en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/556294 Comments by krispace http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1642/1#IDComment80189349 Indeed not. Except in this case Musk has gone out of his way to portray his efforts as those of a plucky independent entrepeneur "above" government help. If one looks at the F9 development cycle, it remained a "Powerpoint" Launch Vehicle until the COTS funding became available: remember that 18 month delay. Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:29:36 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1642/1#IDComment80189349 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1646/1#IDComment80188738 The payload of a Saturn V would have been considerably less had not the upper stages been LOX/LH2. It would have been still less had the first stage been Solid( see some of the NASA NOVA design studies @ Encyclopedia Astronautica). But Solids/Cryogenics provide a good compromise. Two launches would have done the Apollo mission. I was rather surprised this article failed to mention the RS-84 advanced Hydrocarbon engine design which matched Russian performance and weight parameters; whilst being both available for use on Constellation/ARES, and in a new vehicle had NASA not canceled it as "not needed". Quite so! I think it's time to get serious about a multi-fuel SABRE engine designed for use as current strap-on solids are currently. An STS type vehicle would be a good starting point... Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:23:59 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1646/1#IDComment80188738 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1646/1#IDComment80186828 LNG provides a better propellant density but in it's most advantageous Oxidant/fuel ratio only betters RP1 by some 25% in terms of Specific Impulse ratings. It also is derived from finite sources like Oil with which it is normally found in concert but in greater quantity - and used to be just burned off. No more! NASA has experimented with it(Propane/Butane) and Methane fuels but I suspect they found little advantage since they have discontinued serious development - particularly for Constellation. Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:00:53 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1646/1#IDComment80186828 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1646/1#IDComment80185700 Not entirely. The Glushko designed RD-270 produced 95% of the F-1 thrust rating using NTOX/UDMH propellant in an engine weighing 60% of the F-1 and @ 200% chamber pressures w/25% better Isp. They too eventually solved the combustion instability problem that plagued the F-1 for nearly five years. It just took the Russians longer - with a lot less money and even less interest being available! Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:48:30 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1646/1#IDComment80185700 http://127.0.0.1/article/1609/1#IDComment79174808 "The U.S. experiment in parallel manned space, the Air Force Gemini program, was also a boondoggle." Utter nonsense! the fundamental HSF techniques worked out through the Gemini program were essential both for Apollo and for future orbital operations like building ISS. Gemini was actually MORE important than Apollo. Tue, 8 Jun 2010 20:22:01 +0000 http://127.0.0.1/article/1609/1#IDComment79174808 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1642/1#IDComment79171494 Don't forget that COTS bankrolling/contracts provided the funding for F9: hence the delay of 18 months. Why spend your own money when you can use somebody else's! Chutzpah! Tue, 8 Jun 2010 20:15:39 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1642/1#IDComment79171494 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1639/1#IDComment79169187 A classic example of how people just don't listen to what people are saying, but concern themselves exclusively with how it is being said. As for de Grasse; well not only is Apollo dead, but thanks to his hero, so is HSF/BEO. Why? Because by the time we get round to it again, there won't be any money. Tue, 8 Jun 2010 20:02:28 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1639/1#IDComment79169187 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1641/1#IDComment79165319 "The Space Shuttle did not provide the cheap access to space that was required,..." There you have it. NASA and Industry failed to match rhetoric, so all practical space applications beyond wideband transmissions and observational capacities remain in the pipe dream category. Of course if government ever decides this is what it needs: just as most of the domestic oil supply is almost exclusively for USG reserve stocks, then we'll see Solar power satellites operating: at huge expense no doubt, with OUR money... Tue, 8 Jun 2010 19:28:04 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1641/1#IDComment79165319 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1640/1#IDComment79163552 Er, Richard Garriott is the son of Skylab astronaut Owen Garriott: definitely a Yank! Lunokhod 2 & Luna 21? I think you'll find those are/were Russian/Soviet spacecraft that in the 1970's did on the moon what we're currently trying to do on Mars. A little reading as to fact verification might be in order before posting gross inaccuracies like this! Tue, 8 Jun 2010 19:11:09 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1640/1#IDComment79163552 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1642/1#IDComment79158671 “I feel like sort of a political punching bag, a whipping boy, I suppose,” he said of the attention the company has received from opponents of the president’s plan over the last few months. “The opponents of the commercial approach have taken a very calculated strategy of attacking SpaceX” while ignoring the record of success by United Launch Alliance’s Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets, he said." Oh come on Musk! You've set yourself up as the great pioneer and erstwhile critic of ULA,Kistler and other competitors; don't complain when people are not as impressed by your self-serving rhetoric as you would like. You may have provided (some) of the funding and publicity but it is - thus far - the anonymous dedicated people at SPACE X that pulled your blackening bacon out of the pan. A little praise for their superb efforts and dedication from you might have been forthcoming on your part: that's the FIRST job of a good leader. Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:38:46 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1642/1#IDComment79158671 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1642/1#IDComment79156250 My sincerest congratulations to the Design, Construction and Launch teams on a job superbly done: Particularly on such an iffy configuration. Your turn OSC, keep the competition going! Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:26:05 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1642/1#IDComment79156250 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1638/1#IDComment78615074 I downloaded the NASA labs assessment, and a perusal of the summary leads me to the conclusion that without a massive infusion of both funding AND personnel to the existing atrophied facilities, then the Obama Program is simply not going to happen...it all depends on how Garver and her sidekick Bolden allocate the funding. Sat, 5 Jun 2010 03:36:45 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1638/1#IDComment78615074 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1638/1#IDComment78576898 Interestingly enough, the people at DIRECT always operated in terms of their design being produced by the "Commercials"(I do NOT include SPACE X!). No names, no pack drill, but what work has been done in that direction has led to it not being adopted and current-tech HLV being shelved in favor of more "advanced" concepts which one assumes are expected to be cheaper, and yet, more capable. Will it? I've a feeling that it has not been adopted because of an urge to punish by USG. Further it is intended as a warning for others not to follow suit without "prior authorisation" Thus our HSF/BEO program is being sacrificed to drive home the "lesson". Idiots. Sat, 5 Jun 2010 00:23:12 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1638/1#IDComment78576898 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1638/1#IDComment78576043 I couldn't agree more. The Moon is the perfect space base. It also possesses the material wherewithal to created a space industry/colony that will eventually only require shuttle flights to and from Earth. It is perhaps unfortunate that we've been able to do, in both LEO and Clarke Orbit, much of what was postulated by early space pioneers and experts for the moon. Technological progress. In that sense then - assuming it is followed through properly - the Obama plan is a good one; with the proviso that relying upon the requisite technological progress coming through is a bit dodgy IMO since one cannot guarantee that a direct path will deliver the goods. To the contrary if history serves! Sat, 5 Jun 2010 00:13:03 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1638/1#IDComment78576043 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1636/1#IDComment78055320 over 18 months behind, irrespective of some of the stupid bureaucratic manouvers by the USAF & NASA! Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:56:10 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1636/1#IDComment78055320 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1636/1#IDComment78055169 Here we go again! COTS has TWO contractors - one of which is a bone fide company with a long track record - and that ISN'T Space X! Why does the latter get all the publicity and media attention whereas OSC rates a mere mention if they're lucky! BUT OSC is the one I'd rely upon ICTY! So what if F9 launch fails? They'll try again and raise the price for F1e launches - again. I predict it won't be long before we have "Commspace" launches as expensive as the current ones but without the reliability SPACE X PR makes such a big deal of: and assumes a monopoly on(and which I believe they're aiming for with a little help from their friends in high places so they can charge what they like for their "services"). This guy Musk is an "operator", which is why I suspect that OSC has been brought on board by NASA: they're not all stupid and greedy thank goodness! Tue, 1 Jun 2010 15:54:42 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1636/1#IDComment78055169 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1630/1#IDComment76921361 Please! Would you get a Oil company Petrologist to design the next HLV. I've worked in both fields and the expertise is worlds apart. Mon, 24 May 2010 17:11:29 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1630/1#IDComment76921361 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1629/1#IDComment75920824 It was killed when Griffin/Horowitz/ATK created the ARES 1/V abomination in contradiction to the VSE criteria to use as much unchanged STS hardware as possible while launching Orion on existing Commercial LV's. That concept deprived ATK of extra revenue they had planned. Look where it got 'em! Had the NLS'92/DIRECT configuration been adopted from the get-go and been pursued with both enthusiasm and a sense of urgency, Obama would have been canceling real hardware instead of mere "Paper Rockets". A more difficult task I'd be willing to wager... Tue, 18 May 2010 04:07:03 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1629/1#IDComment75920824 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1628/1#IDComment75919173 Only until Nov' 2012...don't forget to put your vote in THIS November. Tea Party in space anyone!? New Administrators - and I mean real ones this time! Tue, 18 May 2010 03:46:13 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1628/1#IDComment75919173 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1628/1#IDComment75918886 You may guarantee that at some stage "Nanny" Garver will contradict him, either in speech or action, as soon as such a decision becomes imminent! Tue, 18 May 2010 03:42:45 +0000 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1628/1#IDComment75918886