"No US manned launch capability"
- Thread starter Deimos Anomaly
- Start date
Not really. Off the top of my head, the Apollo program's record is about the same as the shuttle's: To major incidents over the life of the program Body count is lower on the US alone preshuttle days, higher if you add up both Russian and US accidents/death from both nations space programs.
I think it's part of the Nuclear Test ban treaty and falls under the whole "testing nuclear weapons in space" clause.
^ Which is bunk, really, because Orion wasn't a weapon, it was a space vehicle.
You seem to be mistaking the definition of "cost" and "delay". Yes, any program takes time and costs money; but when a program is taking far longer and costing far more than it was budgeted for, you have to take a step back and figure out why.
Maybe it's just a harder problem than anticipated; or maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with the approach. Continuing to throw good money after bad just because it's politically convenient is precisely what should not be done in this circumstance.
I guess people could debate whether Soyuz is 1960's technology, by our standards. Of course electronics are always upgraded more easily than hardware, so I'm not sure we should count those improvements.
I would think a pitfall of the Constellation design is the requirement for lunar missions. That necessarily raises cost and complexity far above what's required for simple orbital delivery missions. Perhaps the requirement should've been split into a multi-seat orbital vehicle (Big Gemini) and a long duration lunar/Mars vehicle with a much later delivery date.
I would think a pitfall of the Constellation design is the requirement for lunar missions. That necessarily raises cost and complexity far above what's required for simple orbital delivery missions. Perhaps the requirement should've been split into a multi-seat orbital vehicle (Big Gemini) and a long duration lunar/Mars vehicle with a much later delivery date.
Don't the British (and large program managers) refer to that as "The Concorde Fallacy"?
*goes and looks it up*
From Wiki:
If the goal was simply to ferry two or three people and some carry-on luggage to the ISS then, yes, this could be done in a few months. The technology exists from the Apollo program (and is more or less used for Soyuz). A Saturn V booster would not be needed since it would barely be leaving the atmosphere. The only challenge would be getting together the industrial base and that could be done with enough incentive. Personally, I'd rather see that money used to promote commercial space transportation.
Delays usually do equal cost/cost overruns. The longer it takes to get something done, the greater the final cost.
Sometimes there is no option once the delays start putting red ink on the books but to backburner a program and start from scratch-- lest you spend so much trying to save a flawed program that you have nothing left for anything else.
Which used nuclear pulse engines (IRC), which would be banned as being nuclear explosives. The wording is/was vague, but then again it was mostly to try to stop Russia from getting nukes into space.
It's Swiss-Army Knife thinking: Everything you could need in one package.
That was the shuttle, but it did a lot of jobs good but none really great. One of the failings of NASA was putting a lot of their eggs in the shuttle basic and not keeping a crew capsule alternative on the sideburner or at least ready to slot in and ready to go with out starting from scratch.
If I want to walk on red dirt, all I have to do is wait for the ground to dry.
Why the FUCK does everyone have a hard-on for wanting to go to Mars?
^ Because it's next.
We haven't been there yet, so we must go there. It's inevitable.
Or do you suggest we just sit here on Earth and never go anywhere else? Never explore? That's not in our nature.
We haven't been there yet, so we must go there. It's inevitable.
Or do you suggest we just sit here on Earth and never go anywhere else? Never explore? That's not in our nature.
"We" means the Human Race. At least the part of it capable of feeling wonder and inspiration.
I'm all for exploring; however, the cost (both financial, material, and human-wise) is too great at this time. Unmanned probes can handle the job of exploring for the interim.
Back to the OPs question, there actually has been studies looking at manrating the Delta or Atlas rockets. There would still be great costs and time required. Manrating requires that most systems are triply redundant. This would entail adding lots of backups to the current versions. It would be sort of like adding backup systems to your existing car. It might require a larger redesign than you originally thought just to get everything to fit in the space available! And, it's all got to work together.
You'd also need to develop a capsule for it. The proposed Orion capsule would've been too heavy (holds 6). However, something like the Orbital Space Plane (upto 4) would've worked, but that was abandoned.
But, who knows, maybe the commercial system will use something like that. Early hopes are that the commercial service would be ready by 2016, so they've got 6 years.
Mr Awe
You'd also need to develop a capsule for it. The proposed Orion capsule would've been too heavy (holds 6). However, something like the Orbital Space Plane (upto 4) would've worked, but that was abandoned.
But, who knows, maybe the commercial system will use something like that. Early hopes are that the commercial service would be ready by 2016, so they've got 6 years.
Mr Awe
And that's only a year later than Orion.