You are not logged in.
Representative Lampson wrote this in USA Today calling for revival of the X-38 program.
I recall reading an opinion that the cost to cancel and wind up the X-38 (administrative costs and the like) very nearly equalled the cost remaining to deliver the first completed unit. True? Anyone know the real story behind the cancellation of the X-38?
Question. Could a steroid enhanced X-38 be used to land folks on Mars? Or serve as the orbiter piece of a simple Mars shuttle program? Other plans to land people on Mars cheaply using off the shelf equipment (one way at least) is to use Soyuz descent capsules attached to a cycling Earth-Mars transit vehicle.
Offline
Could a steroid enhanced X-38 be used to land folks on Mars? Or serve as the orbiter piece of a simple Mars shuttle program? Other plans to land people on Mars cheaply using off the shelf equipment (one way at least) is to use Soyuz descent capsules attached to a cycling Earth-Mars transit vehicle.
X-38 is not appropriate to land folks on Mars. The atmosphere is far too thin for the lifting body to effectively fly, or to provide lift to the parafoil. Alterning X-38 for Mars would practically be a complete redesign.
However, a manned Mars mission will require some means to return astronauts to Earth. X-38 could replace the Earth re-entry capsule.
Soyuz may require modification for Mars for the same reasons, but the descent module should be easier to modify as a Mars lander. I believe Robert Zubrin wrote an article about Mars Direct for one person.
Offline
well, the x-38 is a human only ship, right?
Maybe the NASA guys should have two different vechiles. . .a heavy lift rocket devoted soley to large space equipment and a smaller, more efficent vehicle devoted ONLY to getting astronauts up and down. . . . .The space shuttle can't move all that much payload, and the extra mass makes moving people up and down much more expensive than a smaller vehicle like the x-38. . . .thoughts?
"I am the spritual son of Abraham, I fear no man and no man controls my destiny"
Offline
That's exactly what NASA is trying to do with the OSP. ???
Offline
well, the x-38 is a human only ship, right?
Maybe the NASA guys should have two different vechiles. . .a heavy lift rocket devoted soley to large space equipment and a smaller, more efficent vehicle devoted ONLY to getting astronauts up and down. . . . .The space shuttle can't move all that much payload, and the extra mass makes moving people up and down much more expensive than a smaller vehicle like the x-38. . . .thoughts?
The OSP is designed as an entry vehicle and life support for the astronauts. It is not a launch vehicle. It will have to be launched on top of an expendable rocket. Furthermore, the artist's conceptions published so far are of the HL-20 sitting on a Delta IV Large. The Delta IV Large is the heaviest lift rocket NASA has other than the Shuttle. It is new, I don't think the Large variant has been launched yet, but much less expensive than the Shuttle.
The US has developed a line of new, expandable launch vehicles called EELV. They are the Atlas V and Delta IV.
My only complaint is that an OSP should be sized for 4 astronauts. X-38 was sized for 7 and HL-20 was sized for 10. X-38 would require a separate de-orbit module, the HL-20 had de-orbit capability on-board. X-38 had a X-24A body shape which has good control at hypersonic or supersonic speed, but control problems at low speed such as landing so it used parafoil for landing. HL-20 had a BOR-4 body shape which provides sufficient control at low speed for a wheeled landing, but HL-20 is heavier for the same payload.
I would like to see an OSP (either X-38 or HL-20 based) reduced to carry just 4 astronauts and at most one piece of carry-on luggage per astronaut for personal items. I would like to see it sized for an EELV with a single common core module, either Altas V 401 or Delta IV Medium. That may require a slightly larger upper stage than the standard "401" or "Medium" configuration, such as replacing the Delta 4-2 upper stage with the larger Delta 4H-2. A custom upper stage is a lot easier and cheaper to design than the common core module; replacing the upper stage with an off-the-shelf slightly larger version (like Delta 4H-2) is even cheaper.
Offline
I got a chance to chat with Dr. Robert Zubrin on Sunday. He mentioned that the contractors for the OSP are "taxiing up" the price. Dr. Zubrin said the current asking price is $17 billion for development! He also pointed out that the current Space Shuttle only cost $10 billion including the first three orbiters. I feel the orbiter design was the one with the cheapest development cost possible; the leading design in NASA press to the public before the final selection was a Two-Stage-To-Orbit (TSTO) design that would have had no drop tank or solid rocket boosters. The leading designs for second generation shuttles are TSTO very similar to shuttle proposed designs. The leading cause for replacing the shuttle before the Columbia accident was operational cost; the TSTO would have had the required low operational cost. If we spent enough to do it right the first time we wouldn't have to replace shuttle today. I feel the OSP should be designed well to be a sound design with a low operational cost. If that means spending a little more now to do it right, then we should spend it. If it takes $1.7 billion to design a robust vehicle that can use a $77 million per launch booster instead of a $170 million booster, then we should spend that. However, the contractors are asking for $17 billion?!?!?! Are they nuts!? This is an OSP, a tiny spacecraft that can only carry astronauts, no cargo. Their asking price is ten times what its worth. I think Robert Zubrin is right, the contractors are going to demand so much that the entire OSP program will get scrapped.
Offline
This is an OSP, a tiny spacecraft that can only carry astronauts, no cargo.
*Oh, that's great. "Honey, let's take a cruise around the world...but we can't take any luggage or foodstuffs with us; there's only room for our bodies, that's it."
And they're pricing it 10 times what it's worth? I wonder if greed alone will keep us grounded. That, and incompetence...
Sometimes I think it's just #*)^#!($ amazing that humans get -anything- done, considering the greed, the egos, the old "pass the buck" mentality.
Sorry, didn't mean to get off on a tangent.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
$17 BILLION !!!!!
For God's sake! Dr. Zubrin has calculated we could begin colonising Mars for about twice that amount!!!
You're not going off at a tangent at all, Cindy. You've hit the nail right on the head.
These nest-feathering bas**rds need to be told what to do with their cost estimates!
:angry:
The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down. - Rita Rudner
Offline
These nest-feathering bas**rds need to be told what to do with their cost estimates!
:angry:
*Really! Well, so much for the argument of "the lure of fame" will make them more cooperative/less greedy/fill-in-blank...the "lure of fame" will be the dangling carrot which urges them to get a crew to Mars ala reasonable price. Apparently that isn't so.
Most of these bureaucrats don't care about space exploration, colonization, etc...they just want to push the paperwork around to make it look like they're doing something and cash that big fat paycheck every 2 weeks.
To hell with those hypocrites!
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
How much should the OSP cost?
10 billion for 3 orbiters... in what, 1970's dollars? How much is that now?
Offline
Can't say I'm surprised at the inflated price tags. I've just accepted the cold fact that the government really seems to have no interest in keeping things cheap. If it did it would learn to put its foot down and say enough it enough. But of course all these bureacrats and big contractors are in bed with each other. I'm still wondering where that trillion bucks the pentagon lost is. Have they looked under the sofa cushions? Ah the joys of spending other peoples' money.
My people don't call themselves Sioux or Dakota. We call ourselves Ikce Wicasa, the natural humans, the free, wild, common people. I am pleased to call myself that. -Lame Deer
Offline
.
Ah the joys of spending other peoples' money
Was the 10 Billion for STS in 1975 Dollars? That would probably equate to 30-40 Billion today, inflation corrected. I used the price of Cars as an example. But it was also most likel be a much more capable craft. I think we are stuck with the Military-Industrial Complex with this one. So, Unless the Air Force gets involved,(granted I have a slight bias) it's going to be interesting to see what happens. It has been specifically stated multiple times that After Procurement of the F-22 and F-35 there will be no more figther procurement. They have started replacement Lease of the KC-135s. B-52s and C-130s can probably fly forever given properly intervalled Phase DOC Maintenance. So, The Air Force is going to be having some cash to drop somewhere. They have stated multiple times that they are transitioning from an Air Force with a Space Capability to a Space Force with an Air Capability. So. it will be interesting.
Sorry, went on a Rant.
We are only limited by our Will and our Imagination.
Offline
The miltary really doesn't care how cheap it is as long as it works well. And when people start to cost-cut the miltary, you might anger a whole other set of people.
"I am the spritual son of Abraham, I fear no man and no man controls my destiny"
Offline
Hi Seth!
I'm not sure I understand what's meant by no further procurements after the F-22 and F-35.
Do they mean ever?
???
The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down. - Rita Rudner
Offline
According to a NOVA espisode on the Joint Strike Fighter competition, the F-35 and F-22 are the last manned fighter jets the U.S. military wants to produce. Apparently the military believes the future belongs to stealthier and more manueverable unmanned planes.
My people don't call themselves Sioux or Dakota. We call ourselves Ikce Wicasa, the natural humans, the free, wild, common people. I am pleased to call myself that. -Lame Deer
Offline
Thanks, Free Spirit! I guess that's what Seth was referring to.
It makes sense when you consider that the active life of a new type of fighter is probably 10 years or more (?) and, by that time no doubt, computer-controlled unmanned aircraft will be extremely capable; perhaps even more capable than today's piloted ones.
One reservation I have about pilotless war planes is the danger that they'll lower the threshold for war. In other words, with no chance of losing American personnel in aerial warfare, is the U.S. likely to launch attacks more readily, rather than exploring diplomatic solutions?
Just a thought.
???
The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down. - Rita Rudner
Offline
One reservation I have about pilotless war planes is the danger that they'll lower the threshold for war. In other words, with no chance of losing American personnel in aerial warfare, is the U.S. likely to launch attacks more readily, rather than exploring diplomatic solutions?
Just a thought.
I worry about the same thing. One thing I've learned from history is that political elites and fanatics with strong agendas have no qualms with imposing their enlightened visions on people regardless of how many people they have to slaughter. The idea of people like this having whole arsenals of automated 'intelligent' weapons at their disposal doesn't sit well with me either. And yes I know that early versions of weapons like unmanned fighters will still require a human command to fire but I doubt that will always be the case.
My people don't call themselves Sioux or Dakota. We call ourselves Ikce Wicasa, the natural humans, the free, wild, common people. I am pleased to call myself that. -Lame Deer
Offline
Of course, there will still be the deterent of potential "collateral damage"
"What you don't realize about peace, is that is cannot be achieved by yielding to an enemy. Rather, peace is something that must be fought for, and if it is necessary for a war to be fought to preserve the peace, then I would more than willingly give my life for the cause of peace."
Offline
The future of the airforce is spelled out in the Airforce: 2025 report. They have implemented 9 out of the 11 proposals made by the space commission (Rumsfeld chaired prior to becoming Defense Chair)
Offline
The should be no more manned fighter planes period.. ever.. UAVs and or space planes will take over. Plus expect life spans of 50 years for airframes. That my guess. just like the 'Buff' (B-52)
We are only limited by our Will and our Imagination.
Offline
I would also expect some sort of hypersonic or space plane in the next 25 years. Something beyond the supposed Aurora. Something to make ICBMs obsolete. Attack anywhere in the world in 1-2 hours with recall ability.
We are only limited by our Will and our Imagination.
Offline
Looks like there is a go for OSP!!! looks X-38 ish. Rush on production to augment or replace shuttle for Space Station!
We are only limited by our Will and our Imagination.
Offline
The should be no more manned fighter planes period.. ever.. UAVs and or space planes will take over.
Yay ! Videogame wars! Just what we need to make people more responsible for their actions. Oh joy!
Looks like there is a go for OSP!!! looks X-38 ish. Rush on production to augment or replace shuttle for Space Station!
Well, that is good news... Could you give us your source?
Offline
Looks like there is a go for OSP!!! looks X-38 ish. Rush on production to augment or replace shuttle for Space Station!
Well, that is good news... Could you give us your source?
I would also like to hear your source. The only information I can find is the NASA OSP factsheet and Artist concepts. These show 4 competing designs. The artist concepts show the 4 designs either together or surrounding the ISS. The image with the 4 planes together shows the lifting body looking like X-38, but the one surrounding the ISS shows the lifting body looking like HL-20. The animations show the HL-20 style design. The animations show each design launching on both an Atlas V 521 and Delta IV Large. These rockets have quite different lift capacities; the Atlas V 521 can lift 13,950kg to 185kg orbit @ 28.5? inclination while the Delta IV Large can lift 25,800kg to the same orbit. That tells me the design specifications are far from complete.
Do you have something more definative?
Offline