You are not logged in.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/gr … 731963.jpg
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/gr … 208966.jpg
Its all nice. but it isnt whats needed.
Offline
Like button can go here
Oh no, its as close to ideal as we can hope for I think. Large >100MT mass / >7m diameter payload capacity means that we can deliver 20MT+ class payloads to the Moon to build a base with, launch large Mars ships in one piece, and the capsule + SRB is the safest practical combination for crew vehicle. Ultra-reliable SRB + SSME launch vehicle shouldn't cost more then EELV, and the capsule with the TEI engine can abort back to Earth at any time during the mission. Following the TEI burn and reentry allignment, the capsule's natural aerodynamic tendencies mean you wouldn't even need power to land alive possibly.
Edit: It looks like Shuttle-C will put the Lunar payload below 20MT... I don't like that. Not one little bit... Plus DRM-sized Mars ships won't fit on it either.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
The capsule depicted in the SpaceRef piece appears not unlike the t/Space capsule (or vice versa).
Properly designed and balanced, it should right itself for care free re-entry (Rutan's term) regardless of its orientation when first reaching the atmosphere.
Transpirational cooling perhaps?
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Space.com reports shuttle derived is a "done deal"
http://www.space.com/news/050810_dod_la … l]Pentagon & NASA agree
The two-page letter says “NASA will initiate development of a Crew Launch Vehicle derived from Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters with a new upper-stage for human spaceflight missions in the 25-30 metric-ton-class following retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010. NASA then plans to develop a new 100 metric-ton-class launch vehicle derived from existing capabilities with the Space Shuttle external tanks and solid rocket boosters for future missions to the Moon.”
The letter also says NASA and the Pentagon will use the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets developed under the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program “for all intermediate and larger payloads for national security, civil, science, and International Space Station cargo re-supply missions in the 5-20 metric-ton-class to the maximum extent possible.”
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Okay Griffin, the situation is as good as its ever going to be. Make it happen.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Okay Griffin, the situation is as good as its ever going to be. Make it happen.
Thus far, not too shabby a performance for Jedi-Mike. Presidential support. Solid bi-partisan support in Congress. Got the Pentagon on board. (No Delta II will cut into lower price science missions, but so what? in the big picture.)
AND!
Mike Griffin goes on "Meet the Press" and tells Russert that it's human destiny to settle space and he wants Americans to be part of that.
Thus far? It's pretty much all good.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Ehhh almost... Griffin is still a bit weak in two areas:
-Does he have the force of will, if the cards were down and that there is no other option, to decide and defend said decision to lay off large numbers of unessesarry NASA personel if he had to in order to make ends meet. Does he have the force of will to stand before congressional science committees or aerospace corporation sales staff and tell them "no."
-Has he taken the only viable position for exploration that the International Space Station is a lost cause, and only the minimum political face-saving construction and operations should be carried out there. Furthermore, absolutely no future Moon/Mars hardware must be a concession design on the account of futily trying to make the ISS useful.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Ehhh almost... Griffin is still a bit weak in two areas:
-Does he have the force of will, if the cards were down and that there is no other option, to decide and defend said decision to lay off large numbers of unessesarry NASA personel if he had to in order to make ends meet. Does he have the force of will to stand before congressional science committees or aerospace corporation sales staff and tell them "no."
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/ … _un.html]A hopeful example?
-Has he taken the only viable position for exploration that the International Space Station is a lost cause, and only the minimum political face-saving construction and operations should be carried out there. Furthermore, absolutely no future Moon/Mars hardware must be a concession design on the account of futily trying to make the ISS useful.
Shifting ISS crew & cargo transfer to t/Space (after they perform without NASA development money) seems to answer this.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Griffin has made some noises about the first, but he seems to be going to alot of trouble to retain engineers. Maybe he has less problem with eliminating university researchers and contractors, but what about long-time shuttle/iss engineers?
"Shifting ISS crew & cargo transfer to t/Space (after they perform without NASA development money) seems to answer this."
Ah, but read the news about the USAF signing off on Griffin's plan for VSE? I bet that said endorsement didn't come for free... it sounds like NASA will be buying EELVs to launch ISS cargo to "make up for it" with the air force. I don't think that Griffin is planning on AltSpace coming through.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Delta II is the sacrifice.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/421/1
http://www.xprizenews.org/index.php?p=1059
Offline
Like button can go here
Alt.space firms actually have a good shot at ISS resupply in the 2010 time period, as long as they can back up their rhetoric with hardware. NASA will be willing to give them a chance.
At the same time, it's not clear what's going to replace the Delta II. The rocket has launched a variety of space probes, plus Air Force GPS sats. Boeing isn't likely to pursue the Delta IV Small, but Falcon V could be a viable replacement.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Like button can go here
Falcon V already looked to be a Delta II killer anyway--so it is good timing.
Falcon I will have to contend with UR-100 Eurokot and the Kosmos launchers.
Falcon V's biggest competitor will be the SS-9(Scarp)/SS-18 (Satan/Voevoda)-based Tsiklon/Dnepr vehicles of the R-36 and R-36M class respectively.
GSLV is to upgrade to a massive 200 ton solid first stage. It approach R-7 class with this mod.
Offline
Like button can go here
