Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 262

Thread: NASA and Private Industry Space Exploration

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    CST-100 is old news but this is recent interview with the project leader who is also an ex-astronaut.

    And as I've tried to point out tells us nothing new. The fact is you posted the link with a bare description and as with almost every such post you make I have no clue what you think about it. Fewer links and more of your own thoughts would be better; and as NoCleverName suggests some searching of the site to find out what's already been said on the subject.

    To summarize; this is not the first time someone associated with the CST-100 has made such statements that the program will only continue if the NASA support does. They were very vocal about it in the run up to the last round of funding and with the amount of money in the next round being debated its hardly surprising they are putting people out for interviews to restate that position. Boeing knows that if NASA/Congress decide to only support two programs then it will be the SpaceX Dragonrider and AN Other. Given recent developments with Sierra Nevada establishing links with ESA and the DLR Boeing may be feeling that their hold on that second spot may not be as tight as it was.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    selvaarchi, I recommend searching names or keywords before posting a link. Don't use the Forum "search" function, it's not very good; try using an outside search engine like Google or Bing, with "cosmoquest forum" attached (in quotes), for example '"cosmoquest forum" CST-100' or '"cosmoquest forum" Chris Ferguson'.
    Thanks, I see what you mean. Part 1 of the interview was posted in the "Forum - Collaborators of CosmoQuest - Universe Today" the same day I posted it in this forum. Question - Is the date and time posted in this forum the local time that one post's it or universal time (eg GMT). Reason I ask is my time here is 11.54 pm and the other post is 10.50 am on the same day. Time between Malaysia and USA is about 12 hours (depending where in the states and summer or winter time. It does not change in Malaysia). I am at +8 on GMT.
    Last edited by selvaarchi; 2014-May-17 at 10:53 PM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Thanks, I see what you mean. Part 1 of the interview was posted in the "Forum - Collaborators of CosmoQuest - Universe Today" the same day I posted it in this forum. Question - Is the date and time posted in this forum the local time that one post's it or universal time (eg GMT). Reason I ask is my time here is 11.54 pm and the other post is 10.50 am on the same day. Time between Malaysia and USA is about 12 hours (depending where in the states and summer or winter time. It does not change in Malaysia). I am at +8 on GMT.
    I got the answer - the forum converts it into your local time. Reason I say this is, above, my reply and Garrison's have the same time. I do not think Garrison stays in the same time zone as I do.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Thanks, I see what you mean. Part 1 of the interview was posted in the "Forum - Collaborators of CosmoQuest - Universe Today" the same day I posted it in this forum. Question
    When it comes to articles on Universe Today, they will ALWAYS be posted there.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    NASA is taking it's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to the next level. Two main areas are 1) Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (CATALYST) program 2)Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities (CCSC)

    They are also actively looking at other areas like with their asteroid mission.

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2515/1

    While some in the space community would like NASA to use the COTS model for large scale projects, from establishing lunar transportation systems to development of a large kerosene/liquid oxygen rocket engine that could replace the RD-180, NASA’s ambitions—or at least its budgets—aren’t nearly as grand. Instead, NASA is pursuing a number of smaller programs, many of which offer no direct funding, to stimulate development of technologies and capabilities that could be of use to both NASA and commercial ventures.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    NASA is taking it's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to the next level.
    That article really doesn't explain much. I'd like to see what some of these proposals look like and where they stand. Especially since this has been in the works for a while. I'm not sure how big of a level that is, but it is something.

    What this amounts to is send us some ideas, and we will give you what we know. No funding is involved. It's relying on the companies' hopes that they can turn it into profit later.

    It is encouraging to see that some companies do think that there's a future in commerce here.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    That article really doesn't explain much. I'd like to see what some of these proposals look like and where they stand. Especially since this has been in the works for a while. I'm not sure how big of a level that is, but it is something.

    What this amounts to is send us some ideas, and we will give you what we know. No funding is involved. It's relying on the companies' hopes that they can turn it into profit later.

    It is encouraging to see that some companies do think that there's a future in commerce here.
    NASA has already selected 3 companies for the project to enable delivery of payloads to the surface of the moon.

    http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...ities_999.html

    NASA announced Wednesday the selection of three U.S. companies to negotiate no-funds exchanged partnership agreements with the agency to advance lander capabilities that will enable delivery of payloads to the surface of the moon, as well as new science and exploration missions of interest to NASA and scientific and academic communities.
    Slightly more details of one of the companies

    http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...ility_999.html

    Astrobotic was selected by a panel of experts from NASA based on its proposal to develop a commercially viable lunar cargo delivery capability.

    Proposals were judged on the achievability of lander development and performance, and likelihood of success. Astrobotic will now negotiate a Space Act Agreement with NASA that makes personnel, facilities, and expertise available to the company to support its lunar lander development.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    NASA has already selected 3 companies for the project to enable delivery of payloads to the surface of the moon.
    That's what your other article said.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    That's what your other article said.
    It did but this was more specific especially on Astrobotic

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    It did but this was more specific especially on Astrobotic
    The second link did, and I appreciate that.
    But; I was referring to the first link. It said nothing (in fact less) than the link in your previous post.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    The second link did, and I appreciate that.
    But; I was referring to the first link. It said nothing (in fact less) than the link in your previous post.
    I put the two reports together from the source "space-travel" to answer your question for more details.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,136
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    I put the two reports together from the source "space-travel" to answer your question for more details.
    What does "from the source" mean? Is "space travel" the keywords you searched for?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    What does "from the source" mean? Is "space travel" the keywords you searched for?
    Not the search. The web site space-travel.com

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,136
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    We have had lots of news on what SpaceX is doing and I have also posted reports on Boeing. Here is some news on Dream Chaser

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/...cap-milestone/

    SNC has what is arguably the darling of the Commercial Crew Program – at least in the eyes of the space flight fans – with their Dream Chaser spacecraft’s appearance and heritage deeply associated with the since-retired Shuttle orbiters.

    From a Program standpoint, her lack of commonality with the two capsule spacecraft she is in competition with provides NASA managers with an interesting set of attractive alternatives to consider, including cross-range, multiple landing options.

    Dream Chaser’s advance towards space flight has been keenly monitored, as much as SNC now appear to be closely following the commercial space playbook of providing the media with a heavily controlled drip feed of updates, mainly out of the fear of falling foul to a general media that is more interested in problems than progress.

    However, Monday did result in the first update for some time, with the positive update from the vehicle’s Wind Tunnel testing.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    There is something coming out of retirement to help commercial spacecraft. See it in action.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...paceships.html

  17. #77
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    There is something coming out of retirement to help commercial spacecraft. See it in action.
    It never retired.
    It's been in operation or under modification continually since 1965.
    The latest modification started in 2012 after being used for Ares-1X.

    What does this have to do with private industry?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    It never retired.
    It's been in operation or under modification continually since 1965.
    The latest modification started in 2012 after being used for Ares-1X.

    What does this have to do with private industry?
    I stand corrected (I was only quoting from their article). It will be carrying their rockets unless NASA is building commercial spacecraft.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    It will be carrying their rockets unless NASA is building commercial spacecraft.
    It's a NASA machine, it will be carrying a NASA rocket. What do you mean by unless?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    It's a NASA machine, it will be carrying a NASA rocket. What do you mean by unless?
    unless NASA is building commercial spacecraft

  21. #81
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    unless NASA is building commercial spacecraft
    They are not. the statement just doesn't make sense to me.
    How can a governement entity build a commercial item?

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    They are not. the statement just doesn't make sense to me.
    How can a governement entity build a commercial item?
    My interpretation was the new commercial crafts will be using it and my reason to put it in this thread.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    My interpretation was the new commercial crafts will be using it and my reason to put it in this thread.
    That's not how it sounded. Probably another translation issue.

    So far it's all been speculation.
    Not long ago, it was being reported that all 3 would all be sold. At the same time they have been updating them for Ares and for SLS.

    Last month it was announced that pad 39a has been leased to SpaceX. That might open them up to using the VAB and Crawler, but I have not seen any reports to that affect. I don't know why vertical assembly facilities would be needed for them.
    Right now F9 is assembled and integrated horizontally, and it seems it will be in the future.

    This article about SpaceX and pad 39 appears to confirm that. Even with the military's requirement for vertical integration, SpaceX is still going for horizontal assembly and final integration at the pad.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    My interpretation was the new commercial crafts will be using it and my reason to put it in this thread.
    What commercial raft? The current ones plan to use the Atlas V and Falcon 9 I haven't seen anything to suggest they need this crawler.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    Brief status review of what the 4 companies have recently achieved and what they hope to achieve in the near future on their path to the first human flight in 2017

    http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...vance_999.html

    Working in wind tunnels, software laboratories and work stations across America, NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP) partners continue to make strides in advancing the designs of the American spacecraft and rockets that will carry humans safely and reliably into low-Earth orbit from U.S. soil by 2017.

    Blue Origin, The Boeing Company, Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) and Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) are accomplishing milestones established through Space Act Agreements as part of the agency's Commercial Crew Development Round 2 and Commercial Crew Integrated Capability initiatives.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    T
    This article about SpaceX and pad 39 appears to confirm that. Even with the military's requirement for vertical integration, SpaceX is still going for horizontal assembly and final integration at the pad.
    Do you know if there's a solid rationale for that requirement or is it just a matter of how they've always done it?

  27. #87
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    Do you know if there's a solid rationale for that requirement or is it just a matter of how they've always done it?
    Nope, just what I got from the article.

    I did find this:
    An Air Force spokesperson said national security spacecraft are currently not designed for horizontal integration.
    "The EELV program is required to provide a common interface so spacecraft do not require re-design in order to move to a different EELV launch vehicle," the Air Force spokesperson said. "All current and future EELV launch vehicles are required to comply with this standard interface."
    Last edited by NEOWatcher; 2014-May-22 at 07:42 PM.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    Nope, just what I got from the article.

    I did find this:
    which sounds like a long winded way of saying 'because'...

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,774
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    Nope, just what I got from the article.

    I did find this:
    That doesn't quite seem to say that vertical integration is a requirement...just that it's a standard for the EELV vehicles. Some payloads might require a redesign for horizontal integration, and this commonality avoids problems when switching between EELVs. However, that doesn't exclude the possibility of payloads that are compatible with horizontal integration.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,618
    Looks like Orbital has hit a problem with their Antares AJ-26 engine

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/...ennis-testing/

    One of the AJ-26 engines set to launch with a future Antares rocket has failed during testing at the Stennis Space Center on Thursday. Sources claim the engine “exploded” on a Stand located in the E Complex at the famous rocket facility. The failure is currently under evaluation, although it may delay the next Antares launch that is tasked with lofting the the ORB-2 Cygnus to the International Space

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •