williamthegreat Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 What's your opinion of NASA outsourcing spaceflight production to other companies? I personally think it's a good move - either that or lose out altogether and forget about it, plus it means it could get more competitive and more and more spaceflights taken (safety would have to be a supreme factor obviously)
jackson33 Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 william; Personally, I don't understand why the current shuttle program needs to be ended, certainly not why a few launce's couldn't take place for a few more years, manning the space station. However, it seems to me, NASA's priority has been shifted from a Moon/Mars directive to 'Global Warming' or study of earths environment, leaving any replacement for the Shuttle too expensive to simply, supply that station. However, the 50M$, for research and development to private industry for the purpose of getting people and/or material to the station, then split between at least five Companies is meaningless, some kind of token ploy. That would likely be spent, drawing up plans, feasibility studies and there would be little incentive to continue. NASA itself, is not going anyplace, the controlling powers (Government) now in control will not be the same in 2011, likely major changes on 2012 or at some future time. Many of their future plans are still on track and other research projects will continue. You also have to consider, the actual time frame, where mankind itself, would have a need or purpose to actually go beyond the moon. Most anything they could do or have done in 2040 (planned first Mars trip), could be done robotically probably much sooner, with out considering what's already being done there, even today.
Hawkin'sDawkins Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 I think it is brilliant that NASA is outsourcing it's taxi work. The whole industry can now be energised by market forces - it's amazing how fast progress goes when there's money to be made. However, I think it is nothing short of tragic that the moon/mars plans have been dropped. Most anything they could do or have done in 2040 (planned first Mars trip), could be done robotically probably much sooner It could be done robotically, but what would be the point? Who actually benefits from sending robots to other planets. It still costs billions and all you get is a little bit of data that the most intelligent academics in the world consider to be quite interesting. Thats not good value. IMAO, the only reason to invest in spaceflight is to get the human race off this planet. As long as we're all stuck here, we're doomed. A super-volcano, a comet impact, a plague, or just constant wars over how to distribute our diminishing resources between our ballooning population. So yes, outsource the LEO taxi runs, let spacex or somebody supply the ISS, and free up NASA (and ESA and JAXA etc) to colonise the solar system.
D H Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 william; Personally, I don't understand why the current shuttle program needs to be ended, certainly not why a few launce's couldn't take place for a few more years, manning the space station. That was a decision made quite a few years ago as a result of the Columbia disaster and to make room for the (now to be canceled) Constellation project. Before NASA went too far down the road, it checked with the President and Congress multiple times, essentially telling them that "At some point soon the decision to cancel the Shuttle will be irrevocable. Are you sure you want us to proceed?" Logistics pipelines were shut down, contracts were canceled, and people with critical skills retired or moved elsewhere. By the time Obama became President there essentially was no going back. Reversing that decision would have required a *huge* increase in NASA's budget. However, it seems to me, NASA's priority has been shifted from a Moon/Mars directive to 'Global Warming' or study of earths environment, leaving any replacement for the Shuttle too expensive to simply, supply that station. NASA's Earth science is increasing by a total of $1.8 billion for the next four years compared to the plans in the FY2010 budget. Not all of that is for studying global warming, and that 1.8 billion is a smallish part of NASA's total budget for those four years. Most of the money will go to NASA's exploration budget -- human spaceflight and robotic precursors. Another big chunk ($6.1 billion over five years) will go to supporting private development. However, the 50M$, for research and development to private industry for the purpose of getting people and/or material to the station, then split between at least five Companies is meaningless, some kind of token ploy. That would likely be spent, drawing up plans, feasibility studies and there would be little incentive to continue. You are talking about the $50 million in Space Act agreements granted immediately upon the announcement of the FY2011 budget. That is but a small part of this change in direction. The budget for FY2011-15 includes $6.1 billion for Commercial Crew & Cargo development. That is far from a token amount of money. NASA is not abandoning human spaceflight, much to the chagrin of those (mostly silly scientists) who wish it would do so.
jackson33 Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 That was a decision made quite a few years ago as a result of the Columbia disaster and to make room for the (now to be canceled) Constellation project. Before NASA went too far down the road, it checked with the President and Congress multiple times, essentially telling them that "At some point soon the decision to cancel the Shuttle will be irrevocable. Are you sure you want us to proceed?" Logistics pipelines were shut down, contracts were canceled. People with critical skills retired or moved elsewhere. By the time Obama became President there was no going back.[/Quote] DH; "Irrevocable", I'm not convinced. The pipe line can be re-established and the critical skilled rehired or equivalently skilled. I doubt the cost would be that great for either. I assume two shuttles are still airworthy, one usually on standby when another in space, possibly another one or two and have been updated over the years. Yes, preferably, I'd like to see the US have a viable manned craft that could be sent into low orbit, for 100 reasons, especially to supply and man the 100B$+ Space Lab...think each launch cost about 450M$ or so. That is but a small part of this change in direction. The budget for FY2011-15 includes $6.1 billion for Commercial Crew & Cargo development. That is far from a token amount of money. [/Quote] If I'm not mistaken, it was about a 6-7B$ cut in the 2011 requested NASA budget, which shut down the Moon/Mars project. I'm not sure any private business, is going to get enough investment outside the Government, for delivering supplies or people anyplace in space in the near future, my concern. Anyway, a little over ONE billion per year, is not going to get much done, IMO. NASA is not abandoning human space flight, much to the chagrin of those (mostly silly scientists) who wish it would do so.[/Quote] I totally agree here, this Administration and Congress will not always be around, with their priorities and to be honest, I'm not sure Bush was all that concerned with science. I do favor robotics over manned missions, for the near future but I most certainly feel the US of all Nations, should have access to deep space for what could very well could be a problem in the future. If not 'Apophis', it will happen... I think it is brilliant that NASA is outsourcing it's taxi work. The whole industry can now be energized by market forces - it's amazing how fast progress goes when there's money to be made.[/Quote] Hawkins; I'm probably the biggest voice on this forum, FOR Capitalism, believe the system can do anything for any Country and also the loudest in opposing Government. However when it comes to something that IMO will cost billions/trillions-?-, to accomplish and ONE primary customer, I don't think it will be supported by the investor class. Then if Government is going to finance ALL the R&D, assume the building, testing and everything else, what was wrong with the original scenario/business plan. NASA, worked with the private sector to do the same things for them, from the Shuttle to most all other projects and it worked out just fine. That is there are NO market forces IMO. Short of the US or maybe four or five other Nations that might use the service in the FUTURE. Yes, Richard Branson believes there is a market for tourism into space, low orbit, and there may be a need to transport material over long distances on this planet, but when a few people return from that short trip sick, the demand will cease and the cost/racial in time saved for transport is not viable, IMO. IMAO, the only reason to invest in space flight is to get the human race off this planet. As long as we're all stuck here, we're doomed. A super-volcano, a comet impact, a plague, or just constant wars over how to distribute our diminishing resources between our ballooning population. So yes, outsource the LEO taxi runs, let spacex or somebody supply the ISS, and free up NASA (and ESA and JAXA etc) to colonise the solar system. [/Quote] Really, where would you like to start this; A comet impact can be avoided, part of my reason for seeing space operations in Government Hands. Super Volcano, yeah, Yellowstone could blow and probably will in time, but there are far better things that could be done to help mankind survive the after effects than trying to get 7 Billion people off the planet, which would take 1000 years under any science fiction novel, even teleporting (will never be achieved) and where would they go? Terraforming Mars, the Moon or anyplace else in the solar system, would be hundreds of years in the future, taking tens of thousands of years to accomplish. Even then, there is no reason to believe micro organisms (germ/virus) would evolve (you have to introduce plant life), benign to our human species. As for resources, we are continuously producing our own and will continue, food to what ever is necessary. However this is always an interesting subject to me, if you care to start a thread....
D H Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 DH; "Irrevocable", I'm not convinced. The pipe line can be re-established and the critical skilled rehired or equivalently skilled. I doubt the cost would be that great for either. Logistics pipelines cannot be reestablished. That cow got out of the barn long ago. Restarting it would require that new contracts be let and that the designs and processes be re-certified per flight critical hardware evaluation rules. The cost would differ little from the cost of building and designing a new vehicle. Even worse, how the heck are you going to rehire the critically skilled or find their equivalents? Those people are *gone*. Some were laid off, some retired, others went on to other jobs, other employers. Why would they go back to a job that is going to go away again in a few years? Several have already gone through a six month or longer unemployment; moving back would require them to go through the same thing again. Regarding replacing them -- why would a new hire take a job that will end with a layoff in just a few years (and good luck finding those new hires in the first place; young Americans are not pursuing aerospace engineering). Even worse, the Shuttle had a lot of silly requirements levied on it during its initial design. For example, the Shuttle has to be able to launch from Vandenberg, snatch a Russian satellite, and return to Vandenberg -- and do all of that in 90 minutes (one orbit). In that 90 minute interval, Vandenberg has rotated a 1200 miles eastward. This makes landing a bit of a problem. The Shuttle has a 1000 mile+ cross-range capability, never used, to support this requirement. This cross-range capability was a *big* design driver; it will not be a requirement on a new sensibly-designed commercial launch vehicle. I assume two shuttles are still airworthy, one usually on standby when another in space, possibly another one or two and have been updated over the years. The Shuttle launches with a non-reusable external tank. The external tank contract has been canceled. The number of tanks left on hand dictates the number of flights that can be made. Period. Wishing it were otherwise, or saying "make it so", won't make it so. If I'm not mistaken, it was about a 6-7B$ cut in the 2011 requested NASA budget, which shut down the Moon/Mars project. I'm not sure any private business, is going to get enough investment outside the Government, for delivering supplies or people anyplace in space in the near future, my concern. Anyway, a little over ONE billion per year, is not going to get much done, IMO. NASA is getting a budget increase, and a good sized one. http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html Start with the overview. I do favor robotics over manned missions, ... I favor human space flight. Then again, that is why I switched from working on unmanned vehicles to manned vehicles 24 years ago. That's a different topic, however.
williamthegreat Posted March 4, 2010 Author Posted March 4, 2010 People seem to forget all the amazing things NASA provide the human race -it's not all useless exploration, I wish people would understand that - the money is always well-spent IMO
Recommended Posts