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
 [ 144 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions 
Author Message
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 12:47 pm
Andy Hill wrote:
...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...


now, the 3rd alternative (100% USA) simply DON'T EXISTS

the choice is not between 100% Russia and 100% USA, but between 100% Russia and 90% USA + 10% (friend and allied) Europe

which is better?

also, you expect that Ares_1 will be ready in 2014 and can fly manned... but this is not sure 100%... it may be ready in 2018 or may be too much unrealiable to fly manned... and USA must launch its astronauts with the old Soviet capsules for many many years...

however, if USA wants a 100% indipendence there are three more choices:

1. buy 20+ Ariane5 (with a fraction of the Ares_1 R&D costs..)

2. exchange 20+ FREE Ariane5 with a few FREE seats for european astronauts in the moon missions

3. buy the licence of the Ariane5 and build it in USA

.

_________________
.
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: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:54 pm
Hello, gaetanomarano,

NASA is no public company - NASA is an agency explicitly.

There are significant differences between agencies, public companies and private companies. Both public companies and private companies are analyzed by the same or nearly the same theory while an agency is analyzed by a different theory.

The result of the investigations up to now is that companies work at less costs than agencies because agencies are political driven while companies are driven by Economics. This also has been experience in practice that far that some german executives at the district level prefer publich companies to agencies regarding public supply of some services.

Next it has been experienced in practice via the former Soviet Union and the former Warszawa Treaty Countries that the government fails regarding production of nearly all products and services that are privately produced in competition in the West. This also is explained by theory to a high degree.

This means that the public companies in Germany aren't run because of any cost advantages over private companies but because of particular other reasons.

I also need to say urgently here that private companies owned by the government nonetheless are private companies still. If a company is private or public no way is a matter of ownership but a matter of its property rights. Each LLC and each company on stocks is a private company by law and definition - for example. So it doesn't matter if they are owned by the goverment or by privates.

The difference between an agency and a company is that each company is governed by its costs and its revenues while an agency is governed by laws only - and like the politicians laws don't care about costs because laws have to be valid in each situation and circumstance with no difference until the Congress removes the laws and replaces them by others. The agencies have to obey to the laws and so have nearly no chances to control them - which is different for companies. The laws governing agencies have no impacts on companies - companies simply don't fit into the definitions of the subjects of the laws governing agencies. The definitions allways are part of the laws - nearly at least. And so companies aren't prevented by the laws from controlling their costs.

For all these reasons together it is justified to keep my view - it is assisted by Economics.



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: Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:30 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
...significant differences between agencies, public companies and private companies...


true, but agencies are not comparable with Soviet industries that fail due to a bad political system

despite space agencies are governed by laws it's possible to know its efficiency from the costs of their projects

however, that costs never are completely "out of control" because (both) NASA and ESA don't "build" nothing but buy the "hardware" they need from big privates (like Boeing, etc.) that wins contracts in competition with other privates and have a good deegree of efficiency

great part of costs of agencies (but also of privates) come from the high number of employees, scientists and engineers they have, each paid with salaries of $100,000+ per year

.

_________________
.
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 9:46 pm
gaetanomarano wrote:
Andy Hill wrote:
...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...


now, the 3rd alternative (100% USA) simply DON'T EXISTS

the choice is not between 100% Russia and 100% USA, but between 100% Russia and 90% USA + 10% (friend and allied) Europe

which is better?.


You are arguing that just because Arianne Exists it is a suitable launcher for CEV, this may or may not be true. I would have thought that a purpose built launch vehicle would be a much better match and that the effort expended in adapting Arianne would be almost as much as building a new vehicle, so your Arianne concept DOESN'T EXIST either and is not ever likely to for the reasons given previously.

I have still not read anything that has convinced me that this is a possibility. If you have possible solutions to the problems that make your concept workable I would be interested in hearing them.

_________________
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 10:43 pm
Andy Hill wrote:
...your Arianne concept DOESN'T EXIST either...


since my proposal of Ariane5+CEV is (only) a concept (clearly) it doesn't exist (now) but also a 100% US solution doesn't exist until 2015

both solutions (Ariane5 and Ares_1) have their own timelines, but the Ariane5 timeline is the most favorable, since the rockets already exists and fly

man-rate the Ariane5 (already designed to luanch the manned Hermes) needs some years, but it can be ready when the CEV will be ready, while the Ares_1 is only a paper-rocket (now) and it needs that NASA receive the funds, ATK modify the SRB, the J-2x, the 2nd stage tank, electronics, guidance, tests with dummy loads, tests with 2nd stage, tests with dummy-CEV, etc. etc. etc.

TEN years (with some doubts about the time and success) compared with FIVE

the choice is (ONLY) between... fly with a 100% Russian vehicle until 2015 (or more) or fly with a 90% American and 10% European vehicle

.

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


Last edited by gaetanomarano on Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:43 am, edited 2 times in total.



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: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:59 am
beancounter wrote:
Shuttle is not back flying as yet.
It is now! :D


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: Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:41 am
Well the Shuttle has launched and hopefully no damage has occurrred. NASA and it's partners can get back to building the ISS and perhaps even the Hubble might get the flight it needs. Nevertheless, the STS could not be considered reliable and each flight could be seen as experimental rather than routine.
I still think that in the end only a mainly private venture (and I don't mean the existing big contractors who might as well be government) will ultimately provide what might be regarded as 'cheap' access to space.

With respect to Rutan and orbital, I think it will be sooner that most think. Rutan isn't known for being open until he has something to show. Bigalow and Musk are the same. Could be a conspiracy theory lurking somewhere here :lol:

Anyway congrat's to NASA. Here's hoping it all continues to go well for them.

_________________
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: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:48 am
Hello, gaetanomarano,

in your recent answer to me again at least three errors occurred.

1. It was the political system that caused the circumstance that nearly all tasks have been done by agencies - it are the agencies that made that system bad and in such a system agencies are the only way to get tasks done including production of cars etc. Although combinates etc. existed they all were ruled by plan of production made a law. Agencies of free democratic countries are no way different from thos soviet aganecies - it is the law system which is different due to the significant difference of the constitutions and the understanding of "Grundrechte".

2. Agencies - even space agencies - have no efficiency that can be known by the costs of their projects. Costs aren't an indicator of efficiency. An indicator allways is a relation between the total input and the total intended output got by that input. This alone still is insufficient - additionally a comparison to another case is required in which by the same input the same output is intended. And then it has to be look which relation is the better one. And absolute efficiency doesn't exist and an efficiency of 100% is impossible in reality. The only comparison available regarding space agencies is the comparison to companies - private companies at best because those are totally independent of the governement and the parliament regarding their decisions - they can't be commanded by the politicians. Up to now there is no case where the ganecies had a better efficiency than the private companies. The only kinds of efficiency of agencies and even space agencies is political efficiency and the degree to which political decisions are forced to become reality - regarding these two points comparisons between several agencies of the same government are possible. But this doesn't provide no insights into that efficiency you are talking about. To some degree intertemporal comparisons are possible but these are extremely weak because time is changing a lot even in short run at this level.

3. NASA and ESA have no control about their costs because they allways need the agreement of their government(s) and their parliaments. NASA is not independent but part of the government - ESA is even less independent because they have to ask several governments and parliaments (indirectly at least). NASA is nothing but a department like a department of a company that is a holding for several other companies. What's an idependent private company in the private sector of an economy is parliament plus government in the public sector of an economy. NASA only is a part of the Executive Power in a political system of power separation into Executive Power, Legislative Power and Judicative Power - which means that NASA only is doing what it is told by the parliament. And this means they have no control over their costs. They only can tell the parliament and the hierarchical higher governmental level where probelms are and where ressources exist - and then the parliament and/or the hierarchical higher level tells NASA what they decided. If and when in the public is talk about NASA decisions then these decisions are only their position but not things yet they can do of their own. They only can do something of their own if they are explicitly authorized by the higher hierarchical level or the parliament - and the authorization allways can be cancelled.

4. Boeing etc. can't be assumed to be performing efficient. They have significant market power and it is a fact that in such a situation companies are performing suboptimal - simply because they aren't forced to highest efficiency by competition. They try to abuse their market power to get profits without performance, economically unjustified profits. In other words - they try to exploit their customers. They really do - ULA is the proof. In Germany ULA would be cancelled by the competition agency and in between the managers of the two ULA-companies Boeing and Lookheed Martin would be imprisoned as far as I am informed: ULA is nothing else than a cartell - and cartells never are performing efficiently. That's quite obvious.

Point 4 means "Never call for huge rockets if they are to be produced by companies having significant market power!"



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: Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:01 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
...political system that caused the circumstance that nearly all tasks have been done by agencies...


I can't imagine a political system so harmful for economy (and common sense) like the past Soviet Union and China or to-day's North Korea

Quote:
...costs aren't an indicator of efficiency...


since space agencies don't sell consumer products nor have (or need to have) profits, we can't know their efficiency like with private companies

however, I think that R&D and hardware costs may be good parameters, since some of the things built by space agencies are similiar to commercial space systems

Quote:
...private companies at best because those are totally independent of the governement and the parliament regarding their decisions...


never seen a big private company "totally indipendent" from politics...

Quote:
...NASA and ESA have no control about their costs...


space agencies and high tech labs can't have a complete control of costs since they work in scientific fields never explored before, but funds aren't infinite, then they must try to complete their projects with the money available

Quote:
..."Never call for huge rockets if they are to be produced by companies having significant market power!"...


but Ares_I and Ares_V are two HUGE rockets that will be produced "by companies having significant market power"

the "bigger" rocket I suggest has only a 20/30% more payload than the sum of Ares_I and Ares_V payloads

.

_________________
.
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: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:04 am
Hello, gaetanomarano,

you say
Quote:
never seen a big private company "totally indipendent" from politics...
.

Then have misunderstood me - agencies like NASA are dependent of the parliament and the hierarchical higher level of the government in that sense that they are commanded by them. Such agencies are no way free regarding their decisions - they mustn't make up their own minds and can't freely do with the money given to them what they want. Private companies on the other hand never can't be commanded by the parliament or any hierarchical level of the government and so the private companies are free regarding their decisions - they can make up their own minds whenever they want or when ever it is required and they can freely do with the money given to them what they want - at least with their profits and the capital they own and which is represneted by stocks etc.

So all private companies are totally independetn of politics. Your argument doesn't have anything to with that and so means that you are misunderstanding what I said. Your argument has to do with political influence which is quite different from dependency - your argument has to with Economic Policy which we all are subject to. This policy exists really because the private companies and we all as private people can't be commanded by the parliament or the government

And you say
Quote:
never seen a big private company "totally indipendent" from politics...
- you are focussing on big companies. This I don't - and Scaled Composites isn't a big company nor are SpaceX or the consortium t/Space. BIG companies are Boeing and Lockheed Martin. And they too aren't dependent of the government - NASA can't command them no way - it's opposite to that: Boeing and Lockheed Martin can command NASA and they really do. They formed a cartell named ULA which is the only private authority that does launches for NASA. And this means that they can dictate NASA the conditions, the prices and so on. And they do that - in that manner that they get profits that are not covered by performance to a significant degree. NASA would be better off with those companies that don't have such a power like Boeing and Lockheed Martin have - and really then they may experience that a lot of launches of Light Lift Vehicles are chepaer than a few launches of HLLVs built by Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

By the way - the degree of independcy of private companies from the government partially has to with national traditions and culture. In France the connections and webs between companies and government is due to tradition of more than 200 years - and France isn't to that degree a marlket economy as the US are.

Even in so far your argument doesn't have to do with dependency but with Economic Policy.

Your hint
Quote:
but Ares_I and Ares_V are two HUGE rockets that will be produced "by companies having significant market power"
is no argument because you call for a bigger rocket not designed yet. To call for such a rocket at present means to order it from those two companies equipped with significant market power - and this in turn means that that rocket will not be perform as efficiently as it could and even the price will be significantly higher than it needs to be.

So consequemtly never order a big rocket from such companies. It might be ordered from consortiums of small companies and if they are beyond their joint capacities it may turn out that a lot of launches of rockets/vehicles just below those capacities are cheaper in total than the big rocket made by companies with significant market power.

NASA seems to be turning to such a view because of the Aldridge Report and the requirements of the Bush Plan - they established and pursue the COTS program. Their budget will be spent for services to some degree in the future instead of for rockets or vehicles. Another point that may be indicating that NASA is turning to such a view are the Centennial Challenges Prizes where new technologies are developed by small private teams and companies. This seems to include a shift from big rockets and vehicles to smaller ones - revealing that the requirement of the bigger rockets isn't as urgent and justified as thought previously. By COTS it may turn out that even for the Moon no bigger rockets are required - Ares 1 and 5 may be a transitional episode of two decades.



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: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
agencies like NASA are dependent of the parliament and the hierarchical higher level of the government in that sense that they are commanded by them. Such agencies are no way free regarding their decisions - they mustn't make up their own minds and can't freely do with the money given to them what they want. Private companies on the other hand never can't be commanded by the parliament or any hierarchical level of the government and so the private companies are free regarding their decisions - they can make up their own minds whenever they want or when ever it is required and they can freely do with the money given to them what they want - at least with their profits and the capital they own and which is represneted by stocks etc.


I don't agree that privates are 100% free while space agencies are 100% commanded

space agencies must follow the government decisions (like "come back to the moon") but are free to decide the better way to accomplish the missions since politics are not engineers nor scientists... VSE is a NASA plan that politics have approved and will finance and ALL changes done by NASA to ESAS are engineering decisions, not political decisions... then, the twin-rocket architecture is a NASA choice that NASA may change if they explain to politics that it's better

many times, for privates "profits" and "success" "stock value" are PRISONS greater than politics... privates may take decisions without politics but they MUST have success and profits and, a big fail with death peoples (like an airplane crash) may KILL a company!!!

space agencies, may fail in a risky business (like space exploration) and can have some accidents and astronauts dead, without disappear like (many times) private companies do

Quote:
you are focussing on big companies


no... big companies are influenced by goverments and little-mid companies by local authorities...

Quote:
...independcy of private companies from the government...


probably softdrinks and jeans industries, NOT aerospace industry!

in ALL countries, aerospace is a STATEGIC industry that involves government, military, international politics, etc.

no one can build and launch a rocket without a CLOSE cooperation with governments, authorities, military, agencies like FAA, Norad, Air Force, Intelligence agencies (especially with the problem of terrorism) etc.

I can't imagine another industry that must have its (little and big) steps controlled like aerospace!

Quote:
the price will be significantly higher than it needs to be


my bigger rocket is very close to the 130 mT Ares_V design, then, it CAN'T have a "significantly higher" R&D and hardware price but only $150M extra hardware costs max!

Quote:
...they established and pursue the COTS program...


COTS, ISRU, privates' manned capsules, small shuttles, etc... I prefer to SEE them fly, not to talk of them like they already exist (or exist soon) and work well... we can't confuse "hope" and "dreams" with REALITY !

Quote:
...seems to include a shift from big rockets and vehicles to smaller ones - revealing that the requirement of the bigger rockets isn't as urgent and justified as thought previously. By COTS it may turn out that even for the Moon no bigger rockets are required - Ares 1 and 5 may be a transitional episode of two decades...


I completely disagree with you... NASA FACTS contradicts your claim since they are building two BIG rockets, NOT little, and that rockets will be NOT a "transitional episode" since NASA will use them for all Moon Missions and (probably) also for Mars missions in the next 40+ YEARS !!!

if NASA thinks that "little rockets are better" they (simply) build "little rockets"!

NASA don't build them because they DON'T THINK that the future of space explorations is in the hands of many, little "toy-rockets"!!!

the problem of COTS is different, since NASA may hope to launch little payloads to ISS at competitive prices with to-day's space agencies' costs

.

_________________
.
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: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:40 pm
Hello, gaetanomarano,

you are mixing together things that urgently must be kept and considered separately - you are doing that because of the effects being equal only or simply.

The effects mustn't be the criterion and the less the single criterion.

The dependency of private companies of profits, success, stock value and the like can't and mustn't be considered to be equal to the dependency of hierarchical higher levels of the government. The first is similar to the dependencies observed by physics while the second is simliar to teh dependcies within the military - the first is not conscious becaus a market is no conscious being and no beiong at all while the second is conscious and military officers are conscious people.

The privates companies don't need tp ask someone else while the chiefs within NASA need to ask someone else.

These differences result in the circumstance that different mechanisms are at work which face agencies to limitations and constraints the private companies aren't faced to no way - NASA for example allways has funds for one year only while Rutan and Scaled Composites had Paul Allens $ 20 mio to $ 25 mio until readiness of White Knight 1 and SpaceShipOne. That's a huge difference.

In so far your arguments are ideological merely but not valid using generally applied definitions and criteria - and scientifically (which means the sciences Economics and Politology here) it is not/never allowed and not valid to conclude from the effects to the causes, origins, sources and so on.

And a private company doesn't disappear that quickly - even such disappearances ar effects only which have a lot of different causes. So even this phenomenon is no valid argument here.

Regarding little-mid-companies I am quite sure that they aren't directly influenced by local authorities - here in Germany those "authorities" have little to no interest to influence them. Yes, they do economic policy but they don't influence companies directly - may be that this is done in Italy but it is not done in Germany. The local authorities have other problems here that are more essential and important and tend to make the local authorities disappear if they don't care about that.

So even this argument can't be used that generally like you are doing - may be that it is valid in Italy and even in France or allover Southern-Europe but it mustn't be generalized.

The point that aerospace industry is dependent but the others are not doesn't have to do with the dependency/independency we are talking about. You are talking about the structure of market-sides - dmenad side and supply side. If at the demand side there is only one demander then all suppliers are forced to business with that single demander. Up to now that demander is NASA in the US.

But this is changing in between - Bigelow Aerospace, Ansari XPrize Foundation and Virgin Galactic are changing that to a very high degree. In the Financial Barriers section I am looking into the possible results and found that Virgin Galactic might have profits of $ 100 mio per year after breaking even and thus would be enabled to fund the construction and building of a CXV (t/Space) and there was an article quoting Virgin Galactic that they have said that their business plan includes a Return on Investment of 25% of their investemnt in average per year - this ROI assist my results.

So what you are talking about is no way that dependency that I am talking about - the situation doesn't mean that the government might command the private companies. And the private companies allways can diversify into other industreis and many of them started that way. Even Scaled Composites is diversified. SpaceX is independent because they rely on Elon Musks fortune - and SpaceX is an example of a company having several different customers - they are no way dependent of the US government (have a look into their launch manifest).

In germany there is one industry in a situation similar to that of the aerospace industry: the industry building roads etc.

Regarding your rocket: the point is NOT if its R&D-price and hardware-price is significantly higher that those of Ares 1 or Ares 5. The point IS that even Ares 1 and Ares 5 should be suspected to have too high R&D-costs and hardware-price because they are going to be developed by a comapny that has huge market power - the point IS that both these vehicles might to be had at significant less costs and price if they were developed by a consortium consisting of companies like the members of t/Space or that several launches of vehicles of less capacity plus the vehicles themselves may be cheaper than the few launches of Ares 1 or Ares 5 plus those two vehicles themselves.

The argument if a vehicle has already flown or not is of no meaning and no essence for these comparisons because funds, budgets, money have to do with economical properties of vehicles and their producers and not with the hardware itself. These properties allways can be considered based on the design and the data provided by the developer.

The only point where it is of meaning and essence if the vehicles has flown already is the date when a project like the next luanr landing has to become reality - the only point has to do with such projects. Then the project is the demander (...) while the developer of the vehicle is the supplier.

And even Ares 1 and Ares 5 haven't flown yet - to these both the criterion has to be applied if you apply it to COTS, ISRU, private capsules and small shuttles. If you don't so then you are unserious. And don't forget - Air Launch LLC as well as DARPA have said and continue to say that QuickReach will launch and fly in 2008 plus Air Launch are well in their schedule and prove successfull progresses. So t/Space too is close to success because Air Launch is part of them and the only thing left may be the CXV only which already has undergone a drop test and will be still ind evelopment.

And the shift from big rockets to small rockets is going on really - the COTS rogramm will result in vehicles servicing the ISS that are smaller than the Space Shuttle. This is the shift. NASA will concentrate on lunar projects and vehicles - but to some degree only: Lunar vehicles are under development at private companies competing for a Centennial Cahllenges Prize. One of these is Armadillo Aerospace.

When a private companies has achieved the orbit then the next step will be a private vehicle flying to the Moon - which Burt Rutan already has been speaking about publicly in 2004. That they aren't ahead yet has only to do with the circumstance that the privates just have started to get into space. They all seem to proceed very quickly and Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic already have announced an orbital SpaceShipThree if SpaceShipTwo is a success.

Yoiur issue
Quote:
if NASA thinks that many little rockets are better that two big rockets, they (simply) build only little rockets, but NASA don't build them because they DON'T THINK that the future of space explorations is in the hands of "toy-rockets"!!!
again is a conclusion from effects to causes which is not allowed by logics - the only conclusions valid are those from the causes to the effects.

But first this thread is not a discussion about what NASA thinks but about the chances and requirement of a rocket bigger than those NASA have in mind at present. Next NASA may think what they want - it never necessaryly means that their thoughts are correct or the only correct ones that are possible. NASA doesn't deserve such an authority in a free world - they aren't the point I am adjusting my thoughts to, orienting my thoughts by or something like that. I allways think independently - in particular independently of agencies and NASA. And third I don't say that there are no puroposes that require large or big rockets - I only say that some or all concrete purpose the talk is about don't require them. So if NASA is working on several purposes at least one of which requires a big rocket even in my eyes then that's no problem and it's no contradicztion to what I have said.

You are talking about NASA needing a rocket bigger than Ares 1 and/or Ares 5 and NASA doesn't build such a rocket. NASA thinks different to you - and in so far I am on their side apparently.



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


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:14 pm
gaetanomarano wrote:
space agencies must follow the government decisions (like "come back to the moon") but are free to decide the better way to accomplish the missions since politics are not engineers nor scientists... VSE is a NASA plan that politics have approved and will finance and ALL changes done by NASA to ESAS are engineering decisions, not political decisions... then, the twin-rocket architecture is a NASA choice that NASA may change if they explain to politics that it's better.
Unfortunately that is not totally true. The politicians earmark large parts of the NASA budget to be spent on specific items, usually the ones that generate jobs in the right congressional districts.


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: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:47 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
...privates companies don't need tp ask someone else while the chiefs within NASA need to ask someone else...


the results of that "freedom" and "efficiency" is a mere suborbital flight 45 years after X-15 and a failed rocket launch (despite ALL the technologies to suceed are available FOR FREE) while the "commanded" american, russian, european, and chinese space agencies have done in last 50 years the things we know...

I think we can wait and see some CONSISTENT and REAL results to claim the "superiority" of privates in space exploration...

if these are the difference of results... I prefer the "commanded" agencies...

Quote:
...your arguments are ideological merely but not valid using generally applied definitions and criteria - and scientifically...


sorry, but YOUR arguments are 100% ideological (with a fanatics support of "privates" that, so far, have done NOTHING or ridiculous things if compared with projects like Apollo!) and absolutely NOT "scientific" in the sense of "scientific observation of the REALITY"

Quote:
...private company doesn't disappear that quickly...


many airline companies failed after ONE airplane crash and without blame of them... while NASA still exist after TWO Shuttle accidents (due, also, to some mistakes of engineers) seen in TV all over the world

Quote:
...Virgin Galactic...


that (now) only (hope) to send tourists in suborbital flights (that is only some km. higher a common airline flight, NOT "the space")

Quote:
...building of a CXV (t/Space) and there was an article quoting Virgin Galactic that they have said that their business plan includes a Return on Investment of 25% of their investemnt in average per year...


CAN I want to SEE this vehicle FLY in ORBIT and make PROFITS before admit that your (optimistic) evaluations (about time, costs and profits) are right???????? ...or I MUST believe in your (and Virgin, Rutan, SpaceX) "crystal ball" ?

Quote:
...the point is NOT if its R&D-price and hardware-price is significantly higher that those of Ares 1 or Ares 5. The point IS that even Ares 1 and Ares 5 should be suspected to have too high R&D-costs and hardware-price because they are going to be developed by a comapny that has huge market power - the point IS that both these vehicles might to be had at significant less costs and price if they were developed by a consortium consisting of companies like the members of t/Space or that several launches of vehicles of less capacity plus the vehicles themselves may be cheaper than the few launches of Ares 1 or Ares 5 plus those two vehicles themselves...


I don't know how much the Ares_1 and Ares_V will cost... I can agree that they will cost more than planned... but "my" rocket may cost LIKE one of them (the Ares_V) and NOT more!

but, if you think that build these big rocket is too expensive... the FASTEST and CHEAPEST way is NOT to wait SpaceX & C.'s experiments, but to use READY AVAILABLE mid-little rockets like Ariane5, Atlas, etc. or the VERY CHEAP rockets from China and India that cost LESS than (future!) "privates" rockets and are READY AVAILABLE NOW... of course, that choice is the best only if you want a true and immediate economical efficiency... not if you like the rockets of a private company in particular...

Quote:
...even Ares 1 and Ares 5 haven't flown yet...


true, but while they may happen since NASA has the experience, engineers and (will have) the funds to do that, while, great part of private projects will remain on paper

two points:

- private companies and projects of "alternative" vehicles exist from '50s but their real results are near zero

- at NASA are not so stupid to build two big rocket if their mission can be accomplished with little rockets and, also, they don't build big or little rockets if that rockets will be (really) available soon by privates... simply, NASA (like me) prefer to SEE that privates rockets to FLY and be RELIABLE before buy them...

I suggest privates to talk LESS and do more FACTS

Quote:
...close to success...


"2007", "2008", "2009", "close to success", etc. etc. etc.

spaceflights can be planned ONLY with vehicles that FLY like the Shuttle, Soyuz, Shenzhou, etc. NOT with vehicles, now on paper, but "close to success"... I wish to SEE these vehicles and rockets FLY FLY FLY FLY FLY and NOT only "close to success"!

Quote:
...CXV...


if I can have "one km." for every time I've read that this paper-vehicle will go in orbit... I'm already on Mars!

Quote:
...the COTS rogramm will result in vehicles servicing the ISS...


this is the only private program that may succeed (within 10 years) since it is supported by NASA

Quote:
...Lunar vehicles are under development at private companies...


boooooom!

we are not sure that big countries like Russia and China can compete with USA to accomplish a moon mission... but we must believe that (very little) privates (with ZERO experience of spaceflights) can do that!

but (only for curiosity), since privates MUST make profits from their job... if privates will really land on the Moon before NASA... from which "lunar product" they will earn profits? ...moonrocks?

Quote:
...Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic already have announced an orbital SpaceShipThree if SpaceShipTwo is a success...


next week I will announce MY "Gaetano Marano Mars Ship Seven" that is "close to land" on Mars in 2035... (I've the drawings of a good paper-rocket and a colorful website for investors...)

Quote:
...this thread is not a discussion about what NASA thinks but about the chances and requirement of a rocket bigger than those NASA have in mind at present...


true... and I think that NASA (absolutely) needs a big rockets, for a very simple reason:

the two main vehicles to accomplish a moon mission, CEV/SM and LSAM, weigh 25 mT and 45 mT and, to launch them separately towards the moon, NASA needs two EDS of (about) 35 mT and 55 mT, then, the MINIMUM payload for a moon mission is 45+55=100 mT

HOW and WHEN Rutan, SpaceX, Virgin, etc. will be able to launch 100 mT in orbit?

Quote:
...about NASA needing a rocket bigger than Ares 1 and/or Ares 5 and NASA doesn't build such a rocket. NASA thinks different to you...


not true... Ares_V is more close to my idea of a BIG rocket than your idea of small rockets

.

_________________
.
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: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:55 am
Hello, gaetanomarano,

now your answers start be too extreme.

1. What I say regarding privates, agencies, governmentals etc. not only is the logical - causal logical - consequence of the laws and constitutions but scientifically evident in particular. You only need to have a look into the laws like is usually done at universities by students studying Economics. During my time at the University of Hamburg, Germany each student had to successfully pass at least one exam in laws. Laws are logic and what I say is subject to lawsuits from time to time. On the other hand there are the logics of revenues, costs, profits, prices and competition and the reality is under observation and investugation permanently - it again and again truins out that the theory I am speaking about is consistent with these observations and investigations to a degree that the logical results of the theory can be applied - so you only need to read about the theory and its results to recognize that my argumentation is far from ideological. You yourself in turn don't argue by no logics of laws, constitutions or scientific theories and scientific investigations of the reality. So what I am doing in this thread is far from being
Quote:
a fanatics support of "privates"


2. My arguments about privates and agencies etc. don't have to do with no debate about privates versus agencies but only with the fact that NASA because of the laws and the constitution has no authority and no property right to do with the money they get from the Congress what they want but have to do what the Congress says in the budget law - plus it has to do with the second fact that privates in opposite to NASA can do with the money they got what they want and don't get this money from the Congress but from their owners and as profits from the markets. The privates are investing their own money into rockets and vehicles while NASA is spending the money of the tax payers. Additionally NASA allways has money for one year only while the privates own their money as long as they don't buy soemthing by that money.

3. You are doing anachronistic comparisons. The Apollo programm has been started at the beginning of the 1960s and Apollo 11 landed ten years later. The privates started their space vehicle programs decades later and simply had to get financial backers, business angels and co-investors first - some of them are still looking - but proceeded and still proceed remarkably fast after they got those and their ressources. It is quite wrong to simply look at the yaer of the calender but it must be looked onto the number of years from the start of a program to the success of the program, the time when there are the results. But this you aren't doing because you are explicitly looking onto the calendar.

4. You are taking single or many of airlines for ALL airlines as if a conclusion from some airlines to all airlines were valid - which it isn't. All the airlines are inhomogenous - they differ by organization, capital, airplanes and much more - and then such conclusions are quite invalid and investigations by Economics are required urgently before any conclusions can be done.

5. Even NASA defines space as beginning in 100 km altitude - SS1 has gone to just over 112 km altitude while its derivative SS2 will go up to 135 km altitude. So these two vehicles go where there is the space according to NASA's definition.

6. Your rocket required larger tanks and thus has more empty weight than the CaLV of Ares 1 and Ares 5 (I think Ares 5 is the CALV). This means that your rocket needs more propellant than those two. This in turn means that your rocket will cost more than those two because of more material and more propellant.

7. NASA is doing according to what they think they should do - but this doesn't mean that this is the ony possible way. What NASA think are their own subjective thoughts. Everyone else has the right to doubt them and to try another way - they aren't the owners of the truth and never will be. As long as there is a future new concepts, new ideas, new improvements can be treid and it can turn out that something different to what NASA does is better. The privates are trying other concepts while NASA awards them prizes for that as far as those concepts are useful for the Bush plan. QuickReach will be launched in or until 2008 and is nearly the only technology left to enable t/Space to launch the CXV or a COTS-vehicle (if the both aren't the same).

8. The early space business of the privates is quite clear - suborbital tourism, orbital tourism (already occurred via Space Adventures) and lunar tourism (under development by Space Adventures).

9. Regarding a private 100mT-rocket - some of the privates may be thinking already that it isn't required. They already may be considering in-space assembly - and even at NASA's institute NIAC this is considered.



gaetanomarano, you are truning to polemics - stop that or I will do like Sigurd already told you.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


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