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 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions 
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: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:41 pm
gaetanomarano wrote:
no, they are not toys... but they are "small like toys" if compared with REAL rockets/vehicles.
You mean small like personal computers as compared to real mainframe computers? Or small like mammals as opposed to real animals like dinosaurs? Size is not everything, despite what some claim.


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 4:53 pm
campbelp2002 wrote:
gaetanomarano wrote:
no, they are not toys... but they are "small like toys" if compared with REAL rockets/vehicles.
You mean small like personal computers as compared to real mainframe computers? Or small like mammals as opposed to real animals like dinosaurs? Size is not everything, despite what some claim.


no, I don't compare the Falcon_1 with the SaturnV but with the rockets NASA, ESA, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc. use to perform to-day's best manned and unmanned launches

someday, privates will be able to build and launch an Aries_1-like rocket with a manned CEV-like capsule on its top... but, if NASA needs 10+ years and $12+ billion to do that, I don't think privates may do the same thing in less time and less money

.

_________________
.
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 6:58 pm
gaetanomarano wrote:
I don't compare the Falcon_1 with the SaturnV
Neither do I. But I do compare Falcon 9 with Atlas 5. And I do compare BFR with Saturn V. And I have no doubt that Musk could get BFR flying in 10 years or sooner for less money than NASA could, IF the market supports it. If the market does not support it, then even if NASA gets it flying, it will be quickly dropped, just like Saturn V was.


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 7:35 pm
campbelp2002 wrote:
gaetanomarano wrote:
I don't compare the Falcon_1 with the SaturnV
Neither do I. But I do compare Falcon 9 with Atlas 5. And I do compare BFR with Saturn V. And I have no doubt that Musk could get BFR flying in 10 years or sooner for less money than NASA could, IF the market supports it. If the market does not support it, then even if NASA gets it flying, it will be quickly dropped, just like Saturn V was.


we can compare the Falcon_1 with the Atlas... B... not V

this is the first step for SpaceX like the Atlas_B was the first step for NASA in 1958

then (like with Atlas_B) also the Falcon (someday) will fly successful

and (someday) SpaceX will build bigger rockets, launch cargo vehicles, then, manned vehicles... someday... maybe

.

_________________
.
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 7:57 pm
gaetanomarano wrote:
we can compare the Falcon_1 with the Atlas... B... not V
And we CAN compare Falcon_9 (not Falcon_1) with Atlas_5 (not Atlas_B). Although Falcon_9 has not flown, it has COMPLETED development and is under construction and scheduled to fly in 2008 with real payloads and paying customers.


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 8:44 pm
campbelp2002 wrote:
Falcon_9 has not flown, it has COMPLETED development and is under construction and scheduled to fly in 2008 with real payloads and paying customers.


good

but I prefer to wait and see the real (successful) flights of the Falcons

.

_________________
.
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 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 10:18 pm
gaetanomarano wrote:
campbelp2002 wrote:
Falcon_9 has not flown, it has COMPLETED development and is under construction and scheduled to fly in 2008 with real payloads and paying customers.


good

but I prefer to wait and see the real (successful) flights of the Falcons

.



what about using an Ariane 5 rocket with a U.S. CEV ?, how "realistic" is that one ? Putting thousands of people without a job.. giving technology abroad, letting congress decide the US can't do it alone etc..

Not to mention, you wrote about it as:
gaetanomarano wrote:
ARE "realistic solutions to the problem of cheap public access to space"


Come on.. doesn't it sounds a little funny to you ? claiming Spacecowboy made contradictions..
Falcon is even more realistic than your idea to use Ariane 5.
You're abusing facts to fit your ideas.

_________________
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 10:55 pm
Sigurd wrote:
what about using an Ariane 5 rocket with a U.S. CEV ?, how "realistic" is that one ? Putting thousands of people without a job.. giving technology abroad, letting congress decide the US can't do it alone etc..


put "a capsule" atop the Ariane5 is possible and may happen

put a CEV may be a little more complex (politically) but not impossible

about peoples' jobs... the Ariane5 solution may INCREASE the jobs because, with the same funds, NASA can do MORE moon missions per year and SOONER

US engineers and workforce may build TWICE the Ares_V, CEV, SM, LSAM, etc. and (about) 5 years before than planned!

.

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


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:30 am
Posts: 236
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Post    Posted on: Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:21 am
Bit late in the conversation however Andy, the US has allowed itself to get into a position where it is NOW reliant on a foreign country for astronaut transport as the Shuttle is not back flying as yet. In fact, latest news is that another crack in the tank foam has been discovered and this may delay things again - after another $1 billion or so and a year's trying. Maybe the whole design is fatally flawed?

Griffin is on record as saying that if they had another incident that resulted in another shuttle loss he would try to close the program down. I would say that this is looking increasingly likely and then the US is really dependant on other countries, namely the USSR, for human transport into LEO.

Suborbital they could try Scaled - oh no - a dastardly PRIVATE!! And within say 10 years also for orbital. Before the paper CEV CaLV bullshit made it off the drawing board.

Sorry for the language but I can't believe how the US human space program has been so totally mismanaged as to put the whole thing in jepody. The VSE is a sham. Too long a time frame to mean anything to the average person who has to support the effort with taxes or the politicians who look to the next election. Also money that isn't necessarily seen as essential spending particularly when states are having to cut teachers, police, health workers, and the like due to funding shortfalls while the US embroils itself in another foreign war and consequently runs unbelievable deficits.

Sorry a bit off topic there but I'm angry and I'm not even a US citizen so I can just imagine how they might feel :cry:

_________________
Beancounter from Downunder


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue Jul 04, 2006 6:39 am
Hello, gaetanomarano,

you answered to me
Quote:
but we must STOP to say that privates may have low costs because they are "smarter"!!!!!!!!
.

Please note and remark urgently that I never have argued that way. You obviously haven't read a sufficient amount of posts of mine - in particular those in the Financial Barriers section. There is especially the theoretical thread about the estimation of costs, the thread about cost functions.

I say that privates have low costs because of the causal logics of the Economics of private companies. In my signature I allways say that I am an Economist - may be you didn't remark that yet. Costs, costs of privates, costs of bureacracy and government and much more is something I am an expert for since I considered such things during four years of a successful scientific education at the University of Hamburg, Germany. Of course there are other Economists out there that are more of such experts than I am because they concentrate on that, are consultants for costs, researchers of costs and so on - but this doesn't mean that I am no expert too.

This I only say to make clear to you that I am NOT arguing by "smarter" or the like - I struggle to calculate along the causal logics of companies or governments. So avoid arguing the way you have been doing in that most recent answer to me - and struggle to argue along the causal logics of companies, governments and the like. There is the thread I am explaining the causal logics of costs by.



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: Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:41 am
@beancounter, I'm frustrated about NASA as well.. that's why I hope for the private industry to move in more quickly. As with many agencies.. I think NASA is becoming too old... too many politics.. and very difficult to change.. time has added so much "regulations", "politics", etc... If they shut down some programs.. they have a lot of opposition.. and they can't afford to just chose what's best for them, even if it's not logical for its goal, but for the politics in several states, they have to keep things open. And sometimes at other greater costs to human spaceflight..

I hope in 2016 we'll have an orbital Scaled Composites vehicle.. I guess it's even a possibility, but I think SpaceX may arrive earlier (with a manned version). Or who knows.. SpaceDev etc.. we never know... until it happens :)

However with Bigelow Aerospace planning to put space stations in orbit, their 50 million us$ orbital prize, SpaceX planning to send later this year a rocket with payload into orbit etc.. it starts already to look better and better :), for manned commercial fligths we'll have to wait a long time.. SS2, Rocketplane/Kistler, etc is going to be available a lot sooner... Personally I think it will be more like 2020 to have a commercial orbital vehicle similar as SS2 for sub orbital.

@gaetanomarano, I'm going to stop arguing with you. I'll give a few others a chance to convince you, but if you keep going.. I may lock the topic in the end. If Spacecowboy or Ekkehard gets annoyed to that level before me, they are free to lock it. I don't think I'm able to have a constructive discussion with you related to your idea, but I'll not yet take the chance away for others.

gaetanomarano wrote:
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 think you forgot to actually read the fact, and fix your problem, I wrote:
Quote:
If you provided the reason for the double posts to Spacecowboy, as you just provided it to me, I think he would have had no problem.


Explaining it to me, isn't explaining it to all.., so as I wrote in the private message more below, it's about your style of handling things.. you fail to handle it well.

_________________
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: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:37 am
beancounter wrote:
...the US has allowed itself to get into a position where it is NOW reliant on a foreign country for astronaut transport...


this is another good reason for USA to launch the CEV with Ariane5 because...

the Shuttle will be retired in 2010 (or before, if it will have too much problems)

the CEV will be ready to fly only in september 2014 (+ further delays...)

then, for 5 years (or TEN years, if the Shuttles will be grounded) NASA and USA will have NO indipendent access to space and the only two alternatives for USA will be:

a) Soyuz

Rocket: Russia
Capsule: Russia
Training: Russia
Spacesuits: Russia
Spaceport: Russia
Mission Control: Russia
Docking Control: Russia
Soyuz Pilot: Russia
Capsule landing: Russia

b) Ariane5 + CEV

Rocket: Europe
Capsule: USA
Training: USA
Spacesuits: USA
Spaceport: USA
Mission Control: USA
Docking Control: USA
CEV Pilot: USA
Capsule landing: USA

without a 3rd alternative... what do you think is the best choice for USA ?

.

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


Last edited by gaetanomarano on Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.



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: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:53 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
...costs of bureacracy and government and much more is something I am an expert for since I considered such things during four years...


I don't doubt of your experience and I agree with you about the extra costs of politics and bureaucracy, but I don't agree when you suggest that privates MUST be more efficient than pubblic companies simply because they are "privates", then, they (naturally) MUST have low costs...

in Italy we have some public companies very efficient and profitable and many private companies very close to fail

about the private space companies... they can build a rocket for less because other companies and space agencies have invented ALL the technologies they (now) use for free: rockets, navigation systems, propellants, computers, softwares, launch pads, etc. etc. etc.

when privates want to invent something or REALLY NEW (not copied from others) they must spend the same giant amounts of money of NASA projects

since you're an economist, you know how much Boeing or Airbus invest in R&D for a new airplane, how much car companies spend for a new car model, how much a microchip company spends for a new processor, etc.

when a private company will be able to build a CEV or an Aries (you will see) the amount of the R&D costs will be less than but very close to NASA and ESA costs

.

_________________
.
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: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:23 pm
beancounter wrote:
Bit late in the conversation however Andy, the US has allowed itself to get into a position where it is NOW reliant on a foreign country for astronaut transport as the Shuttle is not back flying as yet.


Later still :) , I did say "willingly". I'm sure the US didnt plan to be reliant on the Russians and would not wish to recreate that situation with Europe.

gaetanomarano it does not matter if all the equipment except the Arianne 5 belongs to the US for a CEV launch it would not be independant access to space for the US. The minute you are reliant on a single thing supplied by others you loose your independance. The US would not be able to launch a crewed CEV without Euope's help and that situation is essentially no different to the current one with the Russians which is why it will not happen.

_________________
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: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:32 pm
Sigurd wrote:
...give a few others a chance to convince you...


I think that (in general) all peoples that believe in their ideas and opinions must defend them

this is the essence of democracy and freedom

then, since I believe in the things/ideas/opinions I write/post, I defend them with all the arguments I have

of course, all discussions from me (and from other users that have different opinions) are in a correct and civil way

Quote:
...Explaining it to me, isn't explaining it to all...


I've done that to avoid a long post

.

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


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

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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