View Single Post
Old July 15 2012, 11:45 PM   #163
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: SpaceX is a go for April 30th: 1st commercial launch to space stat

publiusr wrote: View Post
CCDev is complimentary to SLS in that NASA doesn't have to build Ares I, nor accept ULAs EELVs that are going up in price.
The thing most people don't understand is that the EELVs aren't actually getting more expensive, only the COST PER LAUNCH is rising. Those costs are rising because the system is being used less often and it has to pay for itself over a smaller number of flights. NASA adopting the EELVs as a regular launch vehicle would reduce their prices substantially while at the same time drastically reduce NASA's operating costs. Contrast with the SLS, whose fixed price promises to be immense even if the rocket never actually flies.

Really, it's a choice between spending a lot of money for very little benefit and SAVING a lot of money for a huge benefit. In the end, the only thing you'd loose is the ability to throw a hundred tons of payload into orbit in one sitting, which -- based on the history of spaceflight -- usually turns out to be a bad idea.

And to say we don't have a spaceship to launch to launch on it isn't true because Orion is already largely built
"Largely built?" they completed the last welds on the pressure vessel of a single prototype; still missing from the design is its avionics and control software, maneuvering systems, heatshield, sensors, radars/radios, and life support systems; they haven't even finalized a design for the service module.

Hell, the Venture Star was closer to being flight ready when Congress finally cancelled it.

There was also no demand for R-7. That LV was bigger than 'needed.
That is the worst possible example you could use, considering the Soviet space program was a military program first and foremost.

NASA isn't, and unlike the old Soviet program most of our technology is being developed by private entities that work closely with but are not directly accountable to the U.S. government. That the commercial launch industry spun off from the early ICBM development efforts is where the similarity ends.

Korolyov could easily have waited for warheads to be shrunk down...
Korolyov didn't care about warheads. He was sharecropping in a military program because they were the only show in town. That's why HE considered the R-7 to be a successful rocket even though the military was less than impressed; it was too small to launch a warhead, but it was more than enough for Sputnik.

Now a more squat Phil Bono design--more similar to what Bezos is looking at--might be better than landing a tall telephone pole on its tail as is to be done with Falcon.
Don't be so sure. The taller design might benefit from greater inertia at its top end and would be that much easier to control; the taller rocket tilts more slowly and the control system would need to be less sensitive to sudden changes in direction.

The big reason I want Space X and Dream Chaser to work together is to keep them out of that ULA culture.
Sierre Nevada partially grew out of that ULA culture, so they're way beyond that point.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote