"No US manned launch capability"
- Thread starter Deimos Anomaly
- Start date
Like your official inside information from NASA trumps something someone posts on Teh InterNets Thingy. Get with it!
They'd need to do some heat shield upgrades to Big Gemini for anything past LEO.
I think this iwould be just as big a wheel to reinvent as Constellation was to Apollo.. but at least there was work started on it.
If we're going retro, X-20 FTW!
I'm of the opinion that the LEO ship shouldn't be burdened with a lunar requirement, which may be what doomed the Constellation/Orion design. It's a safe bet that 95% of missions will just be LEO, so why not use a cheap lightweight craft 95% of the time?
The Augustine Commission said the recurring per-launch cost of Ares/Orion was about $1 Billion. Ouch!
Despite having a logo designed by Michael Okuda, Ares/Orion looks like a f***ing bottle rocket.
The Augustine Commission said the recurring per-launch cost of Ares/Orion was about $1 Billion. Ouch!
Despite having a logo designed by Michael Okuda, Ares/Orion looks like a f***ing bottle rocket.
^^ I'd agree with that about a lightweight craft to get crew to LEO. Makes sense. Something like the Soyuz really. That's what the private companies will be coming up with now.
Ack! $1 billion per launch?! Did it really say that? That's getting into Shuttle territory (which was bad) except without the cargo capacity!
Mr Awe
Ack! $1 billion per launch?! Did it really say that? That's getting into Shuttle territory (which was bad) except without the cargo capacity!
Mr Awe
I haven't read the report itself, but that's what Wiki said about it under the heading Schedule and Cost.
But the Mars Society says the Augustine Commissions cost numbers are junk.
Excerpt:
Hrm...
But the Mars Society says the Augustine Commissions cost numbers are junk.
Excerpt:
Hrm...
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNeSFx9AMqo[/yt]
Bud Light made AirTran executives sad.
I always thought a better idea than the ISS was having a single stage to orbit space plane with crew and cargo capacity similar to the shuttles and instead of having a spaces station they could go back to the space lab concept with each lab made by a different country instead of having them make modules for the ISS. Does that idea have any merit other than it costs a lot? To make the Mars people happy I think Robert Zubrin's Mars direct plan seems solid enough since it doesn't rely on exotic sci-fi technologies or a lot of infrastructure in space.
Leroy, that would have been nice. Delta Clipper would have been perfect, but NASA squashed if because it wasn't invented by their people.
Those blasted Russian Capitalists. 
I think Okuda is right on this one.
http://web.me.com/michaelokuda/CONSTELLATION/WHAT_IS_CONSTELLATION.html
That moon-rover is freakin' awesome. So much work has already gone into the Constellation project, that its just not logical, dammit, to shelve it. They already have a launch platform for this thing, it's well along...I just don't get it.
Especially considering the new budget is a bit higher ~ why the weird stipulation?
http://web.me.com/michaelokuda/CONSTELLATION/WHAT_IS_CONSTELLATION.html
That moon-rover is freakin' awesome. So much work has already gone into the Constellation project, that its just not logical, dammit, to shelve it. They already have a launch platform for this thing, it's well along...I just don't get it.
Especially considering the new budget is a bit higher ~ why the weird stipulation?
From what the Mars Society said about the inflated cost numbers given to the commission, somebody high-up wanted to kill it and created a reason to.
The stated reason may be bogus, but it still might be a good decision. That depends on whether the private sector produces better, cheaper capabilities or whether they end up hamstrung with red tape or buried in cost overruns.
We still might get back to the moon via the private sector, but instead of the iconic pictures of Apollo astronauts on the surface, with just their name and an American flag adorning their uniform, their moon suit will look like a Nascar driver's. Perhaps if you become an early sponsor you can get a good high-frontal suit position for your own company logo.
The stated reason may be bogus, but it still might be a good decision. That depends on whether the private sector produces better, cheaper capabilities or whether they end up hamstrung with red tape or buried in cost overruns.
We still might get back to the moon via the private sector, but instead of the iconic pictures of Apollo astronauts on the surface, with just their name and an American flag adorning their uniform, their moon suit will look like a Nascar driver's. Perhaps if you become an early sponsor you can get a good high-frontal suit position for your own company logo.
According to the estimates, the new budget is still not high enough to make Constellation viable.
The up-thread article's contention that Orion was fine is interesting. I certainly haven't heard anything bad about it. But everyone's been ragging on Ares for a while now, so I'm really not surprised to see that being shelved.
The only thing I've seen about Ares that gave me pause was the Air Force's belief that from 30 seconds to 90 seconds after launch, an abort would fail because the debris from the explosion of the solid rocket booster would rain burning fragments onto the capsule's parachute. Given the Air Force's long experience testing solid rocket ICBM's, perhaps they've actually seen this kind of thing happen.
Don't drink the cool-aid. The Altair lander is just a pretty picture, not even close to final design stage never mind construction. Constellation was over budget, over due, and bad design. That article has a couple of facts wrong as well. No engine has been designed and tested, only planned. The Ares I-x only looked like the Ares I it didn't actually share any flight components. (4segment booster/no second stage)
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/...op-test-fails/