Alan Stern explains why it’s crucial for NASA to go commercial for earth to LEO.
13 thoughts on “Freeing NASA”
Curious. Who actually oppose commercial spacelift to LEO? I mean, FY2011 commercial crew and cargo didn’t just pop into existence, and the immediate requirement is ISS astronaut replacement and resupply. So what’s actually changed here?
Whats changed is the market collapsed as NASA exits it, but folks figure thats not important as long as the remains are called commercial
Sterns:
>>Competition-driven innovation and price pressure that
>> commercial practices foster can only make human
>> spaceflight ever more common and U.S. leadership
>> in this domain ever clearer.
Is a joke – or agency spin. Competician driven innovation doesn’t work well in dieing markets, where the handfull od gov hired taxi flights to the ISS can’t support any real economical market.
Expectations are for higher costs then now.
> Thousands of high-paying jobs would be generated
>across the U.S. to support commercial space lines.
What commercial space lines? And why would anyone expect thousands of new jobs would be needed to fly fewer, simpler, flights? Or is that thousands of new jobs relpacing the tens of thousands of old jobs lost as the market droped.
> Having a diverse suite of U.S. manned spaceflight systems
> to access space is inherently robust.
Such reedundancy, in such a trivial market, drives the costs up — and it takes more then two different designs to be robust, especialy if they both are expendable and tight on money.
> It is only by freeing NASA from routine human transport
> to low-Earth orbit that we can afford to once again see
> American astronauts exploring distant worlds.
This is utterly specious. NASA isn’t a busness or person with a pocket of money. “Afford” for it means does ity have the votes. Its utterly irrelivant how many $’s it costs. Oh, and you noticed NASA budget isn’t droping because of commercial crew.
It remains to be seen if humans to orbit is a dying market. The I.S.S will continue for a while and people are working toward providing other orbital destinations.
Could life support be added to the two Bigelow habs. already in orbit? Do they already have airlocks? Might they work as safety backups?
Ken,
[[[Could life support be added to the two Bigelow habs. already in orbit? Do they already have airlocks? Might they work as safety backups?]]]
No, they are only sub-scale test habitats. No airlocks or any provision for docking.
It be far easier just to launch the Sundancer which is sitting at Bigelow Aerosapce waiting for the Falcon 9 to launch it. It was to be launched this year, but delays in the development of the Falcon 9 has slipped that launch date to 2014 with plans for its first crew in 2015, unless of course Commercial Crew and President Obama’s space policy get in the way.
>It remains to be seen if humans to orbit is a dying market. …
Well, shuttle caried the bulk of everyone who , and its grounded adn nothing no its scale is serriously being proposed — xecept if Biggelow gets huge demand. Otherwise its going to be a long dry spell.
Kelly Starks write:
Its utterly irrelivant how many $’s it costs.
This attitude, my friends, is the heart of the problem.
Mike
Might they work as safety backups?
For ISS? No. Even if they could be upgraded, they are not in the right orbit.
OTOH, if a few habs are put into orbit would Canaveral be enough to support a greater flight rate? Where might they put another launch site for the F9/Dragon?
Kelly, I’d really appreciate it if you would at least go to the effect to ensure your posts have correct spelling before hitting the submit button. It’s just basic respect.
> Michael Kent Says:
> May 14th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
>> Its utterly irrelevant how many $’s it costs.
> This attitude, my friends, is the heart of the problem.
Its the government, political costs and capital – not $ costs and capital – are what gov runs on. Now if voters cared – that would be different, but it ain’t, so don’t expect them to ignore their issues to favor your issues.
> Trent Waddington Says:
> May 16th, 2010 at 2:27 am
> Kelly, I’d really appreciate it if you would at least go to the effect to
> ensure your posts have correct spelling before hitting the submit button. ==
Sorry. chronic problem.
I presume you meant effort, not effect – but sometimes its just not practical — or I miss things.
Curious. Who actually oppose commercial spacelift to LEO? I mean, FY2011 commercial crew and cargo didn’t just pop into existence, and the immediate requirement is ISS astronaut replacement and resupply. So what’s actually changed here?
Whats changed is the market collapsed as NASA exits it, but folks figure thats not important as long as the remains are called commercial
Sterns:
>>Competition-driven innovation and price pressure that
>> commercial practices foster can only make human
>> spaceflight ever more common and U.S. leadership
>> in this domain ever clearer.
Is a joke – or agency spin. Competician driven innovation doesn’t work well in dieing markets, where the handfull od gov hired taxi flights to the ISS can’t support any real economical market.
Expectations are for higher costs then now.
> Thousands of high-paying jobs would be generated
>across the U.S. to support commercial space lines.
What commercial space lines? And why would anyone expect thousands of new jobs would be needed to fly fewer, simpler, flights? Or is that thousands of new jobs relpacing the tens of thousands of old jobs lost as the market droped.
> Having a diverse suite of U.S. manned spaceflight systems
> to access space is inherently robust.
Such reedundancy, in such a trivial market, drives the costs up — and it takes more then two different designs to be robust, especialy if they both are expendable and tight on money.
> It is only by freeing NASA from routine human transport
> to low-Earth orbit that we can afford to once again see
> American astronauts exploring distant worlds.
This is utterly specious. NASA isn’t a busness or person with a pocket of money. “Afford” for it means does ity have the votes. Its utterly irrelivant how many $’s it costs. Oh, and you noticed NASA budget isn’t droping because of commercial crew.
It remains to be seen if humans to orbit is a dying market. The I.S.S will continue for a while and people are working toward providing other orbital destinations.
Could life support be added to the two Bigelow habs. already in orbit? Do they already have airlocks? Might they work as safety backups?
Ken,
[[[Could life support be added to the two Bigelow habs. already in orbit? Do they already have airlocks? Might they work as safety backups?]]]
No, they are only sub-scale test habitats. No airlocks or any provision for docking.
It be far easier just to launch the Sundancer which is sitting at Bigelow Aerosapce waiting for the Falcon 9 to launch it. It was to be launched this year, but delays in the development of the Falcon 9 has slipped that launch date to 2014 with plans for its first crew in 2015, unless of course Commercial Crew and President Obama’s space policy get in the way.
>It remains to be seen if humans to orbit is a dying market. …
Well, shuttle caried the bulk of everyone who , and its grounded adn nothing no its scale is serriously being proposed — xecept if Biggelow gets huge demand. Otherwise its going to be a long dry spell.
Kelly Starks write:
Its utterly irrelivant how many $’s it costs.
This attitude, my friends, is the heart of the problem.
Mike
For ISS? No. Even if they could be upgraded, they are not in the right orbit.
OTOH, if a few habs are put into orbit would Canaveral be enough to support a greater flight rate? Where might they put another launch site for the F9/Dragon?
Kelly, I’d really appreciate it if you would at least go to the effect to ensure your posts have correct spelling before hitting the submit button. It’s just basic respect.
> Michael Kent Says:
> May 14th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
>> Its utterly irrelevant how many $’s it costs.
> This attitude, my friends, is the heart of the problem.
Its the government, political costs and capital – not $ costs and capital – are what gov runs on. Now if voters cared – that would be different, but it ain’t, so don’t expect them to ignore their issues to favor your issues.
> Trent Waddington Says:
> May 16th, 2010 at 2:27 am
> Kelly, I’d really appreciate it if you would at least go to the effect to
> ensure your posts have correct spelling before hitting the submit button. ==
Sorry. chronic problem.
I presume you meant effort, not effect – but sometimes its just not practical — or I miss things.