NASA and the Private Sector - Page 7
Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41095 Posts
| ||
Jesushooves
Canada553 Posts
| ||
Kar98
Australia924 Posts
On May 05 2011 17:00 Jesushooves wrote: Spacial exploration will forever be the job of NASA, there will never be a "support" role that NASA plays, but traveling between two places could be done by the private industry. I was told this by two astronauts that visited my university a few months ago btw. I'm going to agree with this, private space travel is just far too expensive | ||
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
Spacial exploration will forever be the job of NASA, there will never be a "support" role that NASA plays, but traveling between two places could be done by the private industry. I was told this by two astronauts that visited my university a few months ago btw. This would seem like the most logical thing to do. | ||
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On May 05 2011 19:13 Kar98 wrote: I'm going to agree with this, private space travel is just far too expensive I don't know if you understood it. Private companies would most likely play the role of traveling between two places in space we have already done with NASA. So if it's too expensive it couldn't even do that. Also, there is much more money in private business than the government, albeit spread around a (little) bit more. | ||
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
| ||
imagine7xy
United States34 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41095 Posts
I am already preparing myself for disappointment, but who knows. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41095 Posts
WASHINGTON (AFP) – NASA said Tuesday that a new spacecraft to take humans into deep space will be based on designs for the Orion crew exploration vehicle and built by Lockheed Martin. The Orion capsule, originally designed to take astronauts back to the moon, is a surviving component of the Constellation manned space exploration program canceled by President Barack Obama last year for being behind schedule and over budget. NASA administrator Charles Bolden said the designs for Orion would be used to forge ahead with a new spacecraft known as the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), which would lift off atop a massive rocket. Source Also Bigelow Aerospace unveiled a number of charts detailing it's plans etc: Source <--- Leads to a PDF | ||
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
nvm found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Purpose_Crew_Vehicle "The MPCV is being developed for manned missions to an asteroid and then to Mars. The capsule is also planned as a backup vehicle for cargo and manned missions to the International Space Station but is not planned to include Orion's role as a lifeboat vehicle for the ISS, which will continue to be served by the Soyuz " | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41095 Posts
The Lobbyists attack again: http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/06/oldspaces-attac.html | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41095 Posts
NASA and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) “technically have agreed” to combine the two remaining flights designed to prove the Hawthorne, Calif., company can deliver cargo to the international space station, but formal approval for the mission is still pending, a senior NASA official said. “We technically have agreed with SpaceX that we want to combine those flights,” William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for space operations, said at a July 21 media briefing at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. “We are doing all the planning to go ahead and have those missions combined, but we haven’t given them formal approval yet.” The current plan calls for SpaceX to launch a Dragon capsule aboard a Falcon 9 rocket on Nov. 30. Dragon would then rendezvous and berth with the space station on Dec. 7, NASA spokesman Joshua Buck told Space News July 22. Originally, SpaceX would have demonstrated rendezvous and berthing capabilities in separate flights. SpaceX wants to combine the second and third Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstration flights in order to begin making regular cargo deliveries under the $1.6 billion Commercial Resupply Services contract NASA awarded the company in 2008. Source | ||
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On January 01 2011 09:03 t3hwUn wrote: I'd rather see our tax dollars spent elsewhere. The Private sector takes care of things and is the most efficient model to do so. Unfortunately that's not the majority view or at least it isn't portrayed as such. Do you understand what a public good is? | ||
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On July 23 2011 13:47 BestZergOnEast wrote: A justification for you to steal my money? Are we really doing this again? Somalia called, they said they'd be happy to take you. There's even a thread on the subject already! | ||
OsoVega
926 Posts
On July 23 2011 14:00 HellRoxYa wrote: Are we really doing this again? Somalia called, they said they'd be happy to take you. There's even a thread on the subject already! Just because there are three options instead of two doesn't mean the government isn't initiating force. | ||
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On July 23 2011 13:47 BestZergOnEast wrote: A justification for you to steal my money? Can you give an intelligent response rather than cut and paste stuff you hear in libertarian discourse? In my eyes, the necessity of some public goods provide a good justification for theft of money from citizens by the government. This is also the view of the majority of libertarians. Even Friedman believed in some level of "theft" - defense, minimal government departments (e.g. a bare bones Fed who sets a long run monetary growth rate to appease the consequences of the monetarist/Friedman expectations augmented phillips' curve and the Time Inconsistency Problem w.r.t the political cycle) and, albeit he wasn't convinced, perhaps some subsidisation of academics. Bang. | ||
sheaRZerg
United States613 Posts
On May 25 2011 14:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Going back to 1960's design it seems: Hard to argue with something so simple and elegant. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41095 Posts
At this point, SpaceX is focusing its efforts on commercial spaceflights to the International Space Station, the first of which will hopefully take place in December, Musk said today during an appearance at the AIAA propulsion conference. But in the coming years, Musk has high hopes for commercial journeys—and settlements—on places like the Moon and Mars. "Ultimately, the thing that is super important in the grand scale of history is—are we on a path to becoming a multi-planet species or not? If we’re not, that’s not a very bright future. We’ll just be hanging out on Earth until some eventual calamity claims us," Musk said. Challenges abound, of course, not the least of which is how to transport the supplies and people needed to make a new settlement workable. SpaceX thus far has a high-level idea of what is needed to make a journey to Mars possible, though "I wouldn't say it was fleshed out to a detailed level," Musk said. First on the list would be a vehicle that's capable of delivering substantial mass to Mars and then returning to Earth. The company's planned Falcon Heavy rocket, the plans for which were unveiled in April, could conceivably carry 12 to 15 metric tons, but "I think you'll probably want a vehicle that can deliver something on the order of 50 metric tons ... in a fully reusable manner," Musk said. The Falcon Heavy, which will be the world's largest rocket, will have its inaugural flight in late 2012. When asked about using nuclear propulsion on Mars, Musk was skeptical that people would approve. "I think it's going to be tough to convince the public that we should launch large reactors into space" and possibly spread uranium on Earth, he said. It might be possible to build a reactor on Mars or the Moon, but people usually forget how heavy reactors are and that many of them usually have a source of water nearby to drive the steam turbine. If fusion were to become a reality, "that would be very cool," Musk said, but solar panels are also an option. Source SpaceX from a sales perspective, sooner or later will have more cash/funding than NASA. While many beleaguered U.S. aerospace manufacturers are trimming back amid continuing uncertainty over the nation’s long-term goals, California-based SpaceX is ramping up plans to become the world’s largest producer of rocket engines in less than five years, manufacturing more units per year than any other single country. Outlining SpaceX’s ambitious growth strategy, President Gwynne Shotwell says a production increase is aimed at supporting the assembly of engines for the coming flurry of Falcon 1 and 9 launches. The company also continues to bolster its workforce, passing the 1,500-employee mark for the first time at the start of August after seeing a 50% uptick in payroll last year. “We have built about 60 engines so far this year, and will build another 40 by year-end,” says Shotwell. Speaking at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Joint Propulsion Conference here, Shotwell explains that the eventual “plan is to build up to 400 engines per year, that’s our target.” The expansion is built on booked revenues of $3 billion through 2017, part of which was earned by orders for 14 new Falcon 9 launches placed “within the last year,” she says. SpaceX is also “negotiating three more right now,” she adds. The launch manifest lists 40 sold flights, including 33 Falcon 9s, plus five options. Source | ||
| ||