|
Keep debates civil. |
On January 01 2011 12:13 Aquafresh wrote:
I think the author of the article is not understanding what is happening here. No one in charge is advocating for the private sector to replace NASA, that isn't what this is about. The private sector is designing rockets to earn contracts to do things that NASA has been doing quite badly for ages. For instance the shuttle, which costs about 500 million per launch, is basically only used to service the ISS and run LEO experiments. Mission costs and maintenance of the Shuttle alone have basically tied the US manned space program to LEO since the 70s due the insane recurring costs. Why should NASA have to blow its manned space budget on maintaining 40 year old equipment when there is a whole industry worth of private space companies that are vying for the contract to resupply the ISS and ferry Astronauts to LEO? They are willing to do it for 57 million, using superior, safer, technology. NASA isn't going to go away once these contracts are awarded, unless think going to LEO and back is all NASA is capable of. Once these thing are shifted on to private space NASA will be free to use its increased budget to develop new technologies, and tackle projects that it had its eyes set on decades ago, but never got the funding for (due to the shuttle.)
The new role of NASA will almost exclusively be to explore space, develop new technologies such as advanced propulsion, and open up new fields. The routine things like sending Astronauts to LEO and servicing the ISS will be contracted out to private companies such as SpaceX. For this to work private space is the key. Currently the ISS contract is the main incentive for private companies to spend their money, shortly space tourism will take off and that will be a major incentive as well. With a healthy private space industry NASA can shift a lot of the burden of getting back and forth to orbit to them and will be freed up to tackle more scientifically worthy projects.
The Space Shuttle is a proven, man-rated vehicle that moves 25,000kg and seven astronauts to orbit.
The Falcon 9 is not man-rated, and frankly, entirely unproven at this point. Remember, the space shuttle was advertised as being much, much cheaper than it's operational cost proved it to be, and I suspect the same will be true for SpaceX's Falcon 9.
Edit: Another thing to note is that you are comparing the full operating cost of the Shuttle program to the cost of the SpaceX's vehicle alone, not taking into account any of the operating costs that such a program would entail.
|
Why on earth (or off it) is this NASA vs. the private sector? Why can't it be NASA and the private sector? The private sector is great at a lot of things, so let them bid for contracts, and leave the highly exploratory, cutting-edge stuff to NASA.
|
On January 02 2011 05:45 Gelare wrote:
Why on earth (or off it) is this NASA vs. the private sector? Why can't it be NASA and the private sector? The private sector is great at a lot of things, so let them bid for contracts, and leave the highly exploratory, cutting-edge stuff to NASA.
it really isnt vs.
it is like that, nasa contracts ppl
the private sector is great at everything b/c ppl want to make money. that makes ppl be great.
they do bid on contracts see orion capsule(which lockheed is making for nasa aka contracteD)
nasa alrdy does that shit.
|
On January 02 2011 04:59 TheNihilist wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 01 2011 12:13 Aquafresh wrote:
I think the author of the article is not understanding what is happening here. No one in charge is advocating for the private sector to replace NASA, that isn't what this is about. The private sector is designing rockets to earn contracts to do things that NASA has been doing quite badly for ages. For instance the shuttle, which costs about 500 million per launch, is basically only used to service the ISS and run LEO experiments. Mission costs and maintenance of the Shuttle alone have basically tied the US manned space program to LEO since the 70s due the insane recurring costs. Why should NASA have to blow its manned space budget on maintaining 40 year old equipment when there is a whole industry worth of private space companies that are vying for the contract to resupply the ISS and ferry Astronauts to LEO? They are willing to do it for 57 million, using superior, safer, technology. NASA isn't going to go away once these contracts are awarded, unless think going to LEO and back is all NASA is capable of. Once these thing are shifted on to private space NASA will be free to use its increased budget to develop new technologies, and tackle projects that it had its eyes set on decades ago, but never got the funding for (due to the shuttle.)
The new role of NASA will almost exclusively be to explore space, develop new technologies such as advanced propulsion, and open up new fields. The routine things like sending Astronauts to LEO and servicing the ISS will be contracted out to private companies such as SpaceX. For this to work private space is the key. Currently the ISS contract is the main incentive for private companies to spend their money, shortly space tourism will take off and that will be a major incentive as well. With a healthy private space industry NASA can shift a lot of the burden of getting back and forth to orbit to them and will be freed up to tackle more scientifically worthy projects. The Space Shuttle is a proven, man-rated vehicle that moves 25,000kg and seven astronauts to orbit. The Falcon 9 is not man-rated, and frankly, entirely unproven at this point. Remember, the space shuttle was advertised as being much, much cheaper than it's operational cost proved it to be, and I suspect the same will be true for SpaceX's Falcon 9. Edit: Another thing to note is that you are comparing the full operating cost of the Shuttle program to the cost of the SpaceX's vehicle alone, not taking into account any of the operating costs that such a program would entail.
Where do you get the idea that I am not taking into account operating costs? I specifically left those out when I named a price for the shuttle to get the most pie in the sky optimistic price possible. It's really closer to 1.5 billion per launch in reality. The price of the COTS contract to resupply the ISS is already locked in at 1.6 billion for 12 flights, and commercial flights have been sold at 57 million for awhile now. Prices will definitely go up, no one denies this, but they won't even scratch the cost of the shuttle, and if they go up too high the competition between Boeing, Orbital, and LMart will surely drive them back down as they will all have viable launch vehicles at similar prices.
The man rating is barely an issue, as the contract is for cargo. No one expects to be able to send astronauts anywhere on it for a few years anyway. Falcon9 was designed to be human rated from the start, Dragon is a bigger issue there, Atlas V is basically human rated already. Either way we will have multiple human rated launchers by 2015, which was the most optimistic Ares/Orion completion date.
On January 02 2011 05:45 Gelare wrote:
Why on earth (or off it) is this NASA vs. the private sector? Why can't it be NASA and the private sector? The private sector is great at a lot of things, so let them bid for contracts, and leave the highly exploratory, cutting-edge stuff to NASA.
You are right. NASA will not be competing with the private sector on this. They have no plans as of now to build a similar LV or space craft, and no one seriously competes with NASA for the more cutting edge stuff as you put it.
|
|
|
On January 02 2011 09:36 Aquafresh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 04:59 TheNihilist wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 01 2011 12:13 Aquafresh wrote:
I think the author of the article is not understanding what is happening here. No one in charge is advocating for the private sector to replace NASA, that isn't what this is about. The private sector is designing rockets to earn contracts to do things that NASA has been doing quite badly for ages. For instance the shuttle, which costs about 500 million per launch, is basically only used to service the ISS and run LEO experiments. Mission costs and maintenance of the Shuttle alone have basically tied the US manned space program to LEO since the 70s due the insane recurring costs. Why should NASA have to blow its manned space budget on maintaining 40 year old equipment when there is a whole industry worth of private space companies that are vying for the contract to resupply the ISS and ferry Astronauts to LEO? They are willing to do it for 57 million, using superior, safer, technology. NASA isn't going to go away once these contracts are awarded, unless think going to LEO and back is all NASA is capable of. Once these thing are shifted on to private space NASA will be free to use its increased budget to develop new technologies, and tackle projects that it had its eyes set on decades ago, but never got the funding for (due to the shuttle.)
The new role of NASA will almost exclusively be to explore space, develop new technologies such as advanced propulsion, and open up new fields. The routine things like sending Astronauts to LEO and servicing the ISS will be contracted out to private companies such as SpaceX. For this to work private space is the key. Currently the ISS contract is the main incentive for private companies to spend their money, shortly space tourism will take off and that will be a major incentive as well. With a healthy private space industry NASA can shift a lot of the burden of getting back and forth to orbit to them and will be freed up to tackle more scientifically worthy projects. The Space Shuttle is a proven, man-rated vehicle that moves 25,000kg and seven astronauts to orbit. The Falcon 9 is not man-rated, and frankly, entirely unproven at this point. Remember, the space shuttle was advertised as being much, much cheaper than it's operational cost proved it to be, and I suspect the same will be true for SpaceX's Falcon 9. Edit: Another thing to note is that you are comparing the full operating cost of the Shuttle program to the cost of the SpaceX's vehicle alone, not taking into account any of the operating costs that such a program would entail. Where do you get the idea that I am not taking into account operating costs? I specifically left those out when I named a price for the shuttle to get the most pie in the sky optimistic price possible. It's really closer to 1.5 billion per launch in reality. The price of the COTS contract to resupply the ISS is already locked in at 1.6 billion for 12 flights, and commercial flights have been sold at 57 million for awhile now. Prices will definitely go up, no one denies this, but they won't even scratch the cost of the shuttle, and if they go up too high the competition between Boeing, Orbital, and LMart will surely drive them back down as they will all have viable launch vehicles at similar prices. The man rating is barely an issue, as the contract is for cargo. No one expects to be able to send astronauts anywhere on it for a few years anyway. Falcon9 was designed to be human rated from the start, Dragon is a bigger issue there, Atlas V is basically human rated already. Either way we will have multiple human rated launchers by 2015, which was the most optimistic Ares/Orion completion date.
I stand corrected on the operation costs, I thought you were using the Shuttle program total expenses/launches for the $500 million figure.
I don't see the cargo contract as relevant to the discussion. Commercial cargo is not a new thing, Musk's attempt at commercial crew is the real news and my point is that no man-rated Falcon 9 will be ever launching at a cost anywhere close to $57 million a vehicle.
|
On January 02 2011 05:45 Gelare wrote:
Why on earth (or off it) is this NASA vs. the private sector? Why can't it be NASA and the private sector? The private sector is great at a lot of things, so let them bid for contracts, and leave the highly exploratory, cutting-edge stuff to NASA.
Just when have you seen the government do anything "cutting edge"? Besides, it's not the government's role to spend tax money on these things. We're rapidly approaching a time in which each of us will require a government certified employee to wipe our ass for us because "the private sector surely doesn't know how to".
Burt Rutan rocks!
|
On January 02 2011 11:22 Liberty7 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 05:45 Gelare wrote:
Why on earth (or off it) is this NASA vs. the private sector? Why can't it be NASA and the private sector? The private sector is great at a lot of things, so let them bid for contracts, and leave the highly exploratory, cutting-edge stuff to NASA. Just when have you seen the government do anything "cutting edge"?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe getting into space.
|
On January 02 2011 10:44 TheNihilist wrote:
I don't see the cargo contract as relevant to the discussion. Commercial cargo is not a new thing, Musk's attempt at commercial crew is the real news and my point is that no man-rated Falcon 9 will be ever launching at a cost anywhere close to $57 million a vehicle.
No the cargo contract (COTS) is pretty much the whole thing. No private company has done this before, and SpaceX will be sustaining themselves by launching telecom satellites, NASA ISS cargo, and whatever the DoD sends up there. Atlas V, Delta IV and all the other launchers the US currently uses had there development contracted and paid for almost entirely by government funding through cost plus contracts. This is not a bad thing, and those are certainly successful lauchers, but this is the first time a private company has broken into the launcher business on (mostly) its own means. That is what the big deal about SpaceX is, a human rated Falcon9 + Dragon crew configuration is just icing on the cake. Elon Musk doesn't even expect SpaceX to seriously compete for the contract to send humans to the ISS (CCDEV), he has just claimed in the past that they could get it done by 2013 if things go well, which will (hopefully) make SpaceX one of many ways to get to LEO cheaply.
Also I think you are confusing the pricing. The Falcon9 is just the launcher, the Dragon is the intended cargo, but it could also launch Boeing's CST-100, or any other compatible spacecraft. Human rating it includes modifications to the launch pad and additional health monitoring systems which should not increase the cost too much if history is anything to go by. The main concern isn't even really the cost, but the performance (and by extension cost per kg to LEO) hit when the weight of a launch escape system is added. It will be far less expensive, as well as safer than the shuttle, this is not really even a question. The difference in price won't be because of some magical unproven technology, it will be because we will no longer be using legacy technology and legacy parts from contractors that seek to make legacy profits.
|
United States41117 Posts
The Commercial Crew Transportation System (CCTS) Certification Requirements Document is a consolidated set of technical requirements, standards, and processes built upon the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) vast human spaceflight knowledge and experience. The intent of this document is to define the requirements, standards, and certification package contents that will be used to certify a CCTS to carry NASA crewmembers on Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Missions.
I wonder what SpaceX's reply will/was and what changes would need to be done.
Source
Source
|
On January 01 2011 09:51 On_Slaught wrote:
The private sector cuts corners like mad whenever they can. Keep them out of space exploration please.
Uh, no. Its the government that hires the lowest bidder. People who don't understand how the world works shouldn't comment on it.
|
On January 02 2011 11:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2011 11:22 Liberty7 wrote:On January 02 2011 05:45 Gelare wrote:
Why on earth (or off it) is this NASA vs. the private sector? Why can't it be NASA and the private sector? The private sector is great at a lot of things, so let them bid for contracts, and leave the highly exploratory, cutting-edge stuff to NASA. Just when have you seen the government do anything "cutting edge"? Oh, I don't know. Maybe getting into space.
thx for proving his point, they stopped behing "cutting edge" some 40y ago.
|
Flying a long burn explosion into a vaccuum that is hundreds of degrees below zero makes me really enjoy heavy government oversight. That said, if private companies could do this, but be absolutely crucified to the wall with oversight and regulation, I'd support it I suppose. But I just can't see NASA going away. Once someone figures out a way to market space, congress will have a hard time not passing a higher budget for NASA.
|
What I dont understand is why people presumably assume that NASA and the PS are in this whole "war" if you will. As there is one thing NASA can do far better then PS ever will, and thats R&D. Sure the private sector can do that as well, but on a far limited budget and with barley half of what the NASA staff is.
Likewise, there is one thing the PS can do that far surpasses NASA, and that's making a profitable budget. Honestly I see PS getting into space a great thing, as this means NASA can continue to work more on R&D, and the PS can work on making it a practical, affordable technology to use. This is how I believe the next space era will go.
Because quite frankly, unless if there is money to be made from space, no one will dare touch it as any serious enterprise, and its up to these businesses to prove there is.
|
On January 01 2011 09:51 On_Slaught wrote:
The private sector cuts corners like mad whenever they can. Keep them out of space exploration please.
You sir, are entirely misinformed.
|
On January 05 2011 08:12 RiB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2011 09:51 On_Slaught wrote:
The private sector cuts corners like mad whenever they can. Keep them out of space exploration please. You sir, are entirely misinformed.
Just looking at how they build airplanes, I don't trust them with space ships. I don't think he is entirely misinformed.
|
NASA has to deal with politics and a lot more regulation, also Obama has cut their budget a lot. So OP has a good oint
|
On January 05 2011 08:16 .Carnage wrote:
NASA has to deal with politics and a lot more regulation, also Obama has cut their budget a lot. So OP has a good oint
If by cut their budget you mean canceled the project to land ON DA MÜN!!!! again that the previous president felt was an ingenious idea because we certainly haven't done that already. By canceling it he forced the remaining budget into long term space exploration and a probable expedition to mars in 2025-2030. I, for one, am happy with that. I'd rather have actual science going into space then trying to fight an endless "whose dick is bigger" battle in space by doing campy, short term bullshit to appease the millions of mindless drones in this country.
|
Apart from the fake moon landing NASA hasn't achieved anything. Their rockets are the most dangerous ones and are all top technology, but Russia's 20 years old rockets are still more reliable than anything NASA has created.
China and Europe are also catching up to NASA fast and it will only be a matter of time when they run ahead of NASA!
User was warned for this post
|
On January 05 2011 08:22 thehitman wrote:
Apart from the fake moon landing...
If you want anyone to take the rest of your post seriously you should probably not start it with that sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.enjoyspace.com/uploads/news/fevrier2010/falcon9/dragon-crew.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2365/2230448345_2f4c0ab648.jpg?v=0)
![[image loading]](http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/dragon_preparing_to_berth.jpg)
