NASA Moving Ahead With Orion

[Dukhat]

What race to return to the Moon?

Well, there is the Google Lunar X-Prize, but that's something altogether different.

My vote is for Astrobotic, since they're the only team that has completed the lander portion of the contest. Of course, a lot can happen in four years...

And of course any team would still have to beat China's Chang'e 3 soft lander and rover to the Moon by 2013, provided Chang'e doesn't accidentally crash first.

 

[Squiggy]

How 'bout this: makeover NASA as a regulatory/research agency (along the lines of the FAA) and open spaceflight more to the private sector. Some tax breaks, maybe. Start leasing NASA-owned facilites (launch pads, etc.) to lease for use by privately owned spaceflight providers.

Done.

Next?

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Build a Lofstrom loop.

 

[Saquist]

You can't make long term plans to develop anything if Congress tells you to do something different before you're done.

That's. How. It. Is.

NASA doesn't get a blank check for 18 billion dollars a year to get to do whatever they wish. It's all planned out for them.

Yes, I think everyone thinks NASA plans everything but they don't, they're at the mercy of the bureaucrats.

Everyone thinks they have the right plans for NASA...if they explore deep space for curiosity and science, they are wasting money....if they develop disposable rockets again they are going backwards....if they only work IN LEO they are not exploring anymore...ugh, they simply can't win.

RAMA

RAMA...
That Avatar you're using now. That's from a book. I don't remember the name I read it when I was like. 8 years old something. It was about a crashed ship from Earth with a Human and Dolphin crew....really kewl concept.

 

[Mysterion]

^^^
It's the cover art from David Brin's Startide Rising.

 

[Saquist]

^^^
It's the cover art from David Brin's Startide Rising.

I remember...that brings back some reading memories. Classic book.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You can't make long term plans to develop anything if Congress tells you to do something different before you're done.

That's. How. It. Is.

NASA doesn't get a blank check for 18 billion dollars a year to get to do whatever they wish. It's all planned out for them.

Congress can't make those call with out NASA recommendations and the facts seem to be that the administration of NASA didn't push those needs. How can Congress tell a space agency how to proceed with anything with out being given some outline of their capabilities, problems and needs?

Easy: they don't CARE about their capabilities, problems, or needs. Space flight is a pork-barrel project in congress: they don't care if the rockets even work, just as long as somebody in their congressional district is being paid to build them.

If NASA never said and pushed for a shuttle replacement then that's why they didn't get it.

They DID. The problem is, NASA believes that they are in charge of America's space program. Congress, on the other hand, believes that NASA is part of a Florida/Texas/Utah make-work program for aerospace engineers. The shuttle replacements that NASA proposed failed to guarantee jobs to the thousands of workers at ATK and Lockheed Martin, not to mention the thousands of workers in the Florida Space coast.

In fact I know Congress ASKED NASA for ways to bolster NASA's own public opinion and their answer was..."Build a Space Station."

NASA's idea for a space station and what Congress actually approved were two COMPLETELY different things.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

NASA's idea for a space station and what Congress actually approved were two COMPLETELY different things.

What was the NASA's original idea for a space station? You mean the slight reduction of space from Space Station Freedom to the final ISS?

 

[Saquist]

Easy: they don't CARE about their capabilities, problems, or needs. Space flight is a pork-barrel project in congress: they don't care if the rockets even work, just as long as somebody in their congressional district is being paid to build them.

I thought as much. It seems obvious that NASA isn't what most of us think it is as far as administrations go.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Does America even need a MPCV/Orion/whatever?

The way I see it, the crewed version of the SpaceX Dragon could be operational at an earlier date then the MPCV. And I think it's also designed to carry twice as much of a crew. And it's far from certain that the MPCV will ever go beyond Earth orbit anyway.

Is it the MPCV's main purpose to secure jobs in the aerospace industry after the retirement of the Space Shuttle?

 

[arch101]

I have reservations about Government's ability to not overregulate commercial space flight to the point that it's unprofitable. If it is, private companies won't do it. Look at what happened to the nuclear power industry in the US after TMI. It takes so much time, so much expensive permitting and so much paperwork to build a plant, that hardly any have been built in over 30 years. This could conceivably happen to commercial space flight too.

 

[sojourner]

Does America even need a MPCV/Orion/whatever?

The way I see it, the crewed version of the SpaceX Dragon could be operational at an earlier date then the MPCV. And I think it's also designed to carry twice as much of a crew. And it's far from certain that the MPCV will ever go beyond Earth orbit anyway.

Is it the MPCV's main purpose to secure jobs in the aerospace industry after the retirement of the Space Shuttle?

Yeah we need it to avoid the same problem we have now. All of our eggs were in one basket with the shuttle.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

NASA's idea for a space station and what Congress actually approved were two COMPLETELY different things.

What was the NASA's original idea for a space station? You mean the slight reduction of space from Space Station Freedom to the final ISS?

Freedom to ISS was no "slight" reduction, not by a longshot. On the other hand, Freedom was itself a reduction from NASA's plan for an orbital spacedock that would be able to refurbish and refuel orbiting spacecraft as a first stage to an orbital infrastructure system. The idea was (at the time) that the space hangar would be used to assemble, piece by piece, a larger spacecraft that could function as a mobile exploration platform for long-term voyages to the moon or to Mars in any configuration you wanted. Critics came to deride this plan as the now infamous "Battlestar Galactica plan." Ironically, in retrospect it probably would have been cheaper than continuing the shuttle program through 2010.

Easy: they don't CARE about their capabilities, problems, or needs. Space flight is a pork-barrel project in congress: they don't care if the rockets even work, just as long as somebody in their congressional district is being paid to build them.

I thought as much. It seems obvious that NASA isn't what most of us think it is as far as administrations go.

The problem is, NASA is exactly what most of us think it is. The reason this is a problem is because what NASA thinks about itself is vastly less important than what CONGRESS thinks it is.

It comes down to this: Orion and the SLS do not fit NASA's needs for space exploration. It is not designed to explore space, it is not designed to save money, it is not designed to go to the space station. It is designed to keep contractors and space technology infrastructure in key congressional districts in business; it is designed to give the workforce at KSC something to do, whether or not that something has anything at all to do with a meaningful space program.

The Senate knows this, and they want NASA to lie about it; NASA refuses to lie about it, and the Senate is pissed.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Does America even need a MPCV/Orion/whatever?

No.

The way I see it, the crewed version of the SpaceX Dragon could be operational at an earlier date then the MPCV.

Hell, if they are even close to being on schedule Dragon will be in service for at least a year before the MPCV can even ATTEMPT a test flight. Boeing's CST-100 would also beat it to the starting line, and this being the usual Cost-Plus-No-Bid procurement contract, I'd bet my retirement fund the Dreamchaser would probably enter service by the time the MPCV is even man-rated.

Is it the MPCV's main purpose to secure jobs in the aerospace industry after the retirement of the Space Shuttle?

Yep.

Yeah we need it to avoid the same problem we have now. All of our eggs were in one basket with the shuttle.

If they gave a damn about the problem of spaceflight they would have thrown their support behind Boeing and SpaceX during the first round of CCDev evaluations. Truth is, the entire "Government vs. Private space" is a false dichotomy: every space craft NASA has ever flown has ALWAYS been manufactured by aerospace companies, from Mercury through the shuttle. If they wanted a surefire replacement from a trusted source--say, the same people who built the space shuttle in the 70s--they would have just funded Boeing's CST-100 through testing and completion.

Congress has their priorities completely ass-backwards in this case. Forcing NASA to go thorugh with Orion/SLS pretty much leaves NASA without a space craft OR a launch vehicle for the rest of the decade. If the privateers don't pull it off, then America will have to hitchhike with the Russians until at least 2018... and since they insist on using the SLS to launch the MPCV, it then we will STILL have to use the Soyuz once that system is operational!

 

[Saquist]

NASA's idea for a space station and what Congress actually approved were two COMPLETELY different things.

What was the NASA's original idea for a space station? You mean the slight reduction of space from Space Station Freedom to the final ISS?

Freedom to ISS was no "slight" reduction, not by a longshot. On the other hand, Freedom was itself a reduction from NASA's plan for an orbital spacedock that would be able to refurbish and refuel orbiting spacecraft as a first stage to an orbital infrastructure system. The idea was (at the time) that the space hangar would be used to assemble, piece by piece, a larger spacecraft that could function as a mobile exploration platform for long-term voyages to the moon or to Mars in any configuration you wanted. Critics came to deride this plan as the now infamous "Battlestar Galactica plan." Ironically, in retrospect it probably would have been cheaper than continuing the shuttle program through 2010.

Easy: they don't CARE about their capabilities, problems, or needs. Space flight is a pork-barrel project in congress: they don't care if the rockets even work, just as long as somebody in their congressional district is being paid to build them.

I thought as much. It seems obvious that NASA isn't what most of us think it is as far as administrations go.

The problem is, NASA is exactly what most of us think it is. The reason this is a problem is because what NASA thinks about itself is vastly less important than what CONGRESS thinks it is.

It comes down to this: Orion and the SLS do not fit NASA's needs for space exploration. It is not designed to explore space, it is not designed to save money, it is not designed to go to the space station. It is designed to keep contractors and space technology infrastructure in key congressional districts in business; it is designed to give the workforce at KSC something to do, whether or not that something has anything at all to do with a meaningful space program.

The Senate knows this, and they want NASA to lie about it; NASA refuses to lie about it, and the Senate is pissed.

That's why there was some much out spoken dissension on the completion of constellation and it's problems.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Yeah we need it to avoid the same problem we have now. All of our eggs were in one basket with the shuttle.

Both Russia and China are faring rather well with only a single capsule type.

Capsules are a much simpler system. Cheaper to build, easier to operate. And if there's really a problem with the design you can probably fix it with the next capsule you manufacture.

The problem with the Shuttle was not so much the lack of a back-up, the problem was the complexity of the system and its high costs. You can't fix a design flaw on the Shuttle so easily, you'd probably have to build a whole a new vehicle from scratch.

Let's put it this way: The Soyuz is the Volkswagen of space, while the Space Shuttle was the Ferrari.

There's only one possible "problem" with capsules: The Soyuz worked so well over the decades that Russia never really had much of an incentive to design a completely new vehicle. Regularly updating and modifying existing systems was quite sufficient. So there's maybe a "threat" of technological stagnation. Once you've got a working capsule system that carries people into orbit, you don't ever need something else.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

There's only one possible "problem" with capsules: The Soyuz worked so well over the decades that Russia never really had much of an incentive to design a completely new vehicle. Regularly updating and modifying existing systems was quite sufficient. So there's maybe a "threat" of technological stagnation. Once you've got a working capsule system that carries people into orbit, you don't ever need something else.

The USSR did have a go at a knock-off of the shuttle - Buran - but it never carried people and Mikhail Gorbachev was probably responsible for cancelling it.

 

[RAMA]

^^^
It's the cover art from David Brin's Startide Rising.

I remember...that brings back some reading memories. Classic book.

Yup re-reading the whole series as time allows....got some of them in hardback recently. I'm part way through the final novel: Heaven's Reach, the British cover is one of my favorites:

 

[Dac]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14089297

Here's a pretty nifty if not so informative article the BBC produced about possible space shuttle replacements. It might not be so in depth, but I think it's a nice visual guide to all the possible replacements.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

There's only one possible "problem" with capsules: The Soyuz worked so well over the decades that Russia never really had much of an incentive to design a completely new vehicle. Regularly updating and modifying existing systems was quite sufficient. So there's maybe a "threat" of technological stagnation. Once you've got a working capsule system that carries people into orbit, you don't ever need something else.

The USSR did have a go at a knock-off of the shuttle - Buran - but it never carried people and Mikhail Gorbachev was probably responsible for cancelling it.

Gorbachev didn't care about human spaceflight, but ultimately Buran was cancelled because the Soviet Union had fallen. And the Soyuz was simply cheaper in the economic turmoil that followed.