NASA Moving Ahead With Orion

[noj89]

hello all, just wanted to add my 2 cents

Great thread btw!

I wonder if any of you had heard of the British skylon project ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)

From wikipedia

"Skylon is an unpiloted spaceplane by the British company, Reaction Engines Limited (REL). It uses a combined-cycle, air-breathing rocket engine to reach orbit in a single stage. A fleet of vehicles is envisaged; the design is aiming for re-usability up to 200 times. In paper studies, the costs per kilogram of payload are hoped to be lowered from the current £15,000/kg to £650/kg " ($24107/kg-$1045/kg <- currency converted 2nd July via XE.com for USA readers)


This compairs very favourably to falcon 9 stats for payload cost per kg etc as listed on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

Briefly the highlights

Falcon 9
Payload LEO -8,560 (polar orbit from Kwajalein) or 10,450 (launch at Cape Canaveral $5360/kg
Payload GTO -4,680 (launch at Kwajalein) or 4,540 (launch at Cape Canaveral £12000/kg

Skylon
Crew: None, remote controlled from ground.
Capacity: Potential for up to 24 passengers
Payload: 15,000 kg (33,000 lb)





And while i know this is all very speculative, i do get excited by the potental possabilites as it does seam to offer some of the flexability that people in this thread seam to want, sadly though we in the UK work on more modest budgets over far longer timescales, so the overall first build of the consept is at least 7-10 years away and full service who knows when.


Any thoughts?

 

[throwback]

The British magazine Economist recently did an article on the Space Age. Their conclusion - the Space Age has effectively ended. The leading space nations are not able to support manned exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and that the returns on unmanned space probes is diminishing.

Though I would like to have optimism that we will send astronauts to an asteroid or Mars, I am confronted with the stark realization that our country is nearing bankruptcy, and that a civilian space program is an expensive luxury. (The military program is going gang-busters, and there is an arms race with nations working on the next generation of anti-satellite defenses.)

 

[Saquist]

disappointing that this is the best of 40 years of space venturing can do....They never should have cancelled the shuttle program. For God's sake why didn't they continue on with the Dreamchaser? The military just got true using it for 7 month long recon in LEO this year...

What the hell is wrong with nasa....

 

[RAMA]

disappointing that this is the best of 40 years of space venturing can do....They never should have cancelled the shuttle program. For God's sake why didn't they continue on with the Dreamchaser? The military just got true using it for 7 month long recon in LEO this year...

What the hell is wrong with nasa....

Give them a chance, commercial/private space development is just beginning. Humanity has ALWAYS been short-sighted, its going to take longer than we thought to get this going but I see no alternative for the future but to eventually live in space.

RAMA

 

[Lindley]

They never should have cancelled the shuttle program.

While it's possible that NASA could have made some better choices, canceling the shuttle program was overdue. The shuttle never performed as cheaply or as frequently as it was planned to, and being stuck with it is what has kept us in LEO for the past 40 years rather than going further.

 

[Saquist]

They never should have cancelled the shuttle program.

While it's possible that NASA could have made some better choices, canceling the shuttle program was overdue. The shuttle never performed as cheaply or as frequently as it was planned to, and being stuck with it is what has kept us in LEO for the past 40 years rather than going further.

We were only stuck with the shuttle because they didn't bother themselves with developing other methods over the last 30 years. We have BEEN devloped the Dreamchaser. It's a NO BRAINER. The shuttle was expense (yes) downscale it. 3 Different shuttles. 1) for Heavy lift 2) One for moderate satellite lift and service and 3) a crew launch laboratory. We've been leaking money for the shuttle program just because they didn't have the common sense to diversify the fleet and that is one of the major problems with NASA. It's culture is so set in it's ways Privatizing it or disbanding NASA will ultimately get us further...especially if we create an intentional Space Endeavor where multiple nations share the financial burden.

 

[Squiggy]

disappointing that this is the best of 40 years of space venturing can do....

50. The best of what 50 years of space venturing was actually done 40 years ago...remember that? When we landed a man on the moon? Sadly, people stopped giving a crap after we won that little race and funding went away. Blame the public and Congress for not keeping NASA's funding where it was in 1969.

They never should have cancelled the shuttle program.

What else would you like NASA do to with it? It costs a billion dollars just to launch it. We might as well just incinerate a billion dollars in a fire to keep North Dakota warm one night in winter. It would be safer.

For God's sake why didn't they continue on with the Dreamchaser?

For starters, it wasn't a NASA design, but SpaceDev. SpaceDev was bought by Sierra Nevada and that company has been awarded money under the COTS program.

Also, the DreamChaser was only announced 6 years ago. You can't really go from concept to spaceframe in that short a time.

Also also, It's still being developed, but not by NASA.

The military just got true using it for 7 month long recon in LEO this year...

Que?

What the hell is wrong with nasa....

You seem to think that either NASA has more money than it actually does, or that sending people to LEO for no reason serves any purpose either than making some people feel good about themselves.

You also seem to think NASA gets to decide what NASA does.

Here are our options.

1. Spend what little money NASA has to launch a couple of Shuttles a year to do something that robotic vehicles can do.

2. Take that money and use it to develop Orion.

3. Take that money and use it to develop something else.

4. Warm North Dakota.

5. Cry about how NASA is raping everyone's childhood by ending science and humanity forever while forgetting that NASA only had one manned launch in the 9 years between Apollo 17 in 1972 and STS 1 in 1981 and we seemed to make it out ok then.

 

[MANT!]

Cry about how NASA is raping everyone's childhood by ending science and humanity forever while forgetting that NASA only had one manned launch in the 9 years between Apollo 17 in 1972 and STS 1 in 1981 and we seemed to make it out ok then.

Actually there were 3 manned Skylab missions and the ASTP with the last launch in 1975...
http://astronautix.com/project/skylab.htm


http://astronautix.com/project/astp.htm
So 6 years instead of 9...



too long but not excessively...

And the reason for cancelling Apollo launches..

to free up money to develop the Shuttle..

 

[Saquist]

50. The best of what 50 years of space venturing was actually done 40 years ago...remember that? When we landed a man on the moon? Sadly, people stopped giving a crap after we won that little race and funding went away. Blame the public and Congress for not keeping NASA's funding where it was in 1969.

Not congress.
Nasa
Nasa's objectives haven't shown progress.

What else would you like NASA do to with it? It costs a billion dollars just to launch it. We might as well just incinerate a billion dollars in a fire to keep North Dakota warm one night in winter. It would be safer.

Nothing wrong with the shuttle but the people that are using it. That goes to culture. The shuttle should have been kept as a heavy lift option not canceled...especially as we have nothing else. That was extremely premature.

For starters, it wasn't a NASA design, but SpaceDev. SpaceDev was bought by Sierra Nevada and that company has been awarded money under the COTS program.

Also, the DreamChaser was only announced 6 years ago. You can't really go from concept to spaceframe in that short a time.

Also also, It's still being developed, but not by NASA.

Shuttle has existed since the 70's on paper as a design...it absolutely inexcusable to let that amount of time pass before issuing a project to downscale the shuttle in size and financial expenditures. NASA took for granted that the to the economic forecast for America would always be in their favor.

Que?

The military outfited it for launch in 2010 and it returned only April of this year

You seem to think that either NASA has more money than it actually does, or that sending people to LEO for no reason serves any purpose either than making some people feel good about themselves.

Nasa hasn't done much with the money that has been given. It's hemoraging money. They need to stream line. The only productive thing they've done is space station and they were ready to de-orbit that only 10 years after it's completion....
WHAT A WASTE....they actually considered THIS!!!! What kind of oversight is that? That's just beyond belief. That's how you know the people at the helm are just think one year a time.

2. Take that money and use it to develop Orion.

A waste to reinvent the wheel.

modifying the Gemini program or the Apollo program for current day uses would have be SO cost effective and simple design wise....They never did...I doubt they ever considered it.

I'm not saying that cancelling the shuttle program eventually had to happen but foresight NASA has displayed as AN ADMINISTRATION has been so short its like child was incharge. They are just wasting money on these space probes. We did not further the space program with Spirit and Opportunity... rather we satisfied our curiosity...we can't do that anymore...curiosity doesn't pay the bills.

 

[Gepard]

...remember that? When we landed a man on the moon? Sadly, people stopped giving a crap after we won that little race and funding went away.

Damn Decepticons.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

The military outfited it for launch in 2010 and it returned only April of this year

Which military? Outfitted what?

[citation needed], please.

The military, any military, haven't done anything with the Dream Chaser. X-37 has little to do with the Dream Chaser. For that matter, the Dream Chaser has little to do with the shuttle, it's almost as different as the other launch options are. What does it do like the shuttle, it lands horizontally while gliding?

 

[throwback]

The biggest discoveries to be made appear to be outside our solar system. With each new planetary system, we are learning about our own system. However, the Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) and Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) were both cancelled.The next space telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, will be observing the next sky in the infrared wavelength which is not exactly ideal for planet hunting.

Many of the future space missions are predicated on where we may be heading next - to Mars and to an asteroid in close proximity to Earth. Though the Moon isn't a prime candidate for the next human mission, we are devoting resources to exploring this body. I feel we have explored both Mars and the Moon in great detail, and I am not sure how much more can be learned from either body.

I am more interested in the outer gas giants and their satellites. I think a world like Titan may be better suited to colonization than Mars. However, I think Mars may serve as a gateway world, and as a test bed, for manned missions.

I do believe that manned missions to Mars will not happen in my lifetime. I believe that these missions may occur many, many decades from now.

There are two ways we could go as a species:

From history, we know that Europeans made landfall on the American continent in the 10th century and established short-term settlements on the Canadian coast. Confronted with the harsh realities of living in Canada, and having to contend with a tenuous supply chain, these Europeans were forced to abandon these settlements.

Five centuries later, the Europeans returned to the Americas They met the challenges head on, and supported by a more sophisticated, organized, and well funded supply chain, these Europeans successfully colonized the Americas.

This is one approach. Or,

As the Europeans were emerging from the Late Middle Ages, the Chinese sent a major expeditionary fleet to the Indian Ocean and to Africa. They explored the lands, contacted the natives, and returned to China laden with stories of and items of great value from these far off lands. Though impressed with the expedition's success, the Chinese government decided to pursue interests closer to home and there were no further expeditions.

It's impossible to know which trajectory our civilization will pursue. I am hoping that we are doing path one, for I believe that in space our species will find its salvation. Otherwise...

 

[Saquist]

The military outfited it for launch in 2010 and it returned only April of this year

Which military? Outfitted what?

[citation needed], please.

The military, any military, haven't done anything with the Dream Chaser. X-37 has little to do with the Dream Chaser. For that matter, the Dream Chaser has little to do with the shuttle, it's almost as different as the other launch options are. What does it do like the shuttle, it lands horizontally while gliding?

ah yes the X-37. It's aero profile came from the space shuttle. It also uses TPS like the shuttle. Designed Project began in 1999. 7 years from start to drop test. And 11 years for orbital test. One flight complete and one currently in orbit launched on an Atlas V.

Really...how much to get this ship human rated?

For comparison, The Saturn five's development was announced in 1962 and only 5 years later it had it's maiden voyage.

I believe the Gemini Program made use of similar short period of development thanks to the Atlas ICBM retrofitting. Other than the money issues the point is NASA has horribly squandered it's budget in the past. Use of unmanned ships like the X-37 and smaller shuttle varriations should have happened after the expenditures from the Shuttle were evidently not as projected. If NASA were a business it would have gone under long ago.

 

[Squiggy]

For comparison, The Saturn five's development was announced in 1962 and only 5 years later it had it's maiden voyage.

Having about 16 times the budget would do that.

 

[Deckerd]

If NASA were a business there would have been no Moon landings.

 

[Squiggy]

The ONLY reason we landed on the moon is because we thought the Soviets were going to do it first and we were terrified by that possibility. Had we actually known they weren't as close as we were to a successful manned lunar-return mission then we wouldn't have gone.

 

[MANT!]

They were quite close to a Lunar Orbit manned mission, but dropped it after Apollo 8 did the same mission (Apollo 8 was originally going to be in Earth Orbit, but the mission was expanded upon receiving the intelligence that several Zond flights around the Moon were actually all up Soyuz spacecraft on unmanned tests )

 

[sojourner]

Maintaining the shuttle program is ironically the very reason NASA lacked the funds to diversify and develop new launchers. To say that NASA should have kept it and build all kinds of new "shuttles" just shows a lack of knowledge regarding NASA's budget.

 

[Saquist]

For comparison, The Saturn five's development was announced in 1962 and only 5 years later it had it's maiden voyage.

Having about 16 times the budget would do that.

NASA has had a budget of 471 Billion dollars 1958 to 2008. Or 790 Billion dollars adjusted for inflation. NASA has had the money it's need to do the job.

The problem is the administration.

 

[Psion]

For comparison, The Saturn five's development was announced in 1962 and only 5 years later it had it's maiden voyage.

Having about 16 times the budget would do that.

NASA has had a budget of 471 Billion dollars 1958 to 2008. Or 790 Billion dollars adjusted for inflation. NASA has had the money it's need to do the job.

The problem is the administration.

There's a handy Wikipedia entry specifically concerning the NASA budget. While the notion that the budget was 16 times what it is now was way off, it was higher during the moon landing years. Note the column that shows budgets in 2007 dollars and how much higher it was during those years. Or just look at the percent of the federal budget!

While you can sum the total amount of money spent on NASA since 1958, that doesn't give you a very good idea of the year-to-year finances available to support this country's space program. And when budgets fall, programs have to be cut. The budget crunch during the seventies was particularly hard on the space program -- largely due to the activities of Senator William Proxmire, who made great political strides deriding the space program and awarding "Golden Fleece awards" to any science spending he didn't understand.

Gods, I hated that man.

On the other hand, these days I think increased emphasis on private space enterprise is the best future for humanity in space. NASA seems to have become too moribund and wrapped up in its own managerial red tape to crack the final frontier these days.