RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,857
Posts: 5,474,507
Members: 25,044
Currently online: 527
Newest member: DrawHQ

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 23 2013, 10:35 PM   #16
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

Considering it was an NRO spy satellite, maybe he can't answer your questions for security reasons?
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 10:58 PM   #17
wright is wrong
Cadet
 
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

publiusr wrote: View Post

The fool dominating this forum is the real problem:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...topic=32607.15
This "bash gov't spaceflight" is NASA's biggest problem right now.
The real problem is the above poster, whose many posts are asinine and indicative of fools work.
wright is wrong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 11:13 PM   #18
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

Ah, Jim? Long time no see buddy! Why aren't you calling yourself Byeman again?

Maybe due to this?
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...&postcount=243
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...71#post1967871
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...86#post1478486
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...05#post1973505

But no, you can't be Jim. You sound like a smart man, who would never compare, say Space news to a tabloid, right?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...3542#msg113542
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...4238#msg114238

Why don't you tell us what your last name is. I know mine. Didn't you claim to have information about ATK being dirty that you refuse to back up? I'm still waiting.

Last edited by publiusr; August 23 2013 at 11:28 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 06:29 PM   #19
Captain Kathryn
Commodore
 
Captain Kathryn's Avatar
 
Location: NYC metropolitan area
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Captain Kathryn
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

Dang, I thought you guys were getting rough on my Mars One thread, but it continues here too.
__________________
Once there was a grocery man whose name was simply Louie...until the day his store blew up and his produce went kablewie.

Dead Lazlo's Place
Captain Kathryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 06:43 PM   #20
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

I apologize for that. It is old history and goes way back. Ironically the hottest threads in Phil Plait's old bautforum-site are the Real Space forums--even more so than the Moon-Hoax-Believers.

The ugliest fight was between Korolov and Glushko, two actual Soviet Chief designers who had a beef over propellants. Then too, there was this previous history with Gulags, who ratted on whom, etc.

But it is good that people are passionate over spaceflight--it shows that people care. My beef with the poster above is that he--and others--want to put MSFC out of work. We are finally getting new life to a lot of Saturn test facilities and getting old infrastructure and capabilities back.

You would think people would be happy.

But we have enough negative male energy.

I am more interested in what you have to say. BTW One of my heros is Carolyn Porco: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Porco
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2008/04/...and-jj-abrams/

She wrote a wonderful article in supporting the now defunct Ares V:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/ma...16-10/sl_porco
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/op...=2&oref=slogin&

The folks who are trying to kill SLS now are the same people that got that even more capable LV killed. And what is more--they were very, very, ugly to her.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...7912#msg847912

So I haven't had a lot of use for them for that reason alone.

She is, however, quite capable of fighting back:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...8427#msg848427

So her calls for larger LV growth to enable Europa missions are to be listened to--not belittled and ignored by the usual suspects.

Last edited by publiusr; August 24 2013 at 07:07 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 08:43 PM   #21
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

publiusr wrote: View Post
My beef with the poster above is that he--and others--want to put MSFC out of work.
See this is your big misconception. I am not arguing from a point of "putting people out of work". But, that being said, NASA should not be a jobs program. Part of the problem with NASA today is that it gets so little bang for the buck because of congress using it as a pork barrel jobs program rather than being concerned about results.

You want to keep those people in work? Make space cheaper and open up the market. Get enough companies interested and you'll have a shortage of engineers for all the work available.

I truly don't understand your obsession with Huge launch vehicles. I mean seriously, you think it would be practical to send up a ring station in one piece?

You know, I don't have a problem with HLV's. I have a problem with overly costly HLV's that waste money that could be put to better uses.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 08:59 PM   #22
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

sojourner wrote: View Post
Part of the problem with NASA today is that it gets so little bang for the buck
Even Bergin has admitted that SLS has been making progress. It is great bang for the buck. Now F-35 at 1.5 trillion life cycle costs--that is what needs cutting.


sojourner wrote: View Post
See this is your big misconception. I am not arguing from a point of "putting people out of work".
Well that is what it would result in.

sojourner wrote: View Post
NASA should not be a jobs program. You want to keep those people in work? Make space cheaper and open up the market.
I disagree. I think in house capability should be maintained regardless of whatever caprices the market endues. You might as well talk about privatizing the Air Force.

For the last time capability is not "pork", its capability. Once it is gone--it's gone.

I don't see Musk testing F-1s, I see NASA doing it under SLS. I want independant capability outside of the market--the market be damned.


sojourner wrote: View Post

I truly don't understand your obsession with Huge launch vehicles.
I don't understand your obsession with the market always being the best path. I got news for you--it isn't.

Market forces actually make things MORE expensive, not less. Case in point, the failure of the Very Light Jet, and Santorum's Accu-weather bill:

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikt...um_vs_nat.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...eather-Service
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/0...ring-8217-8221#


The call to wreck NASA's in-house capability is just as wrong-headed for the same reason.

sojourner wrote: View Post
You know, I don't have a problem with HLV's. I have a problem with overly costly HLV's that waste money.
It isn't "overly costly." It costs what it costs. Any space capability is going to be expensive. MCT will be expensive. In the DoD there are cost overruns --but that is simply to be expected. I want to see a Bering Strait Bridge myself. That would be pretty steep too, but it is good infrastructure.

Now with F-35, which drones will soon make obsolete--that is a matter all unto
itself. I could launch the Battlestar Galactica with what that will cost us. THAT is your waste of money.

As for me, I'll side with Carolyn Porco.

Last edited by publiusr; August 24 2013 at 09:13 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 10:16 PM   #23
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

If NASA had any in house capability, it might be nice to keep. It doesn't. And it's wasting a lot of dollars trying to produce what can already be purchased.

Capability is not pork. Endless powerpoint rockets duplicating existing capability is.


Bid out an HLV program COTS style and see how costly SLS is by comparison.

Considering F-35 is military spending and cutting it would not benefit NASA, it really has no bearing here.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 10:17 PM   #24
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

Under NASA's current projection, each year they'd either launch a cargo payload or a crew. Since the Orion is just going to return to Earth, I won't count those as delivered payload, just like the dead-weight of the Space Shuttle Orbiter.

The Space Shuttle, when it wasn't grounded because of the numerous government design flaws, averaged 5.5 missions per year, carrying 22.7 tonnes of cargo. That comes to 124 tonnes of cargo per year delivered into orbit. The SLS, in its fully evolved configuration that's supposed to debut in 2032, and maintain one flight every other year, effectively delivers only 65 tonnes of cargo per year to LEO. That's only half as good as the Space Shuttle.

When it comes to crew, the Space Shuttle put an average of about 38 people into orbit every year. The Soyuz almost always puts up twelve people a year. The SLS is projected to average three people a year.

That's going backwards.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 28 2013, 01:06 AM   #25
larryman
Lieutenant Commander
 
larryman's Avatar
 
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

When NASA uses these ships, we will have a space agency to support.





Give all SLS development funding to the "Nasa Innovative Advanced Concepts" (NIAC) program.

We need submersible flying saucer shuttle craft, and warp drive motherships. Not more rockts!
larryman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 29 2013, 11:30 PM   #26
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

larryman wrote: View Post
When NASA uses these ships, we will have a space agency to support.


Now talk about powerpoint presentations...


First of all, Area 51 is just Jesse James' Monster Garage for Fighter-Jocks, Bomber-Barons and drone-drivers. Anti-gravity is likely never going to be real. I wish it were andwe could abandon rockets altogether.


But the kicker is this. Hoaxland...I mean Hoagland...maintains that the reason the "over-unity devices" and similar woo only works sometimes is due to the 19.5 whatzit, and I think he said something about a previous war between planets messing with the space time continuum.

After all, there must be a reason why a super-advanced species can fly many light years, and then seem not to know how to land. Maybe its radar beams interfering, or whatever.


The point is this. Even if all the space alien field-manip drives were real, they are evidently wonky around this Earth--so we STILL need rockets, since no inertia drive dampener is ever going to affect a SRB in the least.


I'm thinking that if we ever do have space drives, they will be like ion engines. No good for lifting off a surface, so the LV still plays a part.

Right now, our best bet is nuclear-thermal. (NTR). That means lots of high volume LH2. So an LV that is also roomy, wide and large, will be what is launching it--and that will be SLS.


sojourner wrote: View Post

Capability is not pork. Endless powerpoint rockets duplicating existing capability is.

It isn't powerpoint--it is metal now. SD-HLLV has been worked on and pushed for by space advocates (i.e.experts) before there was even Powerpoint to begin with.


But if we ever have anti-gravity, I'll eat my words.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 12:23 AM   #27
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

Publiusr, got an article for ya.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 10:20 PM   #28
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

Talk about cherry picking...

That's old news, Dumbacher and others rightly took issue with it.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...154#msg1080154

But if you scroll down to the comment section, you see this:

It is amazing to see how many so called experts pretend to make anaylises of the work performed by the space agencies without even uderstanding how different and uncomparable the requirements are for a reusable system to LEO such as the Space Shuttle, and a heavy lift rocket for deep space missions to Moon and Mars (forget asteroids, they are not a destination !!!).
Articles like this one only help confusing the political decision makers, by pretending changing physics or by just ignoring it.

Also from nasaspaceflight:

Biased op-eds seem to be the last remaining bastion of the anti-SLS faction.

Meanwhile, SLS has progressed to about to pass PDR, when most of you said it would be cancelled by the start of 2012.

This particular piece from "The Space Review" generally reminds me of the DC beltway lobbyist culture. People with agendas writing "articles". The last part about how his rant should not be construed as dissing NASA or its employees, made me laugh.


Another view

I would say the article is more hysterical than sober. Just a lot of handwaving about made-up SLS costs that the author admits he has no official source for.

His first whack at it results in a per-launch cost of $5 billion, and by the end of the "article" he is claiming per-launch costs of $14.3 billion.

And of course the article make no mention of the progress that SLS is making through the PDR process.

The author does present one chart that shows the impact of the expected low flight rate on the per-launch costs of SLS. It shows that we will need to be launching SLS at least once or twice a year in order to achieve a decent return on investment. Of course, when you plug in more realist costs, the numbers look even better.

As SLS gets closer and closer to reality, the SLS haters will escalate their drumbeat of negativity to a towering crescendo. I just hope that NASA and the good people working on SLS and Orion will be able to ignore the vitriol and continue their good work on these systems.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...853#msg1074853


Strickland actually supports HLVs, he just bought into ULA's BS numbers on Ares V, SLS etc.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zza.html

From nasaspaceflight-

It has been said a Delta IV Heavy cost around $270M per launch, so $500M per launch of a SLS out side of the fixed yearly cost seems reasonable and based on shuttle per launch costs.

Right now the real stagnation is with everyone making EELV class LVs, duplicating effort, and supporting only medium lift. You won't take humanity to the stars with lvs whose size is determined by whatever the latest comsats are.

Some of Musks problems
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=41515 http://www.americaspace.com/?p=34964

Last edited by publiusr; August 30 2013 at 10:30 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 12:07 AM   #29
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

It has been said a Delta IV Heavy cost around $270M per launch, so $500M per launch of a SLS out side of the fixed yearly cost seems reasonable and based on shuttle per launch costs.
$500 million to launch the SLS isn't even in the ballpark. The engines alone cost almost that much to purchase.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 03:22 AM   #30
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Europa moon Lander mission - science

That reads a lot more like americaspace's problem than any Elon has. Especially since the writer of the article concedes that it's MDA's choice for how the event is handled.

Oh, and posting a link to an entire article is not cherrypicking. Posting cropped quotes of opinions with little fact is.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.