View Single Post
Old September 29 2012, 09:22 PM   #190
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Except it's entirely a group of Republicans who think the SLS is a really great idea.
I'm surprised they are supporting it frankly. I'll take what I can get. If we went down the EELV route--well, Delta IV is made in Decatur AL, so its a wash.

Let's look at the two statements where you inferred there is no will, then hate on the Senate because they support SLS--well, that's political will.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
And that, more than anything, is why I don't believe anymore that NASA has a place in space exploration. It's not just the money, it's the political will,
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Except it's entirely a group of Republicans who think the SLS is a really great idea.
You can't have it both ways. Congress has been much more friendly to BEO and the LVs it will require than in the past. That you don't agree with it is fine. I'd be calling them idiots for supporting leaky depots than require dozens of smaller LVs

Let's take a look at the November 7, 2011 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology--especially page 24, where we see the column on Space Depots called..."Fact Checking" in how the grousing began to sound 'a lot like a reprise of the old attacks on the Bush administration's Ares I rocket."

Actually the column is about depots, with the 'widely leaked NASA study report...concludes it would take 36 Delta IV Heavy flights to deliver fuel to a space based depot...The study also estimates the same scenario would take at least 24 launches of the Falcon 9 Heavy..."

Now it isn't just Griffin, but Scott Pace, "director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University" who question the cost savings based "on the 'highly suspect' prices" asked by the launch providers--another reason to support in house work.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Do you think the Robert Bigelows of the world are going to benefit from the SLS?

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
No one -- and I mean NO ONE -- who is doing any serious work in space right now has any need whatsoever for a heavy lift vehicle

Michael Gazarik, NASA’s space technology program director, sees the CPST and the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket technologies as complementary. “To explore deep space we need a heavy-lift vehicle -SLS,” says Gazarik

Of course, the controversy continues:

Now in the interest of fairness, some maintain that Delta-V can be reduced

The problem is that no one is calling for hypergolics.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
NASA could have been that regulatory agency if it had its shit together. But it doesn't, and it probably won't in the future. That's better off being handled by the FAA now, and NASA's usefulness to American spaceflight is basically at an end.
I don't buy that at all--at all.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
But then, there's that final touch of irony from you:

--the SLS wasn't conceived by an institution, but by a half dozen INDIVIDUALS with very strong opinions
MSFC is an institution, as is NASA which supports SLS--at least for now.

Depot folk--are also a handful of people with strong opinions. Had the senate backed the Depot option and I called it the senate depot system--you would be making the same points I am--the senate isn't designing anything, then I would call that Depot spam--and on it goes.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Somebody asked the same question about AT&T thirty years ago (not that it did us any good, apparently).
That's why I love Estonia

We have the single payer interstate--they have single payer internet.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
(Does Chicago really NEED two baseball teams, especially if one of them is the Cubs?)
Hey--now thems fighten words

Last edited by publiusr; September 29 2012 at 09:36 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote