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 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions 
Author Message
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:32 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
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.



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


Those are just handouts to keep the NASA bashers mouths full.

And payling comsat payloads are actually getting bigger. All Cubesat is doing is exploring the steppes in detail :)


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: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:51 pm
publiusr wrote:
And payling comsat payloads are actually getting bigger.
I heard exactly the opposite, that comsats are getting smaller due to improvements in electronics and other satellite subsystems.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:18 pm
Andy Hill wrote:
Another point is that while it may be relatively easy to find smaller payloads, large 200 ton payloads are few and far between.



Then it is the job of SFF to--instead of bashing NASA--to FIND larger payloads. We will never be able to go back to the moon or go to Mars without big rockets. That's a fact, like it or not. And as long as we keep thinking than smallsats are the answer to everything--as long as we think the typical payload is what we have now--humanity will never progress.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:12 pm
The follwoing article underlines and highlights some of what I answered to gaetanomarano: "House Budget Proposal Could Delay Shuttle Replacement" ( www.space.com/news/070131_nasa_budget.html ):

The Congress is about to deny improved decision authority for NASA and to deny the budget wanted, needed, required.

Since Ares I is threatened a larger rocket would be threatened the more.



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


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:16 pm
campbelp2002 wrote:
publiusr wrote:
And payling comsat payloads are actually getting bigger.
I heard exactly the opposite, that comsats are getting smaller due to improvements in electronics and other satellite subsystems.


Alpha Bus is huge actually.


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: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:11 pm
What is Alpha Bus? Give us a link.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:05 am
Posts: 49
Post    Posted on: Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:05 pm
A kind of telecom Sat orbiting in a GEO platform


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 Re: NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions   Posted on: Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:41 pm
.

3.5 years later... NASA seems want to adopt my suggestion...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/ ... cle-noted/

.

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


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:01 am
Posts: 747
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions   Posted on: Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:11 am
Nasa has always known that it needs and has always wanted bigger rockets.

The only people who don't want mega rockets are in Congress.

_________________
What goes up better doggone well stay up! - Morgan Gravitronics, Company Slogan.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 821
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Re: NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions   Posted on: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:18 pm
Rockets need to be provided by private industry, not the government. By the time Ares is ready, SpaceX will have the Falcon 9 heavy ready.

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 821
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Re:   Posted on: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:23 pm
publiusr wrote:
Andy Hill wrote:
Another point is that while it may be relatively easy to find smaller payloads, large 200 ton payloads are few and far between.



Then it is the job of SFF to--instead of bashing NASA--to FIND larger payloads. We will never be able to go back to the moon or go to Mars without big rockets. That's a fact, like it or not. And as long as we keep thinking than smallsats are the answer to everything--as long as we think the typical payload is what we have now--humanity will never progress.



It would be more economical to just launch 200 tons worth of rocks than to "find" bigger payloads. It would be more honest, too. What you're advocating is throwing away money.
A much better way of getting to the moon is to make prizes, like the x-prize. As soon as there is real competition through private industry, the answers will be found.

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 2:00 pm
Posts: 213
Post Re: NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions   Posted on: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:49 am
The situation is somewhat similar to the beginnings of the automotive industry.

I do not think the pioneers are unaware of the benefits of trans-continental shipping of goods and equipments given that close involvement in developing automobiles. But one has to start small with the Flanders and the Studebakers before going to Class 8 Kenworths/Peterbilts. :D


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:47 am
Posts: 521
Location: Science Park, Cambridge, UK
Post Re: Re:   Posted on: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:30 am
SuperShuki wrote:
publiusr wrote:
Andy Hill wrote:
Another point is that while it may be relatively easy to find smaller payloads, large 200 ton payloads are few and far between.



Then it is the job of SFF to--instead of bashing NASA--to FIND larger payloads. We will never be able to go back to the moon or go to Mars without big rockets. That's a fact, like it or not. And as long as we keep thinking than smallsats are the answer to everything--as long as we think the typical payload is what we have now--humanity will never progress.



It would be more economical to just launch 200 tons worth of rocks than to "find" bigger payloads. It would be more honest, too. What you're advocating is throwing away money.
A much better way of getting to the moon is to make prizes, like the x-prize. As soon as there is real competition through private industry, the answers will be found.


However, private industry won't be interested in prizes, unless the prize money exceeds the cost of winning it. Which won't happen. There isn't enough prize money to go round. SS1 cost more than the prize, The LLC (for AA, not sure about the other one) cost more than the prize, N-prize will cost more than the prize, and the Google prize will probably cost more to achieve than the money you win.

Another point, is that if government spend the money, then it is only spent once. If multiple companies are trying for a prize, then more money is spent to achieve the same aim - and only one can win. That's a lot of wasted money.

Things like COTS are more sensible in this area because there is an obvious income source at the end - hence SpaceX.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:30 am
Posts: 236
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Post Re: NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions   Posted on: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:57 am
Absolutely agree with you JH. COTS is the more sensible solution but even if NASA hadn't gone down this route, SpaceX has consistently stated that it would have carried on by itself since it was founded on the philosophy of facilitating a space-faring human civilisation.

Incidentally, COTS-D has yet to be funded but you'll notice that Dragon has windows which are redundant when simply ferrying cargo. Evidence that SpaceX is either gambling on COTS-D or is really prepared to go it alone.
I don't think they need NASA anyway. They have a number of commercial customers and Bigalow still doesn't have an STS for getting crew to and from their space habitats.

In another thread, I noted that SpaceX has plans (possibly even more) for a powerful 3rd stage to their Falcon 9 or F9 Heavy being Raptor (AIAA Conference).

Scuttlebut says that they've recently licenced to use or produce either an existing powerful LOX/RP-1 or LOX/LH2 (RS-68?)engine. Think it might be the former.

Back on topic: I don't think that bigger rockets than say the F9H or the existing Delta IV or Atlas V are really needed. Space construction has now been proved possible so a number of deliveries to an LEO or a bit higher to reduce the atmospheric drag component could prove to be the answer.

Off- topic :) : So what's needed for the next step:
1. No bigger rockets but increased reliability and cost efficiency - on the way;
2. Space habitats - on the way;
3. Propellant / Supply Depots - technically feasible;
4. Political willingness - sadly lacking :cry: ;
5. Supporting technologies such as lightweight radiation and other hazard protection, oxygen and other efficient recycling, and so on - on the way;
6. Reduced risk aversion - currently lacking :(

So really seems to be the human issues rather than the technical ones that are preventing progress beyond LEO - but we knew that anyway - right :?: :!:


Cheers

_________________
Beancounter from Downunder


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post Re: NASA needs a rocket BIGGER than CaLV for its future missions   Posted on: Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:44 pm
Some wise words on the internet:
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/word-last-weeks-failures/

From another poster on the web

A positive message about growing space capabilities through the addition of commercial crew in conjunction with our national human spaceflight program will I hope be something that a future Administration will pursue. To do that means a change in language for everyone. Gone should be all of the unsubstantiated talk about how Orion and SLS are too expensive ($3.7B annually, or 1/2 of 1% of our Defense budget, spent on those programs is too expensive for the US?), will never fly, aren’t needed, etc.. Gone should be the constant rhetoric that the commercial space companies are a bunch of parasites, amateurs who don’t know what they are doing and have no future. Both sides should be praising the heck out of each other in particular and the space program in general. Do that for awhile and I’ll bet Congress will be willing to spend more money to grow the nascent space market into something that will get us to the Moon and beyond and build a business that can profitably support that.

In the Great Depression, America could have withdrawn into itself and hoarded its diminishing federal budget. Instead, it began huge projects like the Hoover Dam and the freeway system, providing both jobs for the unemployed masses and leaving the country with a legacy that still serves it today. While presenting the VSE in Kennedy terms is something that should be done, it also needs to be sold to the public as something that will create American jobs and give the USA a dominance of space that will serve it in the long run.



On BFR and Falcon heavy

From a commercial perspective Falcon Heavy, it's an over-sized vehicle. Its got more capacity than folks in this room need - unless we wanna put two of the biggest satellites on this vehicle and fly them both to GTO. That would yield a pretty respectable price for folks. But what we are really trying to do is, push the bounds of technology with respect to size of launch vehicles, and see if we can put some really interesting things into the solar system and hopefully land some things on Mars as well. This will be the largest vehicle flying since the Saturn moon rockets. We're sandbagging the GTO-numbers, actually analytically it looks like were gonna take 19 tons to GTO. But we're being conservative, with the 12 metric tons. And this will be - hopefully - a vehicle that takes many things to Mars.


Some of you here remember when I first started posting here, worrying about rocket development coming in second:

It seems I was justified:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=27107

Something to think about:
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=34964
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/edito ... nasa-know/
http://www.airspacemag.com/space/bigger ... 02/?no-ist

See the last line here:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/featur ... ign=buffer

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... msg1283106

Had the Saturn HLLVs not been killed
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/dreamingadifferentapollo/
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=18868

SLS bashers explained
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=32540
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=32552
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=32560

I for one, don't want to see this idle
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=69435


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

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


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