Community > Forum > National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) > NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions

NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions

Posted by: gaetanomarano - Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:56 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 134 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:52 am
Hello, gaetanomarano,

At present I can't but ignore a portion of your arguments because of the two long answers to me and Sigurd. It would be easier if you integrated the two into one post that would be shorter than the bothe together.

But at present I nonentheless want to mention an important point - the Conggress would NOT do as you are assuming. The Conmgress would be willing to cancel the whole Bush plan if truned out to require too much money at the beginning already.

The reason is that the Congress' interest(s) necessaryly is different to the President's, the government's and in particular NASA's interest(s) - The Congress' interest(s) is/are much closer to that of the taxpayers in total. And there was a poll published in a BLOG under www.space.com saying that the Americans are split regarding the question if NASA should be funded or more funded - and both the fractions are below 50%.

This tends to mean that the Conggress will NOT be willing to a large degree to increase NASA's funds. The Senators and Representatives would fail in the next elections otherwise.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:29 am
gaetanomarano, Your knowledge of how congress and NASA works, how ITAR works, etc how an agency in general works, related to public opinion etc etc.. is far too low and even embarrassing to read.

Buy a good book or do some research on the internet... You're twisting and ignoring facts to fit to your ideas, you're not open minded in my opinion to how things work.

Quote:
the contradiction are in NASA choices, not in spacecowboy opinion... but, if spacecowboy agrees with NASA choices, he is in contradiction like NASA

I've never read where he wrote that he agrees with NASA's choises, even more, I know him quite well, if it was to him, A LOT would be different, but he knows how NASA works, how congress decides, how public opinion, arms regulations etc are sometimes more important for them, than what actually goes into space.

Quote:
politics and military don't like to wait 10+ years to have an indipendent access to space

Do you think it's only about access to space for them ?

Quote:
Quote:
...convince the congress and others, often with a lot of not necessary parts, to give people work, to convince politicians etc...

then... they ARE able to convince politics... if they want

Well, it seems you don't understand, to fit to their goals to convince them it will most likely cost your head if you proposed your idea as NASA's administrator. Changing to their requirements, to the jobs going to the right states, to keep certain aerospace companies required for military developments in the loop to make them profitable etc etc.. all those things will never allow them to use a foreign rocket for this purpose. And to be rude.. Your idea may be stripped down, to what they currently HAVE as idea, to convince congress etc. So even if they started with your idea.. nothing of it would be left different than what we currently have.
Your reaction, that they are able to convince congress because of that.. is way too simplistic and very unrealistic.

Quote:
and... if USA have fear of a "French embargo"... ESA may give 20 rockets before the first launch... 20 Ariane5 will be sufficient for all test flights, all ISS flights and a dozen of moon missions... ALL rockets NASA needs in the next 20 years!!!

Please explain how this is going to make any diffrence, before the first launch or not ? If I didn't knew your where not joking.. I would have laughed.

To ignore the other part, 20 Aeriane 5 rockets.. for 20 years... so you expect NASA to fly only once a year ?

And about ESA..
Quote:
...buy a giant car with a giant engine to save gasoline...
...use a bus instead of an airplane to do a fast travel...
...eat butter, meat, beer, potatoes, etc. to lose weight...

Can you show me your sources for this conclusion ?

And even if you're convinced about your idea, start working on the facts and details (with links to extern sources). Or even the estimated cost, current job loss in those US states (with sources + calculations), how you see the solution of all those problems, cause that defines to me: "a good idea". Not just some suggestions.. especially not with very hasty made conclusions.. cause they are, or may proof to be very wrong.

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:38 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
...easier if you integrated the two into one post...


I've received/sent a private mail with Sigurd about this point

Quote:
...Congress' interest(s) is/are much closer to that of the taxpayers in total...


I know that peoples' interest and support for science and space is very low... when the american TVs stopped the programs to show the Apollo11 moonwalk, received many calls of protests for the fictions and soap operas interrupted...

also, I know that Presidents and Prime Ministers propose ambitious plans... resized by Parliaments

but this is an ADVANTAGE for (both) the BIG-CaLV and the Ariane5+CEV because, both ideas, may give a GIANT money saving to american taxpayers!!!

since the Congress is sensible to taxpayers' interests, may be VERY EASY for NASA to have the funds for both plans!

as explained in my previous posts, with the BIG-CaLV they can have FOUR times moon exploration for the price of ONE standard mission... that means 75% of taxpayers' money SAVED

using the Ariane5 for the Ares_1 the american taxpayers will save over $7 billion of R&D costs and may see the first CEV launch around 2010 instead of 2015

also, if NASA and ESA does a full cooperation, the Ariane5s used for orbital and moon missions may be FREE (with only a few european astronauts in the moon missions) that means over $5 billion of taxpayers' money SAVED in the first 25 launches!!!

remember that US Congress is very sensible to international cooperation, in fact they want (and pay) 16 Shuttle missions to accomplish the international commitment to finish the ISS

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:09 am
gaetanomarano IMO I think that your arguments cant be taken seriously. Even if I accept your premise that it would be cheaper for NASA to launch CEV on Arianne 5 (and Im not at all sure this would be the case given the modifications needed to rocket and extra infrastructure) the political ramifications would be to great to ever allow it.

Another thing to consider is that while it might be cheaper for NASA it would almost certainly mean that ESA incurrs more expense.

I think that the CEV/Arianne combination is great idea and I would like to see it happen but being realistic it is never going to happen. Unless you can see any way round the problems that sacking US engineers and sending large sums of money abroad would have for US politicians of course. The US will not willingly become reliant on a foreign agency to put their astronauts in space and I suspect will never be allowed to create a situation where this is likely.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:12 pm
Andy Hill wrote:
...the political ramifications...


I know (and agree with you) that political problems may be greater than engineering problems

but US politics may be happy to save over $7B of R&D, over $5B of rockets (for the first 25 launches) and to see the first CEV flight in 2010 instead of 2015 (or more, if the "stick" will not work well and safe like planned...)

European politics may be happy to send some ESA astronauts on the moon for the price of 25 Ariane5 launches ($5B) instead of $100B

also, US politics may avoid an Europe/Russia/China cooperation that may land non-american astronauts on the moon two+ years before NASA...

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:34 pm
Hello, gaetanomarano,

on this planet there are no politics that care about costs. No politicians do that - only companies and entrepreneurs do that.

The reason is that politicians in the short periods of time between two elections aren't forced to look for money and thus costs - they allways think that they simply can increase the tax rates or the taxes in units of money to get out of expenditure problems. They also think that they have the alternative to increase the public debth if they can't increase the taxes because of eklections etc.

They allways are proven to be wrong over the longer periods but these they don't look to because of the short election periods.

Expenditure is not cost(s) - even the money NASA wants, needs or would need isn't cost(s). Money is liquidity, finance while costs are consumption of real ressources which are only expressed in uints of money to get the amount of required finances, money, funds.

NASA is ruled by politician and is politics itself because it is an integral part of the government which is politics also because it is elected. They don't care about costs and they don't talk about costs - they only talk about the required amount of liquidity they need to do what is determined by political considerations - like safety of the astronauts the public and the voters are caring about for example.

The Bush plan is politics also.

The companies are caring about costs - while being faced to competition at least - because they can't simply increase prices because of the competition. This is the reason why they are forced to care about costs - in contrary to politics.


...





Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:19 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
no politics that care about costs


I know (and agree with you) that the political side of space is the most dìfficult and complex to manage... but it's not impossible

USA, Europe, Russia, China, Japan, etc. have their own politics, elections, bureaucracy, press, public opinions, etc.

but all them have a space program and invest giant quantities of money

Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz, Apollo, SaturnV, Shuttle, Mir, ISS (with the extra-problems of international cooperation between different countries), Ariane5, Hubble, dozens of national and international space probes to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc.. are all VERY EXPENSIVE projects that have received funds from government!

and MANY other BIG space programs/vehicles will receive funds from the same countries!

your talk appear like these plans never exist and we can only have hope for our future in space from a few privates' "paper plans" and "pepsi-rockets" like the Falcon_1 that still must fly successful for the first time...

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:42 pm
gaetanomarano wrote:
Andy Hill wrote:
...the political ramifications...

I know (and agree with you) that political problems may be greater than engineering problems

but...


gaetanomarano wrote:
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
no politics that care about costs

I know (and agree with you) that the political side of space is the most difficult and complex to manage... but it's not impossible


Translation: "I know it ain't never gonna happen, no matter what I do, but it'd shore be nice if'n it did!" Well, hell, man. We all know that. This is not to say that something is physically impossible -- nothing ever is. However, it's so improbable that we can disregard it entirely as a possibility, and never notice the difference.

Now let's get back to figuring out realistic solutions to the problem of cheap public access to space, shall we?

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:46 pm
Hello, gaetanomarano,

my words no way mean that those plans never existed and never have been made reality - my words mena that they existed and have been made reality at too high costs, at costs that didn't need to be on that level.

They only were on that level because they all didn't care to the required degree about costs. They risked and thus accepted too high costs and forced their citizens to bear that burden - which is irresponsible.

Companies like SpaceX, Scaled Composites and Air Launch, venturs like Mojave Aerospace Venture and consortiums like t/Space show that those plans could have been made reality at less costs. The technologies enabling less costs could hhave been developed years earlier if it would have been tried only.

But noone tried, the listed companies etc. detected that field of economical interesting possibilities and opportunities and thus proved to be superior to the governmentals - and that it might be possible to do it all at low costs without 200 mT-rockets.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:08 pm
spacecowboy wrote:
...it ain't never gonna happen...


I'm not so pessimist... I say that it's difficult, not impossible... 1st, because the Ariane5 EXISTS... it's not a "paper-rocket" that (maybe) will fly in the next 10+ years

probably the capsule atop the Ariane5 will be not a CEV... but, I think, it can fly (and probably will fly, with an ESA/Russia or ESA/Russia/China or an ESA/Russia/Privates developed capsule)

Ares_1 is (now) a "paper rocket" that will fly manned only in September 2014 (but I've some doubts... :) :) :) :) :) ) while the Soyuz, Shenzhou and Ariane5 fly every year!

Soyuz, Shenzhou and Ariane5+CEV (or another rcapsule) ARE "realistic solutions to the problem of cheap public access to space" while the Ares_1 (now) is only a dream!

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:33 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
...SpaceX, Scaled Composites and Air Launch, venturs like Mojave Aerospace Venture and consortiums like t/Space show that those plans could have been made reality at less costs...


I (sincerely) hope that privates will suceed in their ventures... but we must STOP to say that privates may have low costs because they are "smarter"!!!!!!!!

ALL privates are able to draw some "paper vehicles" and can try to launch their "hobby rockets" ONLY because in last 50 years governments and space agencies have spent hundreds billion$$$ to develop ALL the technologies that (now) they (try) to use (on paper) to launch (without any success, so far) their toy-rockets!!!!

To-day, China, India, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. are able to build and sell high tech products at very low prices NOT because they are "smart" but ONLY because in the last 40 years big companies like IBM, Texas Instruments, Intel, AMD, HP, Apple, Philips, Sony, etc. (and public labs) have invested hundreds Billion$$$ to develop microchips, operating systems, hard disks, CD, etc. that (now) they COPY FOR FREE !!!!!!!

Whitout the investment of NASA, ESA, Russia, etc. these "smart" privates may need 50+ years to launch a simple "Sputnik" using their own knowlendge, experience, engineers and funds!!!

So far, the only success of "privates" is a mere suborbital flight, made with old NASA technology, 45 years after X-15 !!!

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


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: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:31 pm
I agree with everything you said gaetanomarano, except the description of the private vehicles as “toy rocketsâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:00 pm
Quote:
ALL privates are able to draw some "paper vehicles" and can try to launch their "hobby rockets" ONLY because in last 50 years governments and space agencies have spent hundreds billion$$$ to develop ALL the technologies that (now) they (try) to use (on paper) to launch (without any success, so far) their toy-rockets!!!!


Quote:
So far, the only success of "privates" is a mere suborbital flight, made with old NASA technology, 45 years after X-15 !!!


Well, politics is about making people happy, to let them agree to things, you just made me a little more frustrated with you.

While they may not be as far as the US government, it's far from just "old" NASA technology., and it included a lot of new ideas never used before to achieve it.
And for SpaceX, it's not yet a success but it's moving along very nicely.

But anyway, why do you have to offend people with claiming it's made with old NASA technology (I really don't agree on that one, SpaceShipOne really had a lot (and I think most) of inventions unrelated to NASA).. And of course they have some.. but not as you wrote it down. and I really think there are a lot more success stories you're ignoring.. commercial sattelites to give one example.. and not to forget, the computer industry you provided as an example became more powerfull "private" than any government agency.. and also china etc will develop (already is) their own technology, in some cases better than the west. Using your own examples, the private space industry "may" be more powerfull than the government, and in my opinion it is one of the requirements to have more people living in space, other than on this world.

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:19 pm
campbelp2002 wrote:
...Falcon and SS1 are not toys...


no, they are not toys... but they are "small like toys" if compared with REAL rockets/vehicles

privates may reach good results but they need many years and money

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am
Posts: 363
Location: Italy
Post    Posted on: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:35 pm
Sigurd wrote:
...why do you have to offend people...


I don't want to offend them but only to size claims close to reality

SSO may have some new ideas, but it performs now only an X-15 flight

Falcon 1 may fly somedays, but, when that will happen, it will be only a flight of a little rocket like those NASA and Russia already launched (manned!) 45 years ago

the problem is that big projects NEED big funds, no matter if a project is leaded by public or private companies

commercial satellites are built by privates but NOT launched in orbit by privates since they need the rockets and experience of public space agencies

computer industry is a good example of the things privates can do... but only if they invest many billion$$$

if a private company like Intel wants to develop and build a new processor, it must invest $5B+ ...not a few millions... the same for cars, TVs, movies, etc.

someday, a private company will be able to build an AriesV-like rocket, but it will (and must) spend billions for R&D ...exactly like NASA and ESA

big funds = big (public or private) projects

small funds = small (public or private) projects

.

_________________
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS
.
ghostNASA.com
.
gaetanomarano.it
.


Last edited by gaetanomarano on Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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