the robots, let's put people back in space!

Messages from the Commander about life, the universe and everything.
Post Reply
User avatar
Commander
Space Captain
Space Captain
Posts: 780
Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 16, 01:49 am
Location: On the Starport

#1 Enough of the robots, let's put people back in space!

Post by Commander »

I got a notification today of another SpaceX launch, "NASA Opens Media Accreditation for Next SpaceX Space Station Cargo Launch". Reading through the information, I came across the line-up. "The uncrewed Dragon cargo spacecraft will launch on a Falcon 9 rocket from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The exact launch date and time still are under review."

The thing that is beginning to get my goat is that the private companies are still not putting people up, not even a test pilot flight. It's time to *oops you said word #1 or get off the pot. Really, it is bad enough the government pulls this OHSA crap all the time now a days. could you imagine if we had this type of mentality back in the sixties? So come on SpaceX all ready. Stick a guy in the capsule to have a ride up to the ISS. If he isn't welcome to visit, give him a sleeping bag and some MRE's and tell NASA that he won't stay docked, but will just deliver the goods than undock.

Let's get it moving already.
Commander
Starport Sagitta
NAR No.97971
User avatar
luke strawwalker
Space Admiral
Space Admiral
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

#2 Re: Enough of the robots, let's put people back in space!

Post by luke strawwalker »

Their CCDev (or whatever they're calling it now) contract is TOTALLY SEPARATE from their COTS (space station resupply) contracts. SO, they "couldn't just stick a guy in there and send him to the station" even if they wanted to... NASA would never stand for it.

I agree that it's rather ridiculous how they're "slow-rolling" the commercial crew program. NASA's been doing that since day 1. Honestly, I think that NASA is afflicted by a terminal case of "NIH" (not invented here) syndrome (as it has been MANY times in the past) and is just going along with commercial crew because that's what their political masters have pushed onto them. I think NASA's ALSO deathly afraid that if crews start flying up to ISS on commercial vehicles, it will trigger a LOT of HARD questions being asked, about why NASA has spent the last 12 years building an Orion, only one of which has flown UNMANNED, and another isn't scheduled to fly for another couple years at the earliest. It will also pose questions like why NASA has spent the last 6 years developing a 70 tonne launch vehicle for which no payloads exist, that will require ANOTHER several years to complete, and probably ANOTHER decade and a few billion dollar upgrade programs like the expendable "Black Knight" boosters and an all new upper ascent (second) stage using J-2X, and an all-new in-space propulsion stage using some other engine (J-2X is too heavy and too inefficient since they redesigned it for second stage duty for the now defunct Ares I) Anyway, it's NASA... they make OSHA look positively progressive and fast in how they do business...

Everything the commercial crew contract holders are doing is being checked nine ways to Sunday; they're probably forming working groups to discuss how to create a panel to select a committee to review everything they do, etc. etc. etc. which is why the whole program is slow-rolling to nowhere.

Our entire space program is on a slow-roll to nowhere IMHO... NASA-- Not About Space Anymore... If NASA's OWN flight manifests are to be believed, ASSUMING that SLS/Orion actually is completed and made operational, they will only launch ONE SLS/Orion every 2-3 years... that's like 3-4 flights per DECADE. There's only like TWO flights even on the schedule-- an unmanned test of SLS/Orion and then a COUPLE YEARS LATER, a manned flight of an Orion to "loop round the Moon" ala the old Soviet Zonds, which didn't have the propulsion capability to enter and then depart from lunar orbit... they simply looped around the Moon like Apollo 13 and came back. Orion won't have the capability propulsion-wise to enter lunar orbit either, so it will simply loop around and come back-- assuming the flight ever happens. Beyond that is just a big "????". NASA doesn't even know... that's why they've pulled stuff out of their butts like sending a billion-dollar ROBOTIC spacecraft out to "lasso an asteroid" the size of a washing machine and drag it back to cis-lunar space, so that a crewed Orion can go out and "explore" it... it's about ALL Orion is capable of doing without a better service module and without an in-space propulsion stage (rather than the modified Delta IV upper stage "interim propulsion stage" that they're using now and for the foreseeable future).

I'd like to see SpaceX say "we're ready and we're flying somebody" but since MOST of the money they've gotten to develop their crewed Dragon has been obtained under the NASA commercial crew contract, they have to do it "their way". Sooner or later though, even if NASA keeps the program "slow rolling" to keep it from upsetting the apple cart, either they'll be ready to fly OR Congress will start asking "WHY don't we have commercial spacecraft by now?" and if NASA says, "it's their fault they're not ready" then Congress will kill the program, cancel the contracts, and SpaceX can finish the thing in record time on their own dime. If NASA says, "we're working on it with our commercial 'partners'" maybe someone in Congress will give them a kick in the pants to get it done... Remember too that Congress has HABITUALLY underfunded not only the commercial crew program but even the commercial station resupply (COTS) contracts WELL BELOW what even NASA has asked for in appropriations to operate those programs... It's like Congress/NASA doesn't want the competition but is sorta "forced" into it...

I really wonder how long things are going to remain as they are... If Trump is the "reformer" most folks think he is and that he says he is, sooner or later the question of "WTF has NASA been doing for the last 12 years??" is going to come up. I know it's a political hot potato and he has bigger fish to fry, and it wasn't even an issue during the election (sadly enough) nor is it likely that any *politician* is going to expend the effort and favors necessary to "turn things around" but CLEARLY NASA needs some REAL leadership, and Congress needs to '*oops you said word #1 or get off the pot' and make up their mind what sort of space program they want the US to have, and ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR... and then put SOMEBODY in there that believes in it, who's a good manager, and who will MAKE THINGS HAPPEN rather than just be a pretty boy making speeches so NASA can "reach out to the Muslim community" and all the other horseshit that NASA's been doing for the last 8 years...

If all we're going to have is a super-expensive remake of the rather anemic Chinese space program (which they are using a "graduated approach" rather than the Cold War US/Soviet methodology of 'flying often and fast' to beat each other in the space race-- the Chinese fly once, achieve the goals set for that mission, then come up with new goals for the next mission, hence only one flight every few years) then I think we'd better just fly out ISS til it's finally junk, and retire from manned missions... we're NOT going to MARS flying only one rocket every 2-3 years... it'd take 12 years at even the every other year flight rate to assemble a Mars-bound spacecraft in orbit (per the Mars Design Reference Mission NASA has laid out) with SLS-Heavies with the 6 launches required... and that's ASSUMING that NASA gets approval for the several more billion dollar programs that will be required to make the 130 tonne SLS in the first place... and develop habs, landers, surface power and mobility, etc. etc. etc... NONE of which appears forthcoming and will take AT LEAST a decade to do from the word "go"...

Later! OL J R :)
My MUNIFICENCE is BOUNDLESS, Mr. Bond...
User avatar
Commander
Space Captain
Space Captain
Posts: 780
Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 16, 01:49 am
Location: On the Starport

#3 Re: Enough of the robots, let's put people back in space!

Post by Commander »

I was certain that I had heard somewhere that President Trump was very much interested in NASA, as most people of his age are. Anyone who grew up in the fifties and sixties at the very least has some fond memory of NASA. Of course the easiest way to get NASA back into flying and to give the private firms a swift kick is to give Trump Hotels the rights for the first orbiting hotel. :lol: Oh lord how the Dems would squeal. :o

Not that I'm as interested in NASA, unless they do get off their arses, but the private companies have all of a sudden gone mum for the most part. I wonder if it has something to do with the political leanings of SpaceX's Elon Musk and or Blue Origin's Jeff Bezos. I don't think a lot of Democrats were very happy with Richard NIxon taking "credit" for the moon landing.

Anyways, I googled Trump and NASA and here are a couple of results I got.
"I will free NASA from the restriction of serving primarily as a logistics agency for low-Earth orbit activity – big deal. Instead, we will refocus its mission on space exploration. Under a Trump Administration, Florida and America will lead the way into the stars,” ,” he told a rally in Florida in October.

In what could herald a new era for NASA, Trump is also set to cut the US space agency’s budget for climate change and let it focus on sending humans on deep space exploration missions like Mars, including another “giant leap” to the Moon.

“NASA has been reduced to a logistics agency concentrating on space station resupply and politically correct environmental monitoring. We would start by having a stretch goal of exploring the entire solar system by the end of the century,” Bob Walker, who has advised Trump on space policy, told the Telegraph in November.
:arrow: First Signs of NASA Overhaul Under Trump Administration



Ahead of Donald Trump's presidential inauguration today (Jan. 20), here are six things to know about the soon-to-be-president's actions and projected plans relating to NASA.
-Trump likely will have to make big decisions about NASA's plans for Mars.
-Trump sent an "experience landing team" to NASA.
-Trump has not yet appointed the top leaders who will influence space policy.
-Trump may try to reduce or eliminate NASA's Earth Science department.
-Trump may reinstate a National Space Council.
-Trump will likely support NASA partnerships with private spaceflight companies.
:arrow: 6 Things to Know About Trump and NASA

So, they're looking for a new Administrator... wonder if they'd take a Starport Commander? 8-)
Last edited by Commander on Tue, 24 Jan 17, 18:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Commander
Starport Sagitta
NAR No.97971
User avatar
luke strawwalker
Space Admiral
Space Admiral
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

#4 Re: Enough of the robots, let's put people back in space!

Post by luke strawwalker »

Well, he's saying all the right things, anyway.

When I toured KSC several years ago, I made it a point to ask several of the "old timers" who were guiding the various tours we went on about their feelings and prognostications regarding SLS. None seemed particularly enthusiastic about it or particularly convinced it would survive long enough to fly without getting canceled. Of course they couched it in the "NASA-speak" of put on cheerful quoting of the "party line" but it was clear, and some of them were pretty open about it, that they didn't have a lot of enthusiasm about the direction NASA has taken over the last few years... (remember this was about 3 years ago).

From a realistic point of view, I tend to agree with them. They pointed out how basically KSC was a ghost town, and it really felt that way. They were just about finished razing 39B for SLS, and 39A had recently been rented to SpaceX for crew launches (the support equipment at the old SLC-40 where SpaceX's unmanned Dragon/Falcon 9 flights originate doesn't have the infrastructure to support manned launches). The simple fact that NASA has only ONE "SLS-capable" pad (it had NO money to convert the other one anyway) and (IIRC) only ONE SLS capable MLP/LUT (tower) (the one built for Ares I, which was to be scrapped after Ares I was cancelled, but which was rapidly repurposed for SLS), again with no money for more (seems like I remember that they PLAN to build another MLP/LUT for SLS, but I don't know if they have or will or have the money) really speaks volumes about just HOW FAR NASA has slipped from even it's shuttle "glory days". The fact that they've LEASED 39A to SpaceX also speaks volumes IMHO... it's like NASA's eating their own seed corn. The KSC complex was built for Apollo with the PLAN to build up to 5 pads (3 were actually on the schedule, 39A, B, and C, with a possibility of a D and E further north) although only 39A and B were ever actually built. The VAB was built with four high-bays and two low-bays to assemble Saturn V's several at a time, and there were at least a couple of LUTs... (can't recall the exact number ATM but I know it was at least 2, probably 3 or possibly more). Of course those flight rates never materialized because basically Congress started defunding the lunar missions before they even started, and nearly junked the entire infrastructure for the shuttle (the original plan was to scrap KSC, the VAB, pads, everything, and move the entire operation to a new shuttle launching facility planned for Matagorda County, TX, about 45 miles from here and only about an hour or so west of JSC in Houston... the so-called "Spiro T. Agnew Space Center"... located on the intracoastal waterway, it would have been convenient for transport and retrieval of shuttle boosters from the Gulf, among other things. Of course the money never materialized and so the plans were scrapped and KSC was "repurposed" for the shuttle.

Anyway, my point is, NASA is in the habit of having even its most grandiose plans changed. Of course once something's been cut up for scrap metal (the so-called "scorched Earth" policy) it's usually cheaper to go ahead and do something new than try to "rebuild" something that had existed and has been scrapped. Mike Griffin, by all appearances, was using the "scorched Earth" method against the shuttle infrastructure as fast as possible, even as the shuttle program was winding down, because there was constant talk of "extending shuttle" until Ares I/Orion was ready, and if it's one thing NASA's proven, it's that it CANNOT do two major programs at once....

That is why I see all this talk about "Mars in 2030 or 2040" and other such grandiose plans as more fluff and hot air than anything actually of substance... Mars has ALWAYS been 20-30 years away... (like nuclear fusion power). NASA robbed from Peter to pay Paul during the shuttle era for its space station program (first the ill-fated "Space Station Freedom", which basically was saved from cancellation by being morphed into "ISS") and it caused MAJOR problems for BOTH programs. BOTH were designed to be co-dependent and to assure each other's existence... ISS was built to rely on shuttle, and shuttle existed mainly to build and service ISS. Shuttle's retirement created a lot of problems for NASA, which luckily the Russians were well positioned to address (since they'd already developed all the necessary resupply and crew transport infrastructure with their long-running "Salyut" station programs and "Mir" in the 1980's).

SO long as ISS is flying, SLS won't be... not beyond a couple "test flights" (if it survives politically). There simply isn't money to do BOTH exploration AND ISS. That's been the fundamental problem since Columbia and the plans to retire shuttle and build a new CEV and rocket vehicles to loft it to the station and on exploration missions, and it hasn't changed nor will it change. When Mike Griffin took the stand that NASA should dump the ISS into the Pacific after ending ISS in 2014, the international partners started screaming... Congress recanted and ISS is now "funded" through at least 2020; with talk of extending that to 2024 before the ink was even dry on that agreement. ISS, like the shuttle program before it, is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that sucks all the air out of the room, to the point NASA cannot afford to actually DO anything with SLS until ISS is on the bottom of the Pacific resting in pieces so its funding is freed up to actually do something else with it. Only now, we have a gaggle of "international partners" in ISS who demand their voices be heard and who want to 'get full benefit of their investment' and will want to keep ISS going in perpetuity until the damn thing falls apart, (like Mir, which the Russians didn't want to give up EVEN THEN-- they wanted to fly it alongside ISS or even join it with ISS (since the Russian ISS modules are basically the core of Mir 2 anyway) but NASA, who was footing the bill for Russia's "contribution" to ISS, INSISTED that they jettison the aging Mir into the Pacific to free up resources and create demand for ISS... (torpedoing a deal the Russians were working with commercial interests in the US/Europe to "rent" Mir to them as a COMMERCIAL space station! NASA didn't want the competition and was handing out bags of money to the Russian Space Program for ISS, and basically pulled a "he who has the gold makes the rules" moment and forced Russia to back out of the deal!) It took the loss of two shuttle orbiters and their crews, plus DECADES of experience SHOWING shuttle was a ridiculously expensive and brittle system for launching people and doing jobs in Low Earth Orbit, and the fact that the shuttle system was getting SO old that it was going to require billions in redesign to keep it flying, for NASA and Congress to even pull the plug on the shuttle program... HOW MUCH HARDER will it be for NASA and Congress to kill the ISS program (the VAST majority of which we pay for) when not only the US space interests will be clamoring to keep it going (as they did with the shuttle "gravy train", which led to the sensible plans of Sean Okeefe and Admiral Steidle, the "spiral development" approach to exploration, being torpedoed for a "shuttle derived" solution that would keep gubmint checks flowing to old shuttle contractors in the same old Congressional districts where the funding had ALWAYS gone in the shuttle era?? Which is EXACTLY why we're stuck with an overly-expensive and overly-complex and underperforming shuttle derived SLS today, instead of a more suitable and flexible and safer all-liquid vehicle, like a modernized new version of the Saturn V (which is, BTW, THE most efficient way to build a 130 tonne capable exploration launch vehicle-- it beat the shuttle derived concepts on every number of merit in studies save one-- development costs, which erroneously assumed that development for "shuttle derived" components in a shuttle-derived exploration launch vehicle would be negligible compared to the costs of "designing from scratch" an all-liquid serially-staged Saturn-V-like new vehicle... which given the time and money spent on "adapting" overly expensive and ill-suited shuttle components to the new system, has pretty much proven that was a lie...)

SO, ANYWAY, we're stuck with ISS for the *foreseeable future*. ANY attempts to "retire" ISS, even at some future date, has met with HEAVY resistance from the "international partners", particularly the Russians and Europeans, but the Japanese as well haven't been pleased with talk of retiring it. SO, just as NASA exploration was "held hostage" by the super-expensive boondoggle shuttle program for 40 years, now it is held hostage by the super-expensive boondoggle ISS program for the foreseeable future. And, ISS will be a LOT harder to cancel or "retire" than the shuttle was, because we have to get the international partners "on board" with the decision. Probably the best thing that could happen would be for the Russians to fulfill their threat to "uncouple their modules from the rest of ISS and cut it loose" and use their ISS modules as the basis of a new station, probably with the Europeans and maybe the Japanese on board... heck they could probably get the Indians or Chinese interested in joining up with them (which won't happen so long as the US is involved).

Until ISS has a DEFINITE "retirement date" set, you can forget about manned exploration. Even then, it'll probably be another 10 years after ISS is on the bottom of the Pacific before the necessary hardware will be designed, tested, and built to actually perform any missions... remember Orion can't do ANYTHING on it's own... it's actually less capable than Apollo from a propulsion standpoint...

Later! OL J R :)
My MUNIFICENCE is BOUNDLESS, Mr. Bond...
User avatar
luke strawwalker
Space Admiral
Space Admiral
Posts: 1543
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

#5 Re: Enough of the robots, let's put people back in space!

Post by luke strawwalker »

As for the companies "going mum", well, I don't think it's as much about "thier favorite guy not winning" as it is "politics as usual".

Getting a CCDev (or whatever their calling it nowdays-- commercial crew development) contract is a double-edged sword... NASA very much plays by two rules-- 1) Not Invented Here (NIH) means any non-NASA program is ALWAYS going to be a blue-eyed stepchild, and 2) The Golden Rule-- he who has the gold makes the rules. NIH would have killed commercial ISS resupply and commercial crew outright had NASA not painted itself into a corner and had basically NO CHOICE BUT to embrace it, even if just in appearance... NASA had no recourse, no capability of their own, and given their glacial pace of development, it was rather pointless for Congress to fund NASA to do it... the ISS would be scrap on the bottom of the ocean before NASA had any shuttle-replacement systems ready anyway (remember the most optimistic schedules for the CEV (Orion) on the CLV (Ares I) was for launches to start in about 2014, which at the time was the scheduled retirement of the ISS... and of course those optimistic dates slipped before the ink was even dry on the papers-- had Ares I NOT been canceled we'd STILL be at least a year or two away from a test flight, and billions MORE in the hole on a crummy design!) At any rate, commercial ISS resupply was something NASA NEEDED, to have ANY hope of resupplying ISS without TOTALLY relying upon the Russians, the Europeans, and the Japanese to do it for them (and basically having to "buy" those services from them). SO, they backed SpaceX and Orbital Sciences with contracts to deliver stuff to ISS... but I wonder, were they actually SURPRISED that they succeeded?? Personally I think that Orbital Science and SpaceX succeeded SO well that it DEFINITELY surprised them and "put the skeer" into NASA... after all, just in the case of SpaceX, they developed and then totally redesigned an ALL NEW first and second stage engine (Merlin, which started off as an ablatively cooled engine which was subsequently redesigned as a regeneratively cooled engine, plus modified for upper stage flight), AND developed not one but TWO new rocket vehicles for those engines (Falcon 1 and Falcon 9), AND developed an all new REUSABLE automated cargo vehicle (Dragon), and did it all for about $3.5 billion dollars, and basically in about 5-6 years. Granted, they DID get some help from NASA (they BOUGHT some help from NASA, I should say) in that they bought the plans for the canceled NASA "FASTRAC" engine design (which became the basis of the Merlin design, but they've gone FAR beyond the simple FASTRAC demonstrator plans they bought) among a few other things. It DOES bear remembering though that basically, in the SAME TIME FRAME that SpaceX did ALL THAT *NEW* development of rocket engines, vehicles, and spacecraft, NASA spent THREE TIMES AS MUCH money on Orion and Ares I, and the ONLY thing they had to show for it was ONE flight of a tuna-can upper stage and dummy Orion on top of an old four-segment shuttle booster that was past it's "use by" date, with a dummy fifth segment on top... (Ares I-X test flight) which was a FAILURE in that the "reusable" first stage booster segments were SO badly mangled from the landing as to be junk... And Ares I was NO closer to actually flying when it was canceled than when it was basically still on the drawing board. Note too that development of Orion continued for YEARS after the cancellation of Ares I and is STILL in development, 13 years after the loss of Columbia which kickstarted the entire program, and it has only had ONE unmanned flight test on a Delta IV Heavy a couple years ago (EFT-1 test flight).

SO I'd say SpaceX has a STELLAR record compared to NASA on every count. Yes they've had their problems (as the destruction of one of their rockets on the pad last September proved) but they've done REMARKABLY well considering how far they've come. It's sad that Orbital decided to "take the easy way out" and buy "off the shelf" 40 year old Russian N-1 rocket engines for their Antares rocket, with an ATK solid propellant upper stage (which is about the worst thing you can do from a performance standpoint-- low ISP, HEAVY solid propellants for an upper stage, which should be AS LIGHT AS POSSIBLE and have AS HIGH AN ISP AS POSSIBLE for maximum performance) cobbled on top to launch their throw-away Cygnus resupply vehicle, which is itself basically a throw-away tin can with a maneuvering system attached... Basically Antares is a "one trick pony" that will be practically useless beyond the COTS program (ISS resupply mission). At least the failure of their NK-33 rocket engines spurred them to team up with the Air Force and Blue Origin to finish their BE-4 methane-powered rocket engines as replacements for both Antares and, eventually, the Russian RD-180 powered Atlas V rocket the Air Force depends upon...

At any rate, SpaceX and the other Commercial Crew contractors are "not allowed" to criticize NASA or its methodology. It's no secret that the old NASA of the Moon race days is LONG dead and gone, replaced with the endless red tape of the bureaucracy that it has since become and perfected in the shuttle era... NASA has become SO institutionalized and compartmentalized within itself, become SUCH a BUREAUCRACY, that it now moves at a glacial pace... which is why they're STILL working on Orion 12 years after the approval of the CEV with only ONE test flight to show for it, and why a supposedly "shuttle derived" launch vehicle made from LARGELY EXISTING PARTS (so they argued) has taken 12 years of work and won't be done for another several years at the latest, and STILL won't be in it's final form, but only a PRELIMINARY *test* version that will require SUBSTANTIAL additional design work and investment to make into the fully capable 130 tonne version...

Anyway, SpaceX and the other commercial crew contractors are "locked in" to the NASA methodology, where EVERYTHING is second guessed, sent to be reviewed by committees appointed by panels created by working groups based on advisory group recommendations, etc. etc. which all takes HUGE amounts of TIME.

Actually, I think in the end this will work to GREAT ADVANTAGE to SpaceX and the other CCDev contractors... especially SpaceX... they'll get their manned capsule design paid for by NASA... and when they eventually fly it, I think it will end up posing a lot of tough questions for NASA... like why it was gonna cost them $400 million a flight to do the same thing that SpaceX can now do for $40 million a flight (or so). Like how NASA plans to do anything when it's taken them DECADES and DOZENS OF BILLIONS of bucks to build the rockets and spacecraft, and they STILL don't have everything they need to do missions... (which someone will probably remember that Elon Musk also offered to build an all-new all-liquid HLV for NASA, basically a revived Saturn V, and do it in 5 years for $3.5 billion dollars... NASA laughed in his face and said, "no thanks" but hopefully Trump or someone will remember and say "WHY are we spending billions on shuttle-derived junk that will be too expensive to fly, when we COULD just "hire it done" by US industry (SpaceX) and come out much cheaper?? I think given SpaceX's track record, that they could have probably done it, maybe for a little longer or a little more than they projected, but surely in less time and for less cost than NASA has come up with their boondoggle SLS system which will be too expensive to fly...)

The "spaceflight is hard; only NASA can do spaceflight" crowd get VERY PO'd when you start pointing out things like the fact that SpaceX developed an ALL NEW REUSABLE capsule, 2 new engines, and 2 new rockets, in less time and for 1/3 of what NASA WASTED on Ares I and Orion between 2004 and 2010... There's a LOT of that which has to be overcome. Eventually, I think events are simply going to pass those of that mindset by and they're going to be standing on the sidelines wondering what happened... IF SpaceX and the other commercial companies play their cards right and put themselves into the right position, they'll be set to get the ball when eventually NASA fumbles it... may take years, but eventually NASA is going to fumble the ball... they've set themselves up into the perfect position to with SLS and Orion and the antiquated way they do business...

NASA is, basically, AFRAID to fly manned missions, IMHO. I've read and heard a LOT of interviews by NASA management, then and now, that essentially they were CONVINCED that sooner or later they'd lose a crew on an Apollo lunar mission, so they "felt it best" to "move on to something else" and quit flying to the Moon. Well, spaceflight is dangerous, and it's going to remain so... it will NEVER be 100% safe. Apollo, once the program got back on the right track after the Apollo 1 fire, and despite the near-tragedy of Apollo 13, never lost an astronaut in space... precisely BECAUSE the team doing it had a healthy respect for what COULD go wrong. Shuttle, on the other hand, designed to the political and budgetary requirements, not to the safety and mission requirements, and tended to have FAR too cavalier an attitude about problems and potential failures that could lead to disaster, as the Challenger and Columbia tragedies pointed out for all to see-- BOTH tragedies were ENTIRELY preventable and well-known failures waiting to happen, which NASA "blew off" as "no harm, no foul" thinking that because nothing bad HAD happened, nothing bad WOULD happen... and 14 astronauts lost their lives. It's the MINDSET that needs changing, not the fact that you fly missions with certain amounts of risk with people on board...

NASA's own people say that the most dangerous part of spaceflight is launch and landing. I could see the day when NASA launches their SLS (or buys HLV launch services from other providers, which would be even better, because NASA LV's are RIDICULOUSLY expensive and always will be-- SLS is on track to be THE most expensive launch vehicle ever conceived... due to excess shuttle derived infrastructure costs and low flight rates, it's going to be in the BILLION dollar per flight range JUST for the launch vehicle, EXCLUDING mission costs... we now know that the shuttle's "final drive out price" for design, development, testing, evaluation, and operations on 135 shuttle missions brought it's final costs as about $1 billion per flight (we'll never have exact numbers due to "creative accounting" and bouncing shuttle costs onto ISS program funding and vice-versa, among other things). If SpaceX gets their "Falcon Heavy" flying, 70 tonnes of cargo (which is the same performance basically as SLS Block 1, BTW) should be a small fraction of that cost... and 2 Falcon Heavy launches will be MUCH cheaper than a single SLS Block 2 to deliver 130 tonnes to orbit... It would be easy to envision that NASA, IF it is "deemed (politically) necessary" to maintain a NASA-built and operated HLV system (SLS) that NASA could launch it's SLS vehicles and their presumably mission- critical hardware UNMANNED, and then have the crew launched by a commercial crew (SpaceX or other) provider to meet up and dock with it, transfer the crew, and them go perform the mission... In which case, there would be LITTLE use for Orion, actually... (of course the "old space" bunch "space is hard only NASA can do it" will argue here that the Dragon is ONLY designed for LEO operations, while Orion is designed for deep space exploration missions... but this neglects the fact that Elon has designed Dragon with the idea in mind of EVENTUALLY using it for Mars, so it IS designed to be upgradable for deep-space missions at some point, and it's fair to assume it will cost a SMALL FRACTION of what a NASA-designed-and-built Orion will cost per-mission... especially now that Orion is designed to be EXPENDABLE after each flight (though robbed for parts, which are to be installed in a new pressure vessel after each flight) while Dragon is INTRINSICALLY DESIGNED to be REUSABLE... )

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Oh, and BTW... Haven't heard much about Bigelow's inflatable space hotels, either... maybe he and Trump could team up?? After all, Bigelow bought the research from NASA that they had done on inflatable space habs and had neglected to fund, canceling the program before completion... (a constantly recurring theme at NASA-- come up with an innovative idea, research it until it's on the cusp of providing tangible results, then cancel it... and hope some savvy commercial operators buy the idea for a song and run with it...)

Later! OL J R : )
My MUNIFICENCE is BOUNDLESS, Mr. Bond...
User avatar
Commander
Space Captain
Space Captain
Posts: 780
Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 16, 01:49 am
Location: On the Starport

#6 Re: Enough of the robots, let's put people back in space!

Post by Commander »

Given Donald Trump's track record with governmental projects, if anyone has the knowledge and ability to get NASA back on tract it would be him. And not only is he aware of how to deal with expensive contractors and getting things moving (ala the NYC ice rink), but he is more likely to advocate for the private sector. So even if Bezos and Musk don't particularly enjoy his politics, if they want to see their companies with government assistance, they need to keep quiet on the politics and just enjoy the fruits.

The one that gets me the most is Blue Origins. They appear to be beginning to cozy up with the governmental teat more lately. It almost seems like since they made the deals with Orbital Sciences regarding the BE-4 engine and NASA for the sub orbital contract, they have disappeared from the launch arena. It's almost like Blue Origins has gotten a case of the NASA Dreamers syndrome and since coming out with the "specs" for the New Glenn have shelved any further development of the New Shepherd. Now I know that many consider the New Shepherd is barely a step up from a "Space Needle" ride at the local amusement park, however the real benefit of it would be the income (no matter that it doesn't fully cover operating expenses at first) generation from other than tax monies and maybe the possibility after some experience is gained with flights and equipment becomes relatively cheaper to build/maintain, that Blue Origin's could set up transcontinental or transoceanic "flights" in commuter type service
Commander
Starport Sagitta
NAR No.97971
User avatar
bernomatic
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1169
Joined: Tue, 29 Mar 16, 03:55 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

#7 Re: Enough of the robots, let's put people back in space!

Post by bernomatic »

Sherry (?) Of vintage space was talking about the space shuttle and mentioned that one of the reasons for the high cost of the shuttle was because NASA teamed up with the Air force who demanded the larger payload bay which drove costs up. Not only on a per shuttle basis, but on a per flight basis also.
Chief Cook -n- bottle washer
User avatar
Rocket Babe
Space Babe
Space Babe
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 16, 23:34 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

#8 Re: Enough of the robots, let's put people back in space!

Post by Rocket Babe »

These days I try not to talk about the current situation at NASA or the private sector when it comes to manned flights. Many people don't like what I have to say because I've been disgusted with the situation at NASA for 15 years.

As the shuttle rolled to a stop for the last time the media immediately began touting the private sector. Randy and I listened to all the hoopla on the evening news that night about a bright future for private sector manned flights and when it went off he turned to me with a very disgusted look and said, "If we're lucky, in just 35 years we'll be back to where we were yesterday." Since that day I have seen nothing to cause me to think otherwise when it comes to manned flights.

Manned flight? :evil: NASA is a blind pig in search of a leader/ mission... and so is the private sector. Few, if any of us will live long enough to see a U.S. astronaut leave the pads in Florida.
User avatar
Commander
Space Captain
Space Captain
Posts: 780
Joined: Wed, 30 Mar 16, 01:49 am
Location: On the Starport

#9 Re: Enough of the robots, let's put people back in space!

Post by Commander »

Sorry, the name is Amy Shira Teitel who has a YouTube channel called vintage space. The vlog cast I was referring to above was actually on a different channel of hers.

:arrow: Why I Don't Really Like the Space Shuttle
Commander
Starport Sagitta
NAR No.97971
Post Reply