Discussions

[1] 2 3 4 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Why NASA Needs a Better Plan .

• 
  eolufemi
  

  Posts:
  2

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/10/2010 02:24 AM

  consequences

  This is just one of those situations where actions in one arena of government have consequences in other arenas of government.
  
  NASA is now facing what other agencies have been facing for years.
  
  All the money in the budget is being dedicated to the military, medicaid/medicare, paying interest on our national debt, and social security.
  
  Discretionary spending will increasingly be short changed as long as those four spending priorities bust our budget.
  
  If anything this should prompt scientists and engineers to start paying attention to the politics taking place all around us.
  
  If we continue to remain aloof and disengaged, we're done for.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    Gaetano Marano
    

    Posts:
    233

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/28/2010 12:00 AM

    >>> Some Random Mistakes >>>

    --
    --
    Some Random Mistakes [ why the "new" NASA plan is WORSE than the old one ] http://bit.ly/b1IqJj
    --
    --

    Rate this comment:
• 
  Iggy Dalrymple
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/10/2010 06:18 AM

  NASA

  NASA is getting what it deserves.  Now that it's not distracted by space, it can better concentrate on climate fiction.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    lasertekk
    

    Posts:
    98

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/10/2010 10:33 AM

    Re: NASA

    If I could rate you lower than one star for your ridiculous statement, I would.  If you're looking to troll around, this isn't the site for you.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  kkattula
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/10/2010 07:16 AM

  Not exactly objective

  "From 2005-2008, he served as the Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation at NASA"
  
  So someone who somehow failed to notice Constellation falling behind schedule one year for every year it ran, even though that was his job, now thinks a change of plan is 'risky'?
  
  Right...

  Rate this comment:
• 
  Gaetano Marano
  

  Posts:
  233

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/10/2010 08:04 AM

  >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>

  .
  
  if the NASA chief seeks "new exploration ideas" he ONLY needs to read the articles on my website...
  
  http://www.gaetanomarano.it/
  
  and on my space blog...
  
  http://www.ghostnasa.com/
  
  like my concept of shuttle-derived HLV that, if adopted in 2006, could have SAVED the Constellation program...
  
  http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html
  
  however, here I've a FREE ADVICE for him...
  
  I've read that, so far, the (closed) Constellation program has "burned" over $9 billion and that, end all awarded contracts, needs a further $2,5 billion
  
  so, my suggestion is to give this money to the NASA contractors NOT (only) to end the awarded contracts, but (also) to do some extra R&D in (at least) one of the Constellation's fields (Orion, Ares-1, Ares-5, Altair, EDS, etc.) that, in my opinion, should be a new HLV
  
  without a new and bigger HLV nearly all better and bigger NASA projects will have NO FUTURE and the NASA itself could "die" as space agency
  
  personally, I think that, the promised NASA budget ($19 Bn to $21 Bn in the next five years) IF NOT "BURNED" (as done with the Ares-1 and the 5-segments SRB) could be MORE THAN ENOUGH to develop an HLV and start a "Constellation 2.0" program
  
  .

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    CoastalRon
    

    Posts:
    31

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/10/2010 06:36 PM

    Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>

    I used to think that an SDHLV looking something like what DIRECT proposed would be included in the NASA new direction.  I was surprised when it wasn't, but more from a standpoint that it was an obvious political jobs program, but not much value for the space program.
    
    Now that they have proposed to do away with any HLV, it looks like they are serious about doing a clean-sheet approach to their future HLV needs.  This has a number of cost advantages in the near-term, and with the availability of existing heavy-lift launchers (Atlas/Delta), we can still get a lot of big hardware into space.
    
    I have looked at your website, and I must say you are certainly a space enthusiast.  My observation would be is that some of your proposals tend to be pretty optimistic about what can be done budget-wise.  However, there's always hope!

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      Gaetano Marano
      

      Posts:
      233

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      02/11/2010 07:29 AM

      Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>

      .
      
      the new NASA budget allocates about $200M per year to "study" an HLV that (at current NASA "prices") could be enough to just "build" lots of PowerPoint slides... without (at least) ONE billion per year, an HLV will never born before 2020 (or LATER)
      
      .

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        Gaetano Marano
        

        Posts:
        233

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        02/11/2010 10:44 AM

        Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>

        ---
        about the "cheap" commercial space...
        ---
        Shuttle: launch cost $600M, payload 24 tons max (+7 astronauts) = $25M per ton to ISS
        ---
        Falcon/Dragon: COTS+CRS funds to SpaceX $2.1 Bn / 20 tons (and ZERO astronauts) = $105M per ton to the ISS
        ---
        so, the "cheap" Falcon/Dragon price-per-ton-to-ISS is OVER FOUR TIMES HIGHER than the "expensive" Shuttle!!!
        ---
        also, send seven astronauts with a Soyuz (instead of a Shuttle) will cost $51M per seat x 7 = $357M
        ---

        Rate this comment:
        • 
          Gblaze43
          

          Posts:
          7

          Avg Rating:
          

          

          Reply

          02/11/2010 01:34 PM

          Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>

          I'm not sure if that an accurate way of estimating real cost for launching a ton into orbit. The funds are for development, I believe, not to pay for the launch costs.

          Rate this comment:
          • 
            Gaetano Marano
            

            Posts:
            233

            Avg Rating:
            

            

            Reply

            02/11/2010 04:48 PM

            Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>

            --
            you're right, since, the real costs, are HIGHER
            --
            the $600M Shuttle launch “price” INCLUDES the annual fixed costs, while, the Falcon/Dragon “annual fixed costs” at KSC are “FREE” for SpaceX !!!
            –-
            that, since, NASA gives its know-how and assistance, the launch base and everything needed to launch the Falcon-9 from KSC, entirely FREE
            –-
            in other words, SpaceX will send 20 tons to the ISS for $2.1 billion ONLY thanks to these (very expensive) “services” given FREE since paid by the NASA budget/US taxpayers dollars!!!
            –-
            if we add the costs that SpaceX receives FREE from NASA (KSC, launch base, launch pad, assembly building, launch costs, NASA engineers and know-how, etc.) the price-per-ton-to-ISS could likely cost, not “only” $105M per ton, but $200-300M per ton or more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            –-
            so, the “cheap” SpaceX prices are mainly due to the money given away by NASanta Claus… :) :) :)
            --

            Rate this comment:
        • 
          jjs
          

          Posts:
          24

          Avg Rating:
          

          

          Reply

          02/13/2010 03:07 PM

          Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>

          Do you prefer apples or sliced turkey?
          
          Your comparison makes as much sense.  You're comparing the next-launch cost of shuttle launches with the fully-loaded cost of the 1st Falcon (i.e. including all R&D).  The two costs are NOT comparable.  You need to compare the next-launch cost of the shuttle with the next-launch cost of the Falcon.
          

          Rate this comment:

[1] 2 3 4 Next »