In 2014 SpaceX has 12 launches scheduled. In 2015 they have 14 scheduled. They even have launches scheduled as far ahead as 2018. They started development on the Falcon 9 after NASA had started working on the Ares V (which grew directly into the SLS), yet started flying in only five years. By the time the first SLS is launched, the Falcon 9 will be roughly on launch number 75, and the SLS is never even projected to deliver more tons per year to orbit that the Falcon 9 is scheduled to deliver in 2014.
US retreat leaves China leading way in race to return to Moon
- Thread starter Alpha_Geek
- Start date
And they are a subcontractor for NASA
http://www.spacex.com/about
Again, why all the worrying? NASA is paying them to do menial tasks so that they can focus on the exploration piece.
I've watched each subsequent program at NASA take longer and longer to reach fruition over the last 40 years. It's to the point that these days I have more faith in a program getting canceled than getting completed. It wears you down. Most of the blame can be laid on Congress.
Caveat that I am referring to manned programs. Unmanned has a better track record.
If they were developing a revolutionary, or at least new, propulsion system the drawn-out development time might be understandable, but they're not even using different engines from what they were launching several times a year for the previous several decades. In the case of the first SLS launches, not only are they using the same type of engine, they're using the exact same engines they've flown before.
What's worse is that they're re-using 1970's technology, yet the SLS will have very close to the same performance as the old Soviet Energia, which used higher performance engines than what NASA is even contemplating as an eventual SLS upgrade. NASA could've just bought an Energia and shaved 18 years of their development schedule.
What's worse is that they're re-using 1970's technology, yet the SLS will have very close to the same performance as the old Soviet Energia, which used higher performance engines than what NASA is even contemplating as an eventual SLS upgrade. NASA could've just bought an Energia and shaved 18 years of their development schedule.
NASA could have bought the Energia engines, but that would have defeated its primary purpose: to be a jobs program.
The gov't of China has a lot of company in not taking care of its entire population.
And of course, Orion will be somewhat international as ESA will be providing the service mdoule.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/orion_feature_011613.html
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/orion_feature_011613.html
Some of that ^ is rather funny.
The old record is something like 240,000 miles, and should we really be counting flights that don't have people on board?
Strangely enough, the two uncrewed Orion test missions will still have the large and heavy launch abort system installed, even though there's no point in it, while the Shuttle flew with live crews and no real abort system.
The old record is something like 240,000 miles, and should we really be counting flights that don't have people on board?
Strangely enough, the two uncrewed Orion test missions will still have the large and heavy launch abort system installed, even though there's no point in it, while the Shuttle flew with live crews and no real abort system.
The Moon is an energy resource, the nation that dominates it and mines and colonizes the planets will be the nation that leads this next century.
The Euros have no manned ability but at least they are not stupid enough to refuse business with China. People in politics like Frank Wolf put a block on China banning anyone near NASA from ever doing business with the Chinese.
China getting banned from NASA has probably made them stronger as they had to independently create systems, copy systems for their own independent program.
Where next?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBJJBGyJvP4[/yt]
[ yt ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBJJBGyJvP4[ /yt ]
The electronics in your car has components made in China, the computer you type on was made in China when your family goes to the hospital that machine the doctor uses was made in China. The manufacturing and engineering industries are dying, the USA is currently made in China
Everyone has been cutting NASA not just Obama
I'm sick of the bashing, I've been hearing the whole NASA needs to bum a lift from the Russian space taxi service , I've been hearing it since February 2003 and 11 years later its still terrible to hear and even today I still don't believe the private sector hype, first look at what they have yet do achieve competing with the big boys like Delta, Atlas, the C Titans, the Saturn V some of these systems have put 300 launches into space with over 98% success.
The private sector won't get a number so big I personally think Elon Musk and Richard Branson and many of the private sector are not in the business of colonization or exploration they are in the business of business. Musk, Branson and the others are thinking of doing a high class U.P.S worker service or high paid pizzadelivery service to a space station. Yes they will launch to the space station but will they build a space station? No way, it takes GDP and a nation like the United States or China or others to build that!!
If the private sector does decide to go to the Moon or Mars and that's a big if, I don't believe they can survive the loss of a man. China and the United States could see people die, and they will bounce back and still be able to colonize that's what nations do but the private sector would not survive the loss of people, the companies would go bankrupt.
I'm not always the biggest fan of Zubrin but I agree with the spirit of what the says, Mars and the Moon and other cosmic bodies will be the New World and some time in the future they will have domes and space villages and maybe mining/scientific towns in space who benefits from the research, what language will the colonists speak? How will they trade? What values and traditions will they cherish, as things are going they may be Chinese. Kids today have no pride in the great things of America, Project Gemini, JFK, Apollo is just another boring chapter in the history book for todays students, just about the same meaning as Rome sacked by Alaric, the battle of Waterloo, French Haitian colonies, the Boston Tea Party, Calgary riots, Jim Crow laws, Mexico-American War or the unification of Italy or any other historical event ever was. The United States was known for this great adventurous, inventive, exploring spirit, Kennedy knew the glory in beating the Russians to the Moon but since then everyone has cut down NASA and cut into US spaceflight.
This constant cutting by both Democrat and Republican represents a radical departure from the pioneer spirit, it puts in danger any possibility of a constant human future in space for one nation and it is inexcusable and it needs to be reversed yet every decade the Republicans and Democrats cut and cut. Only good news is that somehow, by almost some miracle, NASA science, NASA cosmology and tiny robotic planetary missions goes on against all odds, for the time being even though Mars and Saturn and the planets get cut unmanned space science manages to survive. Manned flights died and scopes like Hubble survives and Robots survive I just hope that the space telescope and robotics parts of NASA will not go the same way so hopefully not. Maybe the future of NASA is Japanese/Taiwanese style mecha cars and robots popping out of highly sophisticated factories but as for manned flight it is near dead. There is no long term vision, Musk and Branson will make money delivering of cookies, beer and noddles to rich American tourists on vacation at the Chinese space stations.
Obviously space stations are a great idea if you don't look at the vast expense and little return unless the investors charge tourists a fortune to go there. I'm sure there are some rich tourists who would fork out for the experience but they'd only do it once and there's no guarantee enough people would go to make it a worthwhile investment. I don't see finance companies going for it.
I don't either, which is why spaceflight should not be left up to the caprices of market forces--it is something you support with Gov't for its own sake, the market be damned.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11541781
Dream Chaser is also reaching out to ESA these days
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/dream-chasers-european-deal-opens-ambitions/
Marshall was going to test the RD-0120s but the Russians got cold feet. Now the new F-1s to go on the Pyrios LFB will be channel wall, just like the hydrogen burning RD-0120. So it isn't a "jobs program" it's progress.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1
Dynetics also works on Stratolaunch so they know their business. Last I heard, it and Space X were jobs programs too--in that they have jobs where there wasn't that many before. That's a good thing:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...39448138.35801.161692063946619&type=1&theater
No stagnation there I assure you.
SLS momentum is growing
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=48460
http://www.beyondearth.com/space-systems/space-launch-system
Since Space X wil all but kill Delta IV, Boeing is now forced to support shuttle-derived HLLVs they tied to kill, pushing Depots and multiple EELV launches, even though their own guy Josh Hopkins who did ULA's work on the DTAL lander, wrote his piece against depots for Space Review (Doubts About Depots)
So now Boeing can quit bashing HLVs and come clean with EELVs going extinct thanks to Musk--I hope
Frankly, if you want to bash something, go after Alabama's Littoral Combat Ship that is rusting away:
http://blog.al.com/live/2011/06/report_austal-built_lcs_suffer.html
It would actually be cheaper to build a simple tube like Sea Dragon than the LCS. I can see that following SLS, especially with ThyssenKrupp Steel also near Mobile.
Not even Richard Shelby is going to save that thing--but Sea Dragon would garner the same political support SLS has, in that it will be supported by folks in the NASA South across the political spectrum--and having SLS launch a Mars ship with raw tankage and fuel supplied by Sea Dragon is the ticket to a real push Beyond Earth orbit.
As for Golden Spike--that minimalist approach give you no surface infrastruscture, unlike the old Boeing LESA approach:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/the-proper-course-for-lunar-exploration-1965/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/lunar-campsite-1991-2/
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lesrbase.htm
THAT'S how you go to the Moon--infrastructure. And you pay for it by having America not be a slave to DoD.
So I would support a box that allows tax payers to divert whatever part of their taxes that go to the military go to NASA instead.
Even now, NASA is in better shape than the New Space harpies would have you believe
http://www.universetoday.com/107898/is-nasa-dead-not-even-close/
http://www.space.com/24068-destination-moon-petition-congress.html
The Rand Simberg "Safe Is Not An Option" nonsense is just that--I'll take Old Space expertise to New Space recklessness any day of the week--and so should you.
Last edited:
Rand is old space expertise. He was an aerospace engineer for North American Rockwell. What his "Safe is Not an Option" is about is how NASA did well when it was risking lives, and not so well when it lets costs explode and schedules slip by adding more and more and more layers of safety. Wayne Hale, former NASA flight director, has made a similar point. Space development has to change, because having a thousand inspectors for every passenger just isn't sustainable.
The better model is to lease the space station's services to countries, agencies, universities and corporations that want to conduct experiments in an orbiting space platform but don't want to have to buy and launch their own space station.
IOW "This orbiting laboratory can be yours, if the price is right!"
They are doing that right now, and there are ride along programs.
A lot of activity is planned
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/praise-maf-transition-ahead-sls-production/
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Space_Launch_System_Could_Make_Outside_the_Box_Science_Missions_Possible_999.html
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/
http://www.zerognews.com/2014/01/15...ormational-missions-scientists-say/#more-2945
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=48460
http://www.space-travel.com/reports...reparations_For_RS_25_Engine_Testing_999.html
http://www.beyondearth.com/spotlight
Nuclear Mars mission via HLLV
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/nasas-mars-design-reference-mission-goes-nuclear-2001/
You need high volume to have good NERVA rockets--I prefer NTR to NEP, and Juno is as far out as Solar power can go.
Now, even according to this anti-SLS piece here: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2432/1
"the cost for the SLS is $21.7 million per metric ton and $8,831 per pound, close to the estimated cost of a Delta IV Heavy launch"
So it makes more sense to support SLS, and kill off EELVs, which have neither the high volume and awesome lift of SLS, not the savings of Falcon--even going by the SLS bashers.
Dwayne Day, responded to Strickland's other attacks on SLS by saying this:
"So to summarize: all the rocket engineers who are building the rocket are wrong and should instead build a fully reusable rocket (which has not been done before) that is recommended here based upon a bunch of assumptions that have been conjured out of thin air."
Some interesting concepts
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/fast-electric-space-sail-uranus-entry.html
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=29805
http://www.space.com/24306-interstellar-flight-black-hole-power.html
And back to China's advances
http://www.space-travel.com/reports...a_tests_new_hypersonic_glide_vehicle_999.html
A lot of activity is planned
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/praise-maf-transition-ahead-sls-production/
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Space_Launch_System_Could_Make_Outside_the_Box_Science_Missions_Possible_999.html
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/
http://www.zerognews.com/2014/01/15...ormational-missions-scientists-say/#more-2945
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=48460
http://www.space-travel.com/reports...reparations_For_RS_25_Engine_Testing_999.html
http://www.beyondearth.com/spotlight
Nuclear Mars mission via HLLV
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/nasas-mars-design-reference-mission-goes-nuclear-2001/
You need high volume to have good NERVA rockets--I prefer NTR to NEP, and Juno is as far out as Solar power can go.
Now, even according to this anti-SLS piece here: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2432/1
"the cost for the SLS is $21.7 million per metric ton and $8,831 per pound, close to the estimated cost of a Delta IV Heavy launch"
So it makes more sense to support SLS, and kill off EELVs, which have neither the high volume and awesome lift of SLS, not the savings of Falcon--even going by the SLS bashers.
Dwayne Day, responded to Strickland's other attacks on SLS by saying this:
"So to summarize: all the rocket engineers who are building the rocket are wrong and should instead build a fully reusable rocket (which has not been done before) that is recommended here based upon a bunch of assumptions that have been conjured out of thin air."
Some interesting concepts
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/fast-electric-space-sail-uranus-entry.html
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=29805
http://www.space.com/24306-interstellar-flight-black-hole-power.html
And back to China's advances
http://www.space-travel.com/reports...a_tests_new_hypersonic_glide_vehicle_999.html
Once again kind of amazed by your ability to take any random comment and use it as a hook to spam hyperlinks to aerospace magazine articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with that comment.
No it doesn't. For the very simple reason that EELVs actually exist and the SLS does not. It will not make any sense to kill off the EELVs or the Falcon series until and unless the SLS has demonstrated the flight rate, the safety and reliability to take up the EELVs workload. If that happens AT ALL, it won't be the SLS' first flight.
Which is a strawman. SLS was designed by congress critters, not engineers.
Actually, there are people trying to achieve racial equality, sexual equality, monetary and economic equality, eliminating prejudice against GLBT people, making poverty history, ending corporate excess, ending religious extremism, and fixing the environment. Those accomplishments, in addition to getting into space, are what our great grandkids will be talking about (the former sadly more so than the latter.)
Agreed on this; also, we will need the Helium 3 for use in creating fusion energy and powering fusion reactors.
The U.S. government fears that the Chinese steal what they can't invent, as happened with the notorious Larry Wu-Tai Chin spy case and with what happened in the unfortunate incident involving a Chinese -American scientist who was falsely accused of spying for he PRC while working at Los Alamos.
Or in Taiwan.
What's with the Obama bashing from people? He just gave you all a health care plan free from the influence of Big Insurance, for frack's sakes!
This is why we as science-fiction fans have to use our voices and get really loud about our being in space all across North America and the world.
Who wants Big Business bankrolling space? Not me, that's for sure; I want nothing like Weyland-Yutani taking over all of space travel, or some similar company.
Maybe if you Yanks didn't elect people like Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr., you would been in space by now on the moon and with space stations of your own. Instead, you wasted your economic and human capital in senseless wars and small conflicts trying to be the world's policeman; that's why you're facing a future with China possibly dominating space.
It ends and starts with you, and who you elect, as I said, and what wars your country fights as well. Plus, there are Earthly issues to attend to.
Only if you make your school systems better, and you empathize science and technology training again, will this future not happen (but you also have to devote time and money to fixing Earthly problems as well), because many people-black and white-still see space flight and space exploration in these terms:
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY[/yt]
Last edited:
Earlier this week it was claimed that Clinton was banging Elizabeth Hurley while Hillary was in the next room. That's obviously a British attempt to subvert the US President, or something, perhaps an attempt to give Bill some kind of disease that Hugh Grant picked up from a transvestite hooker in LA. The national security concerns are unfathomable, but it at least says that sleazy American politicians have better taste in women than esteemed British actors, who entirely missed the mark.
What the frack ever happened to the dream of a manned reusable spacecraft that could lift off from an airport (civilian or millitary) like the National Aerospace Plane or the British one(s) like MUSTARD and Skylon (at least the British one is going ahead)?
Similar threads
