Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 315

Thread: Why NASA still waits to adopt the ready available Ariane5 to launch the CEV capsule?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
    Do you know that this is a DISCUSSION board. Pointing to a general article on another website to answer specific issues is not a discussion. I have read you articles and posts, and they do not address some specific issues that have been brought forth in these posts.
    not true, my suggestion is written in the post #31 of this thread: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=31

    A new crew capsule needs to be developed no matter what the launch vehicle is.
    the original NASA claims was for the first CEV/CLV test launch in 2011... now it's shifted to 2014 (and beyond...) due to CLV problems

    if NASA adopts a ready availble rocket and use its funds and engineers to develop the CEV, the first launch will be very close to the Shuttle retirement

    ...technology, development and research...
    ok, they can develop lots of "new technologies" (like the shuttle...) and land on the moon after the first extraterrestrial visit on earth (so the ETs may see the moon landing on the 1000" TVs aboard their flying saucers...)

    .

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    not true, my suggestion is written in the post #31 of this thread: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=31
    What exactly did you answer there? I question your source on the first point, and the rest was just re-stating your opinion.

    When this and [url=http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=774347&postcount=11 this[/url] were brought up, all you did was come up with sarcasm and then made a completely irrelevent comparison argument using that sarcastic remark.

    I will admit this one is more of a discussion, and I'll address that one in a moment.

    Posts 36 to 44 were interesting discussions related to military, nationalism, and multi-nationalistic programs. Your response? Off the cuff, unsubstantiated, remark speculating about the Chinese, and continue on with unsubstantiated comments even when someone asks where you got your information.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    the original NASA claims was for the first CEV/CLV test launch in 2011... now it's shifted to 2014 (and beyond...) due to CLV problems
    It's in the design phase, besides what specifically is causing the 3 year gap?
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    if NASA adopts a ready availble rocket and use its funds and engineers to develop the CEV, the first launch will be very close to the Shuttle retirement
    There is no doubt in my mind that it can be done cheaper and quicker, but there is a bigger picture than time and money. Unfortunately, from where you sit, it's not an issue, so you don't see it, and those are the points that have been brought up.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    ok, they can develop lots of "new technologies" (like the shuttle...) and land on the moon after the first extraterrestrial visit on earth (so the ETs may see the moon landing on the 1000" TVs aboard their flying saucers...)
    From the first 8 words, it sounded like you may actually have addressed part of the issue, then went down a cliff. ET? Huh?

    Again; CEV is being designed with specific goals in mind. There are hundreds or thousands of engineers, scientists and technicians making those decisions. We only hear a small portion of what those goals are. If we are designing it to fit a particular lift vehicle, then some of those advantages may go away.

    And without some intensive numbers to back up what you're saying along with ALL the issues involved, then nobody on the inside will listen and this just becomes speculation for discussion. I hear lots of opinions, and I do respect that, but what you are doing is not only minimizing other opinions, but you are trying to argue and force that opinion.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,031
    I was talking about getting the whole Soyuz launch system. You see, Soyuz is the name of a launcher as well as a capsule. Try to bear that in mind next time you mouth off.


    And if you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I was discussing the cost of buying the whole Soyuz launch system and the cost of the associated infrastructure needed to use the system. Try reading for comprehension before you post and look even more ignorant about space systems.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    ...question your source on the first point, and the rest was just re-stating your opinion...
    consider that I don't understand english 100% and also my posts are not perfect

    ...all you did was come up with sarcasm and then made a completely irrelevent comparison argument using that sarcastic remark...
    the "Spruce Goose" post (and the comparison) was only a joke (as I've explained in a following post) ...we don't need to be serious all the time... maybe... next time I will use the tags [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] to avoid any misunderstanding...

    ...interesting discussions related to military, nationalism, and multi-nationalistic programs...
    I don't say these discussions are not interesting, but are unrealistic in to-day's and future REAL scenario

    it's like talk of Russia in the cold war and say that you NEVER use a Soyuz or cooperate in a space with them!

    it's not easy to extrapolate the future of the space in the next 20 years... but (I'm sure) it will be more close to some wal-mart-capsules built in China than a bigger LEM to land on the moon in ...2020 ? ...2022 ? ...more ?

    after all, the "wall-mart" vehicles is the target of COTS and of all new private ventures!

    about the source of China space costs... you must consider that I (like all internet users) visit thousands pages per month and I can't save all pages nor copy all URLs (with remarks!) for future use

    I've read of the Shenzhou launch cost and the past China space-budget in one of these pages months ago... the new $500M space budget is a more recent news (weeks) but I can't remember in which page I've read it... I can Google it but I'm not sure to find it again... months ago I've found a picture of the chinese VAB, but I've not copied it... now I search (but not find) it

    before I find again the sources you can only trust in my memory...

    ...It's in the design phase, besides what specifically is causing the 3 year gap?...
    the gap appears to come from the 5 segments SRB development time... using a ready available rocket it may disappear

    ...there is a bigger picture...
    the "big picture" may be "come back to the moon, mars and beyond" ...but I don't think that use the stick or the Ariane5 or another rocket may change the "picture"... only the time to "draw and see" it...

    the rocket is only a detail... the "big picture" is the exploration

    the "big picture" of Columbus was discover a new land... not the number, dimensions, food/payload and sails/engines of his ships!

    ...then went down a cliff. ET? Huh?
    no, I don't went down a cliff... simply I don't see so much "high technologies" in the VSE plan, not only because it is (great part) Shuttle, SaturnV and Apollo derived, but (first) because to-day's and future space programs can't use (for costs and reliability) too much "new things" (like in the Apollo program when, many technologies was developed or invented FOR it) but old, well known and reliable technologies

    the ISS use '80s computers and electronics, 90s notebooks and OS, etc. NOT because NASA has not money to buy a DELL... but because they are "field tested" in many years of use and known as reliable (or with well known problems)

    you know... the VSE plan don't need 15 years for its "VERY HIGH AN SUPER TECHNOLOGY" but only because NASA must use the low budget will have, reuse the same contractors, save the US aerospace jobs, etc. etc. etc.

    ...CEV is being designed with specific goals in mind...
    I only suggest to launch it with another rocket to save time and money...

    ...hundreds or thousands of engineers, scientists and technicians making those decisions...
    it's sarcasm???

    they will never ask others for decisions or suggestions... but, after the ESAS plan, the changes, the problems, etc. etc. etc... I think they need very much HELP... !!!

    ...minimizing other opinions, but you are trying to argue and force that opinion...
    I don't minimize other opinions, I only support my opinion, of course

    .

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    the "Spruce Goose" post (and the comparison) was only a joke ...
    I appreciate a good joke (Even a bad one) but, in this case, it had the effect of avoiding an answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    I don't say these discussions are not interesting, but are unrealistic in to-day's and future REAL scenario...
    There, that's what I was looking for, a little explaination. Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    after all, the "wall-mart" vehicles is the target of COTS and of all new private ventures!
    I think that hits the nail on the head. Private ventures will be looking to anything to cut costs because their goal is primarily transportation. Maybe thats where the focus should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    about the source of China space costs... you must consider that I (like all internet users) visit thousands pages per month and I can't save all pages nor copy all URLs (with remarks!) for future use
    ...
    before I find again the sources you can only trust in my memory...
    Have you heard the phrase "You cant believe everything you see on the internet?". We are only looking to understand the credibility of your sources.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    I've read of the Shenzhou launch cost and the past China space-budget...
    Being that the Chinese are as secretive as they are, their economy is what it is, the questionability of working conditions, and the form of government being what it is... I'm sure there are both cost savings and buried costs in there somewhere. For these reasons I have a hard time using the Chinese as a comparison.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    the gap appears to come from the 5 segments SRB development time... using a ready available rocket it may disappear
    Again, thanks for the detail... I'll have to see what that's about.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    the rocket is only a detail... the "big picture" of Columbus was discover a new land... not the number, dimensions, food/payload and sails/engines of his ships!
    Unfortunately; for space, it is a very important detail. If Columbus used a bigger ship, different sails, etc. He probably would have gotten there, and if it took longer, did more fishing.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    no, I don't went down a cliff... simply I don't see so much "high technologies"...
    Well the structure is back to basics. After all; it's physics that governs that part of it. The technology will be in the components, the way it's used, the scaleability, etc. Probably not visible to anyone but the engineers.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    I only suggest to launch it with another rocket to save time and money...
    I'm just saying that theres more to it than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    it's sarcasm???
    Yes; putting words in the engineers mouths, and making a joke out of it is sarcasm.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    they will never ask others for decisions or suggestions...
    How many others does it take? I'm sure there are those in the program that are arguing the very same points you are.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    I don't minimize other opinions, I only support my opinion, of course
    That's obvious...but to not acknowledge anothers opinion is minimizing it.

    I think we can agree that we are seeing completely different aspects of what the goal of CEV is.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Jacks
    And if you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I was discussing the cost of buying the whole Soyuz launch system and the cost of the associated infrastructure needed to use the system. Try reading for comprehension before you post and look even more ignorant about space systems.
    Talking down to me? How cute.

    However, the facts are on my side, given that the ESA is doing just what I described:

    http://www.space.com/spacenews/archi...de_101705.html

    And for much less money than NASA is spending on the CEV.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
    ..."You cant believe everything you see on the internet?"...Chinese are as secretive as they are, their economy is what it is...
    China has not so much secrets like in the past... about its launch costs and annual budget... the $500M figure they want to spend per year is ano official claim (if I remember right, made in the days of the China space agency chief visit in USA)

    the $110M figure for a Shenzhou launch is too high (not too low!) since it is about twice the costs of its "mother" Soyuz... probably that price is due to the upgrade and design changes they have made, the different rocket and the low launch rate...

    but the Shenzhou design is very simple and, in future, it may cost (mass produced) under $20M per launch (like the COTS companies hope to do)

    ...If Columbus used a bigger ship, different sails...
    I don't agree... Columbus has accomplished his "mission" with the "hardware" available (not with a "bigger ship") ...like NASA accomplished with Apollo using the old technologies available in '60s

    ...not visible to anyone but the engineers...
    in a rocket there is more technology we can see... but we don't need to be engineers to see that great part of it is made with old technology and an old design

    .

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    China has not so much secrets like in the past... about its launch costs and annual budget... the $500M figure they want to spend per year is ano official claim (if I remember right, made in the days of the China space agency chief visit in USA)
    Maybe not like the past, but the issues do linger. You admit you don't have official claims, so how can we know for sure? It is possble your numbers are right, but maybe not.
    The single launch figure is not in dispute (for me), I agree about the design costs making higher.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    but the Shenzhou design is very simple and, in future, it may cost (mass produced) under $20M per launch (like the COTS companies hope to do)
    Again; it very well could be, but it isn't now, and it's only speculation, so I won't put much trust in those figures.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    I don't agree... Columbus has accomplished his "mission" with the "hardware" available (not with a "bigger ship") ...like NASA accomplished with Apollo using the old technologies available in '60s
    But in the 60's when Apollo was developed, the technologies available in the 60's was cutting edge, not old. Apollo made some of the technologies.
    And don't forget, the mission was the moon, the rocket was completely new and designed for that mission. All the missions leading up to the SatV were existing rockets, but the mission's were only testing concepts and ideas to be used in the moon mission.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    in a rocket there is more technology we can see... but we don't need to be engineers to see that great part of it is made with old technology and an old design
    I don't care if it is 99.5% old technology, if that 0.5% cannot be accomplished with current technology, then you're stuck.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
    You admit you don't have official claims, so how can we know for sure?
    "official claim" about the China $500M budget found in this article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/599/1

    ...it's only speculation, so I won't put much trust in those figures...
    if t/Space claims to launch its CXV for $20M... why China (with 1/20th of labor costs) can't?

    ...not old. Apollo made some of the technologies...
    true, the Apollo technology was not "old" in '60s but it's old to-day

    we will see some new technologies in the CEV and LSAM electronics and navigation systems, but the main hardware (SRB, J-2x, RS-68, tanks, SM, etc.) is derived (or the same) developed 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago

    .

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,031
    However, the facts are on my side, given that the ESA is doing just what I described:

    The EU is building the capability to launch the very capable Soyuz rocket, not the capsule. It's kind of funny that they're subsidizing the Russians to build the facilities to compete with EU built rockets, but that's their business.

    Buying the whole Soyuz capsule system complete with the rockets would not be a good deal for NASA. It simply makes no sense to invest in the infrastructure (physical plant as well as personnel) necessary to fly Soyuz missions when they can hire the services for much less. It's obvious that you've never worked with space systems or you would realize these facts. If you read that a talking down to you, so be it. Decades ago, an American humorist named Will Rogers observed that "Every one is ignorant, only on different subjects." It appears your subject is space (and probably economics, too). Nothing wrong with that - ignorance can be cured if you're willing to listen to people who have worked with space systems for a couple decades.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    "official claim" about the China $500M budget found in this article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/599/1
    But it seems by Luo's admission, that we cannot make a direct comparison. Luo said that Chinese budgets were “very complicated” Combine that with the pace and volume, it's hard to say if the 500M is good or bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    if t/Space claims to launch its CXV for $20M... why China (with 1/20th of labor costs) can't?
    I never said they can't... only that I have no confidence that the numbers can be used in a direct comparison.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    true, the Apollo technology was not "old" in '60s but it's old to-day
    we will see some new technologies in the CEV and LSAM electronics and navigation systems, but the main hardware (SRB, J-2x, RS-68, tanks, SM, etc.) is derived (or the same) developed 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago.
    Exactly my point. If the physics dictate the hardware, and we have something that works and is proven, then concentrate where there's room for improvement and growth.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
    ...Luo said that Chinese budgets were “very complicated...
    true, China is "very complicated" for us to understand

    but $500M are $500M in every country and, at China's costs, it equals a $2B USA or Europe budget

    ...I have no confidence that the numbers can be used in a direct comparison...
    this may be true for the "internal costs" of the China space program

    but, if (someday) China will sell its capsule/rockets/launches to other countries, the REAL price of a manned launch will be the price the buyer will pay to have it... EXACTLY like happen to day with chinese-built computers, cellular phones, shoes, etc. sold in our countries

    .

  13. #73
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    ...the REAL price of a manned launch will be the price the buyer will pay to have it... EXACTLY like happen to day with chinese-built computers, cellular phones, shoes, etc. sold in our countries.
    That's probably the only way we will be able to compare. We only have Russia to compare to at the moment for that type of system. We still have other factors to consider, like competition and government sponsorship, but time will tell to see how much of an impact that will be.

    And if commercial spaceflight takes off (no pun intended), then we will really have some comparisons due to increased competion. And if that happens, then maybe we will see a U.S. company go after it seperately from NASA.

    It's too early to tell, there's a lot of hopes and dreams on the drawing board right now.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    but, if (someday) China will sell its capsule/rockets/launches to other countries, the REAL price of a manned launch will be the price the buyer will pay to have it...
    I wouldn't hold one's breath waiting on that day. Russia's getting into outsourcing its rockets and offering rides to tourists because its financially strapped. They're desperate for money.

    China's not in that position. I would equate their program to the US space program around the Mercury/Gemini period (with the benefit of more advanced spacecraft to work with). They're doing quite well financially, so their program is going to be pretty tight for a good bit before they open up.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    but, if (someday) China will sell its capsule/rockets/launches to other countries, the REAL price of a manned launch will be the price the buyer will pay to have it...
    I wouldn't hold one's breath waiting on that day. Russia's getting into outsourcing its rockets and offering rides to tourists because its financially strapped. They're desperate for money.

    China's not in that position. I would equate their program to the US space program around the Mercury/Gemini period (with the benefit of more advanced spacecraft to work with). They're doing quite well financially, so their program is going to be pretty tight for a good bit before they open up.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler
    They're desperate for money.
    absoultely not true!

    they have a monthly cash flow of billion$$$ thanks to the very high oil/methane prices

    probably they will not use that money for space... but (surely) they are not "desperate for money" to-day

    ...around the Mercury/Gemini period...
    I don't agree, they are not in the "mercury period" only because of the early manned launches and I think its Shenzhou is better than Soyuz (since it is derived form Soyuz but upgraded)

    .

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    I don't agree, they are not in the "mercury period" only because of the early manned launches and I think its Shenzhou is better than Soyuz (since it is derived form Soyuz but upgraded)

    .
    I was referring to the state of their manned program, not their vehicles. Their program is still completely internal, totally government controlled, and still in the "first steps" stages. Even though they are working with capsules more advanced than Mercury/Gemini, in terms of flight time and operations, they're still getting their spacelegs under them.

    As for Russia's finances, I won't get too much into them because of the poltical connotations, except that the high costs of energy resources haven't been at that high level long enough to have made a broad impact on the Federation's finances. They still have major infrastructure issues, along with an internal war going on. If prices remain elevated for another year or more, then maybe it might leave them a little flush with cash, but there's still a lot they need to pay for before they start cutting deals on Soyuz capsules.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler
    I was referring to the state of their manned program
    China learns and changes very fast and I don't think they will need the same time to walk the same steps... the real weight of China in space will be known in the next 5 years

    about Russia...

    they have all the problems you quote... but, now, they have also the oil-money and part of it can be used for space

    .

  19. #79
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    China learns and changes very fast and I don't think they will need the same time to walk the same steps... the real weight of China in space will be known in the next 5 years
    So let's see now, the US sent a man in orbit in 1962, and landed on the moon in 1969... 7 years.
    China orbited in 2003, and you say in the next 5 years... total of 8 years.

    With all of the advantages you are stating, and the fact that it's been proven (so many science breakthroughs are not needed) then why take so long?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
    So let's see now, the US sent a man in orbit in 1962, and landed on the moon in 1969... 7 years
    with the same money spent in '60s every country can land on the moon!

    China will not land on the moon in 2010 but (I think) sooner that expected now

    .

  21. #81
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    with the same money spent in '60s every country can land on the moon!
    China will not land on the moon in 2010 but (I think) sooner that expected now.
    True; but that was done with 60's technology which you say can be done so much better and cheaper with today's technology.
    And it's not being done.
    Last article I saw said China was planning on 2012. But, that seems to be a moving target.

    Anyway, a China moon launch has nothing to do with this thread. Let's go back to the OP.

    You heard of all the reasons why NASA is designing thier own ship. So why the Ariane5? Why not some Russian rocket, why not a Japanese rocket, why not other boosters that are US born? All of your arguments can be said of any of these alternatives.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
    ...but that was done with 60's technology which you say can be done so much better and cheaper with today's technology...
    if that is true... why NASA (that own the full Apollo technology and knowlenge) don't lands again on the moon within next 4 years?

    ...So why the Ariane5? Why not some Russian rocket, why not a Japanese rocket, why not other boosters that are US born?
    only the Ariane5 is (both) ready available and able to lift 21 mT

    the Soyuz (rocket) is man-rated but can lift only about 8 mT

    also the Ariane5 needs to be man-rated but in less time

    I don't know exactly the man-rating procedure, but I've read they are not only a "list of tests" but also some design specs like redundant circuits, sensors, etc.

    the Ariane5 is not man rated yet, but was designed to launch the (manned) Hermes (now scrapped) then, it may have great part of these "circuits"

    the other rockets from USA, Japan and Russia are not man-rated nor (for what I know) designed to launch manned vehicles

    of course, they can be modified... but the time and money to do it cancels great part of the advantage vs. the Ares-I solution

    .

  23. #83
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    if that is true... why NASA (that own the full Apollo technology and knowlenge) don't lands again on the moon within next 4 years?
    For all the reasons both of us have argued. A new rocket, new program, new procedure, or any combination thereof will be needed no matter what the country is that does it, or what their approach is.
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    of course, they can be modified... but the time and money to do it cancels great part of the advantage vs. the Ares-I solution
    So; you are not arguing for Ariane directly, but against the current solution?

    I still think that the moon and mars goals are only a way to get public support, and give some spark to the interest of the space program itself. It has had decades of near stagnation (lot's of people yawning).
    We need to keep NASA as an innovator, so they need new challenges. Going with an off the shelf, ready made, non-US rocket will leave the impression that NASA has lost, can no longer lead, and needs to disappear. No matter how much of that is true of the current NASA, the government still needs it in some form, and will struggle even harder without any public support.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
    ...new rocket, new program, new procedure, or any combination thereof...
    all good reasons also for China

    ...against the current solution...
    no, Ariane5 is the faster and cheaper solution, Ares-I the slower and most expensive, other solutions are between Ariane5 and Ares-I

    ...will leave the impression that NASA has lost, can no longer lead, and needs to disappear...
    no, if NASA will use a ready available rocket the impression will be that they REALLY want to accomplish the new moon missions (and not only give some job to contractors)

    .

  25. #85
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    no, if NASA will use a ready available rocket the impression will be that they REALLY want to accomplish the new moon missions (and not only give some job to contractors)

    .
    But that's my point...I don't think it's really the mission, but the national pride of our own technology that they are aiming for. And yes, help generate technology jobs within our own country.

    POLITICS - the mystery ingredient.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
    But that's my point...I don't think it's really the mission, but the national pride of our own technology that they are aiming for. And yes, help generate technology jobs within our own country.

    POLITICS - the mystery ingredient.
    Made in America, or nowhere.

    Not efficient, but it gets Representatives and Senators re-elected in districts where the components are made.

    The thing he refuses to get through his head is that a national space program comes complete with a healthy dose of nationalism, efficiency and convenience be damned.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
    But that's my point...I don't think it's really the mission, but the national pride of our own technology that they are aiming for. And yes, help generate technology jobs within our own country.

    POLITICS - the mystery ingredient.
    I agree with you... and never is a bad thing give more job

    but NASA must ALSO accomplish "the mission" in a "reasonable" time and at "reasonable" costs (I don't want to remember again the Spruce Goose...)

    .

  28. #88
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    I agree with you... and never is a bad thing give more job

    but NASA must ALSO accomplish "the mission" in a "reasonable" time and at "reasonable" costs (I don't want to remember again the Spruce Goose...)

    .
    And "reasonable" will be in the eye of the beholder. Only time will tell.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler
    ...national space program comes complete with a healthy dose of nationalism, efficiency and convenience be damned
    no, I understand that points... simply I think that your "national pride" may be 100 times higher if your astronauts will land again on the moon soon... than build a very expensive firecracker-like rocket that will fly (IF will fly...) to LEO (like every old Soyuz does from 40+ years) in september 2014 (as planned) or after 2016 (more realistic)

    .

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
    no, I understand that points... simply I think that your "national pride" may be 100 times higher if your astronauts will land again on the moon soon... than build a very expensive firecracker-like rocket that will fly (IF will fly...) to LEO (like every old Soyuz does from 40+ years) in september 2014 (as planned) or after 2016 (more realistic)

    .
    Hard to say, emotions are difficult to quantify like that. In any event, the home built vehicle is the safer bet for success, because the US media loves to pick nits when it jacks with the powers that be. Because it will make for a controversial angle that wins ratings, using foreign built components WILL have a big deal made of it. It just can't be sold as easily.

    And lets get something very clear here, the new launch system may end up 200% over budget, a year or two late, and will likely cause consternation in everyone who touches it, but it will fly. For NASA, the alternatives aren't acceptable.

Similar Threads

  1. Capsule and Skydiver Ready for Record-Setting Freefall
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-Mar-07, 02:50 PM
  2. NASA's Kepler Mission Ready for Launch
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-19, 08:40 PM
  3. NASA Ready for Twin Rover Launch
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-07, 06:39 AM
  4. Chinese Launch Third Shenzhou Capsule
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-08, 07:39 AM
  5. Discussion: NASA Ready for Twin Rover Launch
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2003-Jul-08, 11:31 PM

Posting Permissions

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