| Author |
Message |
    
Americanmadexb
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 11:39 pm: | 
|
Why is it going to cost us $64 Million just to "hitch a ride"? How much does it cost for us to go on a Space Shuttle? I'm sure its far less, but $64 just to tag along seems steep.
Didn't a civilian go up a couple years ago for like $20 million? |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 04:28 am: |
|
Who builds the Atlas V, & the Delta III?
Atlas V is not heavy lift? |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 09:39 am: |
|
The civilian rocket didn't get close to the orbital altitude of the space station, nor was it capable of carrying any significant payload.
A marvelous achievement no doubt (I watched giddily as their first flight occurred) but not in the same league as the shuttle or the heavy lift rockets. |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 10:09 am: |
|
Atlas V uses the Russian built RD 180 engine for the first stage.
G |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 06:25 pm: |
|
Hoot,
The thing cannot achieve orbit, so even if it did reach low earth altitude, it still cannot carry anything into orbit. It's just a go straight up and come back down amusement ride. As working spacecraft go, pretty much worthless.
Greg,
The RD-180 is a Russian rocket engine; check. Who builds the Atlas V and the Delta III rockets? |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 06:41 pm: |
|
I did not say that it did. In fact, I said it didn't get anywhere close to the orbital altitude of the space station. The Scaled rocket was designed to get into what is commonly regarded as 'space', return to Earth and make another flight within some specific period of time required by the X prize rules. The rules did not require it to achieve orbit.
A civilian reusable space craft is a big deal. A freight hauler it ain't. |
Jim2
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 07:40 pm: |
|
Good article but not focused solely on ISS.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_gener ic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/07/18/AW_07_ 18_2011_p68-000001.xml&headline=What%20Next%20For% 20U.S.%20Human%20Spaceflight?&next=0
(Message edited by jim2 on July 20, 2011) |
Mbxb12scg
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 09:23 pm: |
|
All I can say is that this is one of the few times a major project got retired without a new and better system already deployed and working. Imagine de-commissioning all fighter jets (or coast guard helicopters for those non-military) without something else ready to go. We're going backwards, and it's not just the space industry.
It doesn't seem any level of the gov is capable of managing a budget and making reasonable decisions without worrying about re- election first.
Couple this with how govt funding gets turned on and off so much as politicians change, it's no wonder things cost so much. Orion was well on it's way, then the plug got pulled, and despite what has been said here, portions of that program has been limping along on contractor dollars knowing that the switch will flip again at some point. Some already has been re-started.
The other problem is that US regulations have put a stranglehold on any progress that has some risk in it. China doesn't care how many people die, or how many rain forests get burned. Right now they answer to no one. They blew up a satellite, creating tons of space junk that can't be tracked just to demonstrate they could do it. I'm jot saying we should follow the same mentality, but we have to be able to accept the consequences of taking risks instead of creating new regulations and processes that prevent a mechanic from using a tool because they might break something with it. |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 10:24 am: |
|
Well stated MB!
Greg,
I forgot about the Delta IV rockets, including the Delta IV heavy, capable of putting 50,000 LBs into orbit. Not heavy lift?
Boeing builds them.
My point is that we already have access to space via public sector and are using it for virtually every launch into orbit.
I'm convinced that an ongoing aggressive civilian space program is vital to the continued success of America.
Killing the shuttle without a system to replace it is very unfortunate, or do we perhaps already have a means for putting men into orbit? Shhh. |
Fast1075
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 10:44 am: |
|
Speaking of the Shuttle, I had a last opportunity this morning to hear the glasses in my cupboard tinkle with the final double sonic boom of reentry.
But I still remember the days of Saturn V...one evening launch gave the eerie appearance of one sun setting in the west, with another rising in the east...I still have dreams of that launch from time to time. |
Doerman
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 03:02 pm: |
|
The Aviation Week article was an infuriating read.
The endless arguments and debacles between private contractors, subsystems developers, NASA and the federal government agencies make me want to cry.
Three years later... no closer to a heavy lift system. That is really sad! |
Swordsman
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 04:20 pm: |
|
Interesting stuff, guys! 
~SM |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 04:58 pm: |
|
What are they going to use to boost the altitude of the space station now that the shuttle missions are no more? I know they've thought about it because they made a big deal about the fact that the last boost was taking place a couple of missions ago.
Can the Russian craft provide this service? Is there something else in the works?
Why don't they just put it in a stable orbit?  |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 05:33 pm: |
|
A "stable" orbit is too high for the Shuttle or even the usual Russian rocket to reach. The ISS is low enough that air friction has to be taken into account. It's lifespan is very dependent on refueling the attitude rockets. It "can" stay up with only those, but that uses more fuel that they need to keep it pointed "into the wind" to reduce drag, so it's just more efficient to use a Soyuz or the late Shuttle to give it a periodic push.
Spaceship One, from Scaled was a bird built to win the X-prize for civilians getting to space. It used a lot of data and research from the most successful X-plane program ever, the X-15. It's not nearly as fast, just meant to go up, and come back down safely. It's successor IS THE Amusement park ride. Call Virgin, get your ticket.
It's other US private companies that has the real deal for orbit. SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace that will carry Free people into orbit in the future. ( not counting the Free people who pay the Russians for a ride )
http://www.spacex.com/ boosters and capsules
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/ Orbital/lunar habitats
One lost opportunity goes away with the Last Shuttle. The ET, external tank, was deliberately dropped in to ocean at a predetermined spot. This took extra fuel. It was actually cheaper to carry it all the way to orbit, but NASA never went with the idea of using those tons of airtight Aluminum as space station parts. the plan ( rejected ) was to set the ET's up with a tether connecting 2+ ET's and use tidal forces to keep the assembly lined up with the air drag. You would add ET's to the top and bottom of the tether laid out side by side until you had 2 platforms several ETs wide with Spectra lines connecting them. Add Solar panels, and you could charge the tethers to boost it and maintain it's orbit. Pity, would have been cheap ( as these things go ) and constantly expanding volume for exploration and construction. |
Jim2
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 05:36 pm: |
|
The Russian Soyuz and the ESA (European Space Agency) ATV (Autonomous Transfer Vehicle) provide Station boost capability, when docked. A Russian Soyuz is always docked to provide emergency crew escape, if needed. I'm not sure if the Russian Progress supply vehicle is able to boost the Station. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 05:49 pm: |
|
Thank you Pat and Jim. I knew about the drag from the atmosphere, but forgot. Makes perfect sense now. |
|
