PDA

View Full Version : Why does NASA HAVE to development a new manned launcher on its own?



banquo's_bumble_puppy
2009-Aug-17, 11:30 AM
Why does NASA HAVE to develope a new manned launcher on it's own? Why can't it be a co--operative effort like the ISS? Why not kick in some money to man-rate Jules Verne? Or what about an uprated version of the Delta IV Heavy? Where the heck is Bill Gates and why is private enterprise not more involved.....well they sorta are becoming more involved (so I contradict myself).... why can China and Russia seemingly do it on the cheap.....why not build big dumb rockets? Why can't there be a new way of thinking in NASA - one word KISS....not the band.....

Zvezdichko
2009-Aug-17, 11:34 AM
Delta IV heavy doesn't have a triple redundancy on its components which is required.

We can't keep it simple as you suggest, because rocketry is very complicated.

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2009-Aug-17, 12:01 PM
so you're saying that rocket science is sorta like rocket science????

kucharek
2009-Aug-17, 12:15 PM
Some rocket guy said, all rocket science fits on a sheet of paper. Anything else is engineering.

Glom
2009-Aug-17, 12:20 PM
It looks like that's the way it's heading.

Antice
2009-Aug-17, 01:07 PM
Making a rocket is simple. it's making a rocket that goes where you want it to go that is the real science

Larry Jacks
2009-Aug-17, 01:33 PM
Where the heck is Bill Gates and why is private enterprise not more involved

Why is it that whenever someone's favorite pet rock doesn't have enough money, they expect Bill Gates to pay for it? Bill Gates has other plans for his money. Since it is his money, he's entitled to do with it whatever he wants (at least for now).

NASA doesn't need to develop anything on its own. If NASA has a need for something, it should write up the requirements in a statement of work and contract for the services. NASA was built on the foundation of the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA). Too bad NASA didn't stick closer to the successful NACA model. NACA did a lot of great work developing aeronautical technology and test facilities (e.g. wind tunnels) and made them available to US aircraft companies. It never tried to build and operate its own airline or even whole aircraft except as needed to develop and test new technologies.

L’Étranger
2009-Aug-17, 03:37 PM
Where the heck is Bill Gates and why is private enterprise not more involved.....

Because private enterprise is interested in investing in things that generate profit, not in giving their money away because someone else wants it. Bill Gates doesn't pay my mortgage either - can you believe it?

matthewota
2009-Aug-17, 03:45 PM
Private enterprise, historically, has not had the financial resources to develop a manned spaceflight capability. In addition, a private company would not invest in such a project unless they were assured of a profit.

It is only recently that a company (SpaceX) has had the gumption to give it a try. It is Ellon Musk's dream, and we can only hope that it will be a success.

Gandalf223
2009-Aug-17, 03:54 PM
My guess is that the military is involved. Those folks, many of them at least, have some serious trust issues.

Antice
2009-Aug-17, 04:08 PM
It's the military's job to have trust issues. Civilian space efforts have to be totally divorced from the military if there is ever going to be any hope for large multinational efforts. However. it would be nice if some kind of truly international space agency could be created. one with the sole charter of exploring space and getting mankind out to the planets.

novaderrik
2009-Aug-18, 12:40 AM
they don't do it cheap and easy because that's not what NASA is about.
if they wanted, they could dust off the Saturn blueprints, upgrade them for the new requirements, tool up, and build a new rocket to get the job done.
but that doesn't do very much to help push the boundaries of our knowledge and engineering capabilities- it just builds rockets.

Warren Platts
2009-Aug-18, 12:11 PM
The reason they needed a new rocket is because none of the EELV's are powerful enough to launch the Orion capsule. Also, Ares I was supposed to pave the way for the Ares V heavy lift launch vehicle (HLV). It was supposed to be able to lift 170 tonnes. They didn't figure it was a good idea to shoehorn a manned space program into rockets orginally designed for launching unmanned satellites.

___________________________
"A father may turn his back on his child, brothers and sisters may become inveterate enemies, husbands may desert their wives, wives their husbands. But a mother's love endures through all."--Washington Irving

Antice
2009-Aug-18, 02:42 PM
In some respects they were right considering the information available to the decisions makers at that time. more recent developments and upgrades in the EELV fleet indicate that Ares I may be unneeded. but as always, it's easy to be wise After the fact.
Ares as originally planned was supposed to start with a 4 segment SRB and shuttle engines in the upper stage. but after looking at costs long term they deemed it cheaper to go straight for a 5 seg SRB and J2-x instead. witch is fine if you have the time to develop those. Ares I kinda don't have the time. hence some of the extra gap in manned flight.

ugordan
2009-Aug-18, 02:59 PM
The reason they needed a new rocket is because none of the EELV's are powerful enough to launch the Orion capsule.

Says who? How long will this myth be perpetuated?

Nicolas
2009-Aug-21, 08:49 AM
What is your basis to claim it would get bloated up to Ares V proportions? Why do you keep switching topics between Ares I and Ares V? I for one am attacking Ares I only here and didn't even bring up Ares V above.

Though if you would have, you should not have to be so panicky about Ares I requiring a 5 segment SRB as this development is required for Ares V anyway.

ugordan
2009-Aug-21, 09:17 AM
Though if you would have, you should not have to be so panicky about Ares I requiring a 5 segment SRB as this development is required for Ares V anyway.
How does 5.5 segments for Ares V equal 5 segments for Ares I. The same way 4 segment and 5 segment SRBs are "equivalent"?

mugaliens
2009-Aug-23, 01:12 AM
Some rocket guy said, all rocket science fits on a sheet of paper.

My college physics crib notes did, at least after I got done photo-reducing them from posterboard down to the equivalent of 3 pt type on an 8.5" x 11" sheet of paper...


Anything else is engineering.

Yep!