|
|
| Re: Space Center says goodbye to Space Shuttle Discovery (931232) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Space Center says goodbye to Space Shuttle Discovery |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Apr 13 05:25:51 2012, in response to Re: Space Center says goodbye to Space Shuttle Discovery, posted by The Silence on Fri Apr 13 01:49:31 2012. Bush retired them in favor of going back to real exploration space flight,which Obama came along and screwed up royaly.Screwed up in what way? We're still planning to build what is essentially the same rocket as the Ares V, which was the only rocket from the Constellation program that enabled exploration, in the Space Launch System. Hell, the SLS is identical to early designs for the Ares V, before the complete inadequacy of the Ares I became apparent and the Ares V was enlarged to compensate. A two launch lunar landing mission with the SLS will provide far more mass both in LEO and through TLI than the Ares I + Ares V combination ever could have provided. And that's without the wasted billions on yet another medium launch vehicle in a crowded field. The Space Launch System is due to launch it's first flight, an unmanned Orion capsule, on a circumlunar flight before 2017. A manned flight around the moon should follow shortly thereafter, but probably won't make the 50th anniversary of Apollo 8. That compares extremely favorably with Constellation, where it was doubtful the Ares 1 would complete a manned mission by 2017, the Ares V was pushed to 2025, and some contemplated dropping the ISS in the ocean by 2015. Once the AresI-X flight took place,that should have been it,and we should have gone forward,but NNNNNOOOO The Ares 1 was a worthless distraction if your goal was to get Astronauts to the moon. It was ideal if you were a large NASA contractor looking to preserve your profit margin which was about to disappear in the post shuttle period. But other than that it was wholly superfluous to the task of landing men on the Moon. It was just another medium launch vehicle, and one that would have been hard pressed to accomplish its primary mission. NASA's documentation is unambiguous in their conclusion that the Ares 1 would have had a difficult time getting lunar capable Orion capsules into Earth orbit. It was the Ares I's inadequacy which forced them to grow the Ares V from its fairly modest proportions in what is now the SLS to the monster that would have required enormous rebuilding of KSC to accommodate it. And of course the Ares 1 could only deliver it to LEO, going anywhere else would have required the Ares V, which might have flown 8 years later. Finally, the Ares I-X was at best propaganda and at worst a joke. It did not test the configuation then proposed for the Ares I, instead using a shuttle 4 segment SRB, and even then subjecting the mockup to severe thrust oscillations. Worst of all, it confirmed just how dangerous single large first stages are when thrust did not terminate cleanly and it struck the simulated second stage and sent both tumbling. Had it been a manned mission the astronauts would have been lucky to escape with their lives. if he can set up trillions in debt on healthcare,what's a couple of rockets when NASA runs on a pitence of the federal budget. Your partisan ravings would indicate that you are ignorant of the fact that NASA's budget request has increased under the Obama administration by a rate greater than inflation, every year he has been in office. They would also indicate you're similarly in the dark as to the fact that most of the budgetary growth has gone to NASA's "exploration" program that has picked up where Constellation left off when it was put out of its misery. Essentially NASA is shortchanging the far more valuable work done on aeronautics, robotics, astronomy, and everything else they're involved in just to expand their 'exploration' to a degree greater than the Bush administration, yet you try to claim they've screwed up. That's just slightly ungrateful. In any event NASA's days as a launch organization are hopefully numbered. Even if the SLS flies it is unlikely to sustain a major launch campaign, just like all the other heavy lift rockets that came before it. SpaceX, Blue Origin, and other newr commercial launch providers will, with any luck, step up to the plate and provide NASA's launch services at a small fraction the going rate. You don't need a heavy lift vehicle to land men on the Moon, and chances are a sustainable lunar colony simply cannot be done so long as you're funding the development of a dedicated heavy lift rocket. Instead using medium lift expendables as tankers supplying orbiting fuel depots in LEO and at the Lagrange points will provide a more economically sustainable long term program while reducing flyaway costs to third parties and creating an environment for reusable launch vehicles to be efficiently organically developed in response to market needs. NASA needs to get out of the rocket business, for the good of space exploration. Instead they need to move toward being an operator of exploration vehicles, buying services to get from the Earth to orbit, then buying fuel to get from LEO to wherever they may desire. We already have the rockets, we now need the depots, landers, and habitats, something NASA is ideally positioned to coordinate. Competition, not government monopolies will get us to Mars. |
|
|
|