Community > Forum > Perception, Barriers & Regulation of Privatized Space Travel > Democrats for Space

Democrats for Space

Posted by: FerrisValyn - Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:04 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 23 posts ] 
Democrats for Space 
Author Message
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:29 pm
publiusr wrote:
no one will ever try to get rid of that Saturn class lift capability
They did it before and could (will?) do it again. Saturn was abandoned and the next generation of HLLV could be abandoned just as quickly, if it ever gets built that is. And I am talking about them succeeding in getting it cancelled. It is 100% absolutely definite that someone will try to get rid of it.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:29 pm
publiusr wrote:

NASA is not a monoblock. Griffin has been in NASA nine months, and you have written him off already. It's not crap and its not half hearted. It is a good plan and will work if people quit with all the whining.



Then SUPPORT Griffin and not the alt.space frauds--because I guarentee you they will NEVER colonize space.


I've written him off, not because he is bad or something - its because he is in an administration that doesn't support it. I think if Griffin had support from an administration that actually had vision and deep thinkers, there'd be no limit. But, with this administration, and frankly, this Congress, they won't let him do much of anything. He has the same chance of making an impact the way Colin Powell made an impact. Bushco is part of an industry complex that would slit its own throught, if it improved next quarters bottom line

publiusr wrote:
It's too important to be left to anyone else.


I'll say it again publiusr - this is gonna require both government, and private industry. We aren't gonna go into space as some sort of grand communistic society.


publiusr wrote:
That's part of the game--and you have to play it right. Look, HLLV has two things going for it. It has the mass to really support space colonization. It will launch true spaceSHIPs. Secondly, once HLLV is flying, it will have the institutional inertia STS enjoys--no one will ever try to get rid of that Saturn class lift capability--and the RLV market will be what is left to private industry. Let them have frequent acess to space, and NASA have BIG acess to space. There is room for everyone.


Well, campbelp2002 makes a good point about them canceling Saturn, and thus possibly cancelling the HLLV. But it gets even more fundemental than that - These kind of constant begging Nasa has been forced to do, and becoming a large piece of pork for various districts - that has really hurt the Agency. Its what led to the problems in the shuttle.

Its like someone said on Talk of the Nation science friday today - its not that Griffin is bad - he's a good man stuck in a bad situation. And Nasa is a good agency. The problem is its stuck between 2 idiot groups - The current Congress and Administration, and an industry complex in the form of Boeing and Lockmart.

And the other thing is, if you believe that about the RLVs, why then is it so important for Nasa to build the stick - why not set it up as a flyoff between the Stick, the Delta IV, the Atlas V, and the Falcon 9?


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
User avatar
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:39 pm
Posts: 25
Location: London, UK
Post    Posted on: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:30 pm
FerrisValyn wrote:
And the other thing is, if you believe that about the RLVs, why then is it so important for Nasa to build the stick - why not set it up as a flyoff between the Stick, the Delta IV, the Atlas V, and the Falcon 9?


While I by no means share publiusr's contempt for the alt.space startups, to be fair here, NASA cannot rely on a rocket that does not yet exist (Falcon 9). When Elon Musk actually has a solid record of launching CEV-class payloads into orbit, then we can make the argument that NASA should buy from him rather than develop its own stick.

As far as Atlas and Delta are concerned - my understanding is that they are not man-rated in terms of redundancy of components and other technical features, and that man-rating either of them would require as much cost and effort as developing the stick.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post    Posted on: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:39 pm
Centrillium wrote:
FerrisValyn wrote:
And the other thing is, if you believe that about the RLVs, why then is it so important for Nasa to build the stick - why not set it up as a flyoff between the Stick, the Delta IV, the Atlas V, and the Falcon 9?


While I by no means share publiusr's contempt for the alt.space startups, to be fair here, NASA cannot rely on a rocket that does not yet exist (Falcon 9). When Elon Musk actually has a solid record of launching CEV-class payloads into orbit, then we can make the argument that NASA should buy from him rather than develop its own stick.

As far as Atlas and Delta are concerned - my understanding is that they are not man-rated in terms of redundancy of components and other technical features, and that man-rating either of them would require as much cost and effort as developing the stick.


The Stick suffers the same problem that the Falcon 9 sufffers from - it doesn't exist either.

As far as man-rating the Delta or Atlas, well, Jonathan Goff had a good idea that I think would be worth while to try http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_selenianboondocks_archive.html Its the top one labeled Stopped Clock Alert and A Modest Proposal.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:55 pm
Call me an idiot, but it seems like a rocket with a demonstrated 100% success rate for as long as the Atlas has should not be very expensive to man rate.
http://www.spacefellowship.com/News/index.php?s=atlas

This topic doesn't seem to have much to do with the Democrats level of support for space any longer, does it?


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post    Posted on: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:56 pm
campbelp, your right - this is suppose to be about getting democrat support for space. Centrillium gave me some nice feedback on the paper, and if there is anyone else, again, please let me know.

publiusr, your hostility to altspace is well known, and just supporting Griffin isn't really an option for dems (I would hope that when we re-take the White House in 08, there would be consideration given to retaining him, but thats neither here nor there)

Now, if your willing to read the paper, with the understanding that this is gonna support alt-space, and are willing to offer constructive critisim, above and beyond support Nasa and Griffin, I'd love your opinions. If not, well, we are both wasting our time.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:30 pm
It is not a waste of time to point out the economies of scale that spaceflight must endure. You have already said as much as having writtin Griffin off which is hardly constructive thinking at all.

The ball is in the alt.spacers proof. remember the Skeptic's motto:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Until the Alt.spacers put something substatial in orbit--their claims deserve to be in the Weekly World News--right along with Bigfoot sightings.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:45 am
publiusr wrote:
It is not a waste of time to point out the economies of scale that spaceflight must endure. You have already said as much as having writtin Griffin off which is hardly constructive thinking at all.

The ball is in the alt.spacers proof. remember the Skeptic's motto:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Until the Alt.spacers put something substatial in orbit--their claims deserve to be in the Weekly World News--right along with Bigfoot sightings.


Given what has happened/come out about George Deutsch, the political appointee in the Public Affairs office, I think my point is validated. Again, its not Griffin I've written off - its Bush and Cheney, and Griffin is part of that machine. Frankly, its not special just to Griffin - I've written off the entire US government until either Bush and Cheney are impeached and convicted, or the 08 election. I mean, given that he talks about the importance of science in no less a speach than the state of the Union, and then doesn't even mention his ONLY addition to science (and it was minor at best), in the form of the space program - As I said, its not Griffin I've written off. As my father would say, "These are the people that brought you FEMA!"

Now, if you can offer another option I haven't considered, beyond Nasa vs Alt-space, I am open to suggestions, or if your willing to read my paper/diary with the understanding it supports alt-space, I'd love your opinion. Or, if you've got a guarenteed way to legally remove Bush and Cheney from power tomorrow, I'd really love to hear it.

And as far extradorniary claims, a short while ago, you posted Hedman's article about tough questions at space review, while convinenatly ignoring the 2 responses that have been offered about it This hobby space post and Masten .

But the main point is - its not Griffin - its Bush and Cheney - and I guarentee you, we won't get anywhere with Bush and Cheney.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use