View Single Post
Old October 27 2012, 06:32 PM   #274
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

sojourner wrote: View Post
Hey Publiusr, I noticed you haven't posted on nasaspaceflight.com in a few years. Did you get banned?
Jim and I swapped being banned. He used profane PMs against me that Chris Bergin allowed (while banning me), but got himself banned from Bad Astronomy/Universe today the way he treated folks there (not just me.)
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...05#post1973505
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...71#post1967871

From what I understand he does payload integration. Now payloads often have pins in them that are to be removed after launch. I saw sometime ago, a photo of a sat with a tagged pin left in it that also had some black bands around the solar panels. You have to remove those too, or you will have problems as USA-193 did, leading to its shoot-down.

"TheJim" wasn't a friend to space X either:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...t=#post1972991

A real jerk, yes, but still it is good to see passion in the real-space community. I enjoy our battles here, and despite any personal animosity--it proves that people in the business do care about spaceflight, no matter what they champion.


newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Weren't you JUST talking about the advantages of in-house capability? Why in the hell would Elon Musk wait for NASA technology to produce new technical innovations when he's got his OWN rockets to learn from and experiment with new designs?
Musk didn't invent the rocket mind you. The point I am making is that--apart from Ariane 6, you are seeing folks all over the planet increase LV size beyond what comsats demand. Which is a good thing. Now lets say we were to put everyone in SLS out of work. That would hurt infrastructure and have less expertise to draw from. I hate that the orbiter folks got the axe--something that wouldn't have happened had we gone the modular Energiya route. If Musk and the alt.spacers got other in-house capabilities destroyed--it also lessons competition. What I want--that you call pork is a robust in-house infrastructure of public as well as private institutions. That's something libertarians can't see because of their Ayn Rand blinders.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
The underlying technologies are thirty years old.
There are new wrinkles to the old tech. NASA is a lot like the department of Energy, which I also support for its own sake in that businessmen can always be trusted to be businessmen.



newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
No version -- I repeat, no version -- of SUSTAIN involved using a spacecraft to EXTRACT troops.
You might have forgotten that STS was to have a form of self-ferry early on, and the Spiral concept was even to have turbojets. I believe TAV might have used self-ferry:
http://books.google.com/books?id=eWb...0ferry&f=false

Now Sustain was going to be an EELV launched vehicle, so it stands to reason that something a bit bigger could be launched via falcon that would be large enough to sport turbojets and have some kind of return capability. The Buran analog and the original Buran concept wouldn't have come back dead-stick--and they had huge payload bays sustain would not have to have. Here is where Dream Chaser needs to focus--on contacting the folks behind HOT EAGLE because they are closer to it than the X-37/X-40 folks who are only playing with automated spaceplanes that were intended to be OSP demonstrators originally


newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
It's also kind of funny you name-dropping Medaris at a time like this. It was Medaris who figured out that the Saturn-I was about to be cancelled in favor of a totally hypothetical Titan kitbash being shopped around by the Air Force.
They said it was cheaper. Now Jim from NASAspaceflight maintains that to this day, even though Titan IV wound up costing the same as a moon-shot counting the payload--and ended up with about the same lift capability that Saturn IB had to begin with. But Jim does payload processing for ULA, which is Air Force, so you can expect him to be biased.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
In house development made sense in the 60s when NASA was in a tight spot
Arsenal method still makes sense both in the public and private world for the same reason. More and more people from all walks are developing vehicles--more now than since the 50s-60s. I think this is a good thing to have a lot of approaches--and I hope they all see service. Probably not--but it is a good thing for its own sake to have a lot of aerospace folks employed and staying busy from which private companies must draw. Its not all about economics--that is what I am trying to stress.

Even the EELV people are innovating with dual payloads now, as per page 36 of the Oct 22, 2012 issue of AV week.. It was on page 30 of the Oct 15 issue of the same year that we learn that the second stage of H-IIA will stay with the sat-load for a 5 hr coast, ans may need a white reflective coating to minimize hydrogen evaporation, so I imagine a depot will be more challenging.

For MCT, this may play a role:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...perators-opfs/

Remember, Ares V morphed into SLS via DIRECT's tireless advocacy, and SLS and MCT may combine. Who knows?

Last edited by publiusr; October 27 2012 at 07:02 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote