backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 68 comment(s) - last by cguillemette.. on Aug 14 at 9:31 AM

Some NASA engineers working on competing rocket to the Ares-I

Some of the engineers who are working on the NASA Ares moon rocket leave the office in the evening and work on a new rocket that could be easier and safer to build.

The competing space effort, called Jupiter, is being worked on by 57 volunteer engineers and NASA employees.  The Ares team is made up of thousands of NASA engineers and government contractors, with one Ares project manager already dismissing the Jupiter design, saying it won't work.

Last fall, NASA took a look at the Jupiter design, and said it was a flawed plan that simply isn't feasible for real launches.  Until NASA offers a full review, however, workers who are on the Jupiter team are not ready to dismiss their work.

At least one Jupiter supporter has stepped forward to accuse NASA of trying to block information to help limit the success of the Jupiter project.

"Our concern is that by the time everyone figures this out, we will have destroyed our heavy-lift system," former NASA contractor and now supporter of Jupiter Steve Metschan told the Associated Press.   "At the end of the day, all we're asking for is an independent review of all this stuff."

The new design also could help NASA save $35 billion in development and manufacturing costs, at a time when NASA is struggling with budget issues.  NASA anticipates spending up to $230 billion to return to the moon over the next 20 years, with NASA already spending around $7 billion on Ares development.  

NASA officials said they take all proposals seriously, but they haven't found one that is able to compete with Ares.
 
The current generation NASA shuttle retires in 2010, and the Ares rocket won't be available until 2014 or 2015.  NASA research says there is a 65 percent chance of the Ares-I carrying the Orion spacecraft into space by March 2015.  NASA will have to rely on Russian shuttles and space capsules to get astronauts and food supplies up to the International Space Station (ISS).



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

LOL
By dwalton on 7/16/2008 6:44:23 PM , Rating: 5
You know that the "Well, If you could really build a better rocket with 57 volunteers working part-time better than why does NASA need a team of a 1000 of your full time fully employed colleagues" mindset is in full effect and will undoubtly bias anyone who is persuading Congress and the president each year that billions in tax dollars are being fully and efficiently utilized.

If you did something for a 25 billions dollars in the 60s shouldn't the advancement of technology allow you recreate that experience at least at the same cost or cheaper 40 to 50 years later?

How much would it cost to recreate the same rockets and lander that were sent to the moon six times? I doubt that cost is anywhere what is cost in the 1960s. Taking that same technology and upgrading it with bigger and better safety and performance features shouldn't cost 230 billion dollars of today's money.




RE: LOL
By dwalton on 7/16/2008 6:48:23 PM , Rating: 4
additionally...

I bet if you commissioned NASA to build a Ford Model T you would have to sell it for a price of an Enzo to recoup costs.


RE: LOL
By lifeblood on 7/16/2008 7:05:50 PM , Rating: 5
NASA is building much of it based on current "off the shelf" technologies. For instance, the main part of the launch system (Aries) is basically an SRB from the shuttle. However, bear in mind that almost all the engineers who designed and built the Saturn rocket & Apollo spacecraft are now gone, taking their knowledge and experience with them. Because of that, NASA is going to have to relearn a few things.

But your still right, NASA is a government bureaucracy where thousands do the work of hundreds.


RE: LOL
By psychmike on 7/16/2008 8:10:27 PM , Rating: 3
Alas, last time I heard, very little of the new launch system will be off the shelf shuttle technology. Originally, they had planned on using the shuttle SRB for the manned flights but discovered that it doesn't offer adequate thrust so they went to a 5-segment design. Because of the way that solid motors work, it isn't simply a matter of bolting on another segment but changing and re-validating the solid fuel casting as well. Essentially, its a new rocket. Originally, they had planned on using a shuttle main engine for the second stage of the manned vehicle but then weren't sure about the air-start so decided to go with a new version of the Apollo engine. For the heavy lift vehicle, last time I heard, they were reconsidering the ET-derivative and instead going with a wider diameter tank.

Different handle, different head, but it's still Washington's axe I suppose.


RE: LOL
By KC7SWH on 7/17/2008 2:02:34 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I know it was simply a matter of bolting on another segment and ATK who builds the SRB has already test fired a 5 segment SRB some years ago.


RE: LOL
By FITCamaro on 7/17/2008 6:18:46 AM , Rating: 5
Any government employer is going to have some bloat. But that's because since today's political climate is so adverse to anything going wrong you have to have multiple layers of engineering, testing, validation, etc.

The people who say that if the accidents of Apollo happened today, the program would be canceled are right. Americans are so finicky about anything going wrong that they cry as to why an accident happened when so much money was spent. They don't understand the difficulties and dangers of space travel.

And a large portion of the people would rather that money be spent on handouts to them so they can be even lazier in their lives.


RE: LOL
By lifeblood on 7/17/2008 1:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
I so agree with your last statement. So few people understand how things we take for granted today are partially or fully derived by technology spearheaded by NASA (or other like agency). During the Apollo days it was $5 back for every 1$ spent on the space program. I doubt it's that high today but it's probably still good.


RE: LOL
By Some1ne on 7/16/2008 8:47:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If you did something for a 25 billions dollars in the 60s shouldn't the advancement of technology allow you recreate that experience at least at the same cost or cheaper 40 to 50 years later?


It should, however you underestimate the impact of the bureaucracy that has slowly consumed NASA. For example, when the Columbia shuttle exploded, the entire fleet was grounded for over two year. By contrast, the Apollo program had its fair share of disasters and near disasters, but was never sidelined for nearly as long. When the first planned mission ended up killing the entire crew, it was only about 8 months before the next attempt, and when Apollo 13 almost ended in disaster, it was only 9 months until Apollo 14 launched. In today's climate you couldn't have something like that happen. In fact, the entire program would have probably been scrapped after the failure of Apollo 1, if it were all happening today.

NASA needs a good shake-up, and both they and the public need to be reminded that space exploration is risky business, and that sometimes things will go wrong. There will never be a foolproof way to send people out into space (or at least not for a long time yet), but as long as the astronauts going up give their informed consent, and as long as the NASA engineers are reasonably certain that things will work, there should be no other safety constraints allowed to prevent the program from pressing forward.


RE: LOL
By michael67 on 7/17/2008 5:43:38 AM , Rating: 5
Its everywhere Human live how precious it is is over rated

I work in the oil industry as a offshore piping foreman/supervisor and its getting grazier and grazier every year.

The safety and blame business has gotten a live of its own.
There are now hole HSE (Health Safety Environment) departments that are bigger then then the hole engineering departments in some companies.

Ware i would have done a job quick do to time pressure 25 years ago by bending the rules a little whit out doing it dangerous, and i would have gotten a pat on the back from management for doing a good quick job, i will get fired on the spot now a days.

2 examples from this year:

1. guy needs to cut a hole in grating to run new pipe thru it, he put up barrier tape to mark the spot he is working to keep others out, he cuts the hole in the grating, go's and gets the pipe that has to go thru it, when on the the spot walking backwards he steps in the hole by accident and cuts his leg, 6 stitches.
And for me 4 meetings how the hell this could have happened and about 12 hours of work and 8 hours traveling to office back and forward, i could have spend that time a lot better.
15 years ago it would have costed me 1 hour writing accident report and 15 min meeting over what had happened.

2. last trip i had to torque a flange whit a hydraulic torque machine, I dint had the right moment value and it was saturday afternoon so office was closed, so i did a assessment, calculating from other values i did had.
Some green brown nose operator i heard how i done it by overhearing what i told the lead operator, reported it to the head-office, i had to come to the office 2 times for what i had done and explain how i could have done something like that whit out the right table's.
It was that the platform manger backed me up otherwise i would have bin in trouble.
ps. i was off by less the 2%
20 years ago we dint had torque machines and did the same job whit sledgehammers and floggers (flogger is a spanner that you can hit whit a hammer)

I am not saying that everything should be done the same way as we did it 20 years ago, actually i think lot of the tings are a real improvement and the job got a lot safer.
But the ting is common sens has bin going out of the door and replaced by trying to make the rules idiot proof, the problem whit is there are always better idiots out there.
And people are following the rules instead of understanding them why they are there in the first place.
And if something is not covered by the rules its a great mixture for disaster.


RE: LOL
By murphyslabrat on 7/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: LOL
By Misty Dingos on 7/17/2008 12:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
In my industry (pharma) it is a negative. Yea try to have a meeting in English when for most of the room it is a second language. And everyone thinks they know the process better than the guy or gal sitting next to them.


RE: LOL
By ahodge on 7/17/2008 12:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
"managarial" Huh. So, maybe you're making a joke about his mis-spellings (quite poorly). Or, perhaps you are yourself, guilty of lacking "proper knowledge of the english written language". Regardless, your attempt to display your internet prowess has failed. Perhaps we can now carry on with legitimate discussion.


RE: LOL
By Misty Dingos on 7/17/2008 1:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
Now you makee the joke! Ha ha! You said legitimate discussion. ROFL

Jest wat web site you tink you at?


RE: LOL
By michael67 on 7/17/2008 3:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
In the operational layer there are not a lot of people that are part of the language Stasie.
And they apritiate my know how more and understand that i have dysorthographie problem and have no problem whit it, as long as its understandeble what i am writing.

And if i have to write a report that has to go to the management level, i just send my report to the office and have it spellchecked by a secretary and she will send it 5min later back to me.

But its always easy to attack some one's weak points, gives you a nice Uber-feeling doesn't it?


RE: LOL
By Murst on 7/18/2008 3:20:37 AM , Rating: 3
As long as you keep oil from spilling and people are not getting hurt on the job, it wouldn't make a difference to me if you wrote your reports in Klingon. :)


RE: LOL
By bohhad on 7/18/2008 9:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
its the interweb, you jerk. english is not everyone's primary language


RE: LOL
By always on 7/16/2008 9:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
25 billion in 1960 is approximately 175 billion today using an inflation calculator. but i'm sure that funding is also going towards other projects, that in essence will give us higher quality instrumentations. in the 60s it was simply a race to get us there... now its get us there and find out whats there.


RE: LOL
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/17/2008 3:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
You nailed what I was going to say, "price tag really is about the same."
I did not look into to it, however, I bet the amount paid to the average worker at NASA is higher today then in the 60's (after time value of money adjustments are made).


RE: LOL
By michael67 on 7/17/2008 4:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
I spoke one's whit a engineer that worked on the Apollo project, most of the people on the project ware working 70~80 hours a week and then did some more work at home, whit Little ore no overtime payed.

In his words: It was a time when the US was still a great nation and people ware feeling it was a real honor just to be able to work on the project, just like i think what this small group is doing.

So the work versus payment for what a engineer did then a days was even higher.


RE: LOL
By dwalton on 7/18/2008 12:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well based on inflation, if, today, Atari wanted to restart manufacturing on the Atari Video game system (orig $199.00) from 1979 they would have to price at $626.30.

Technology usually makes great advancement over a 40-50 period so recreating 40-50 year old technology shouldn't cost anywhere the original cost even when accounting for inflation.

60 billion in today's money to fund a mission to the moon should be enough because we aren't trying to anything more than we already done 50 years ago.

There are probably graphing calculators today that are more powerful than the computers used during the Apollo missions. I could probably step back in time and rip out the whole system and replace it with an NES and control flight with nintendo controllers and still have enough performance on tap to play supermario brothers.


RE: LOL
By maven81 on 7/18/2008 4:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to forget that there's far more to a spacecraft or a rocket then just electronics. And while electronics have improved by leaps and bounds over the past 40 years, mechanical systems like rocket engines, heat shields, parachutes and so on have changed very little.
We may have better materials, and engines maybe be slightly more efficient, but the fundamentals haven't changed.
You can even see this in the airline industry... The Boeing 777 is clearly not much (if at all) cheaper then the old 747 from the 60s. There's a reason for that.


RE: LOL
By ThePooBurner on 7/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: LOL
By maven81 on 7/18/2008 9:50:42 AM , Rating: 1
Your bullshit is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of people who made it happen not just once but 6 times. Because you know faking something 6 times is so damn easy.


RE: LOL
By krwhite on 7/19/2008 6:02:21 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yea, then theres that mirror we put on the moon which reflects light back.. And the rocks... Ohhhh the rocks. Hundreds of thousands that saw the rocket going up.. Thousands from the Navy that greeted the astronauts on their landing..

Are computers fake too? Maybe it's mice running around in there.

The earth is flat! The EARTH IS FLAAAAAT!!!


RE: LOL
By ThePooBurner on 7/19/2008 9:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
You are dumber than the person you relied to when trying to reply to me.

It's not hard to launch a rocket into space.
It's not hard to greet people comeing back from said rocket.
It's not hard to have said rocket just orbit earth for a little while while you fake a moon landing and then have the group land after "you've been to the moon".
It's not hard to realize that the lunar lander did not have the radiation shielding necessary to protect the inhabitants from the van alan radiation belt and the death it would have caused them.
It's not hard to realize that you are a fool and i probably shouldn't have wasted my time replying to you. Fool.


RE: LOL
By boogle on 8/13/2008 5:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny how people who are less intelligent tend to have radical views and call other people dumb/stupid for not agreeing with them. More learned people tend to go with 'I disagree with you, here's why'.

#1 It is VERY hard to launch a rocket into space. Try making your own rocket that goes up a few hundred meters - now imagine having to make a rocket reach sufficient speed and altitude to reach orbit.

#2 Not to wave and say hello - but it is hard to re-enter the atmosphere. Very hard. You have to re-enter something that generates such heat that it would melt the pots you put on your stove - all while keeping the interior of the pot cool enough so as not to kill off the occupants.

#3 Everything in space outside of what we've directly experienced is THEORETICAL. The earth was once considered flat, to put 100% faith in a single theory is... unwise. Either way assuming the radiation really is there, its of insufficient intensity and size to harm anything passing through it at thousands of mph.

#4 Only someone insecure in themselves brands someone a fool.

Russia would have loved to been able to say 'its all fake! NASA didn't make it! We win the cold war!'

Or the hundreds of thousands of people involved? None of them blabbing is pretty unlikely.

Or maybe the range finder experiment thats still working to this day might convince you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_e... This experiment has helped confirm some of Einstein's theories, told us more about the moon, and so on.


RE: LOL
By ThePooBurner on 7/19/2008 9:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
You are dumber that a box of rocks. Hundreds of thousands? Give me a break. And yes, it is so easy when everyone is the country is a gullible fool like yourself. This was the 70's, not the 00's. Video editing and special effects were not the domain of the common man. Faking it back then would have been easier than you think. And if it wasn't faked please get me 1 single photo of the lander and flag taken from a terrestrial telescope. If it wasn't faked then why did the russians never manage to make it there? You really think they would let us be the only ones if they could have gotten there? Wake up and smell the lies that you've been fed since you were a kid.


RE: LOL
By cguillemette on 8/14/2008 9:31:55 AM , Rating: 2
The follwing could explain some of your arguments. ;)

quote:
Even the most powerful telescope cannot see the flag. The flag on the moon is 125cm (4 feet) long. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. The largest telescope now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii at 10meters in diameter. Even the Hubble Space telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=59...


RE: LOL
By krwhite on 7/19/2008 5:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
Why not have an open source internet community that comes up with some nice nifty ideas for designs? Heck, the internet community could be the inspiration and brains behind any private efforts.

We need a site.


20 years?
By youdosuck on 7/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: 20 years?
By goz314 on 7/16/2008 7:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We went to the moon basically on a bottle rocket


Wernher von Braun is rolling over in his grave right now.

Call me crazy but I think the Saturn V was just a wee bit more complicated to design and build than a bottle rocket.


RE: 20 years?
By FITCamaro on 7/17/2008 7:42:13 AM , Rating: 3
Look at the mans handle and you'll get a clue to his intelligence. The Saturn V was a feat of engineering.


RE: 20 years?
By Pneumothorax on 7/17/2008 12:11:02 PM , Rating: 3
Amen to that! I still get a kick when I visit the Kennedy space center and see the size of the Saturn V. What's more amazing is that it was built by guys using 60's tech. I wish we had more of those guys still around.


RE: 20 years?
By michael67 on 7/17/2008 4:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ooo those guys are still around only they are completely numbed by red-tape


RE: 20 years?
By wordsworm on 7/16/2008 10:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NASA anticipates spending up to $230 billion to return to the moon over the next 20 years. We went to the moon basically on a bottle rocket, Why would it take 20 years to go this time?


I'm guessing, but pretty much all the Nazi scientists who put men on the moon are now dead. I don't think Germany is still making Nazi scientists. So, who else is there?

Anyways, it's nothing to get in a twist over. If the US can't make it, I'm sure China will.


RE: 20 years?
By MrBowmore on 7/16/2008 11:16:19 PM , Rating: 1
how do i vote u up?


RE: 20 years?
By murphyslabrat on 7/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: 20 years?
By randomly on 7/17/2008 8:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
They are still some german rocket scientists left.
Lutz Kayser for one, who came up with the OTRAG project that was on it's way to success. It was a very low cost innovative parallel staged design. They were well into test flights when the whole project was canceled because of political pressure from Russia, France.
Von Braun was a scientific advisor on the project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAG
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Ho...


RE: 20 years?
By wordsworm on 7/17/2008 9:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
Great article. Thanks for the link.

Perhaps the reason that the project was discontinued was due to fears that smaller/less wealthy nations/entities would then be able to get into the space race. By keeping costs astronomical (unintended but recognized pun), it limits who and what can enter the space race.

I tried to find out if Lutz is still alive, but my initial search proved fruitless.

My 'vision' is to have one of the highest mountains hollowed out with magnetic stages set to accelerate the vehicle. I'm sure financially it would be no walk in the park. But some mountains are 8km high. A magnetic platform which is repulsed in an upward direction would surely get a great deal of momentum. Perhaps not enough to get it to 500km, but enough to save an awful lot of money on fuel. Also, at 8 km you can avoid an awful lot of atmospheric pressure. I also envision the moon being able to return valuable payloads to the earth in a similar fashion. Of course, you wouldn't need any fuel at all aside from a good solar array and battery to send launch vehicles to earth.

Anyways, it sure would be nice to see a lunar base set up at some point in my life, even if I'd never make it there.


RE: 20 years?
By Ringold on 7/17/2008 11:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'm all for any system that lowers launch cost, but does a space elevator not sound cheaper than hollowing out a mountain and packing it full of expensive conductors?

Anyway, as far as a lunar base goes, I can't imagine you not making it unless you're in your 90s. If we don't do it, the Chinese beyond any doubt will do it. And eventually, private enterprise will trail right behind.


RE: 20 years?
By wordsworm on 7/17/2008 11:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
does a space elevator not sound cheaper than hollowing out a mountain and packing it full of expensive conductors?


It would be no different, essentially, than a supercharged monorail, only going vertically.

I really like the idea of the space elevator (doesn't orbital tower sound better? 'Space elevator' sounds boring.)Certainly it's energy efficient. However, we just don't have the technology to make it happen. I understand that nanotubes are our best technology for it, but that we're still not quite where we need to be.

quote:
I can't imagine you not making it unless you're in your 90s.


I have a feeling that I'd have believed you if you'd said that in the 60s, I'd have agreed with you whole heartedly. China has one big advantage over western countries - it is, by and large, a unified country. Its politicians don't have to worry so much about elections and public mood swings. As much as the west likes to defend the ability to vote between a douche bag and a turd sandwich, I for one have found little comfort in the illusion that my vote or opinion has any value in a democratic system.


RE: 20 years?
By ZeroGuardian on 7/17/2008 2:26:47 AM , Rating: 2
First thing you need to understand is that its not 20 to get to the moon its several trips within the next 20 years... the first trips should be between 2015-2020 which is only 7-13 years out.

As for the "bottle rocket" comment... Have a little more respect for the complex systems that NASA had to use in a very short amount of time to get all those brave astronauts in space and to the moon. After all it is rocket science .


RE: 20 years?
By MrBowmore on 7/17/2008 9:49:45 AM , Rating: 2
What? It's not like Rocket science of the 60'ies is Rocket science!


RE: 20 years?
By murphyslabrat on 7/17/2008 11:23:36 AM , Rating: 1
No, it is. In fact, those emboldened words are supposed to be read in a loud, echoing voice.


RE: 20 years?
By krwhite on 7/19/2008 6:09:04 AM , Rating: 2
Our current 'rocket science' is largely the same as it was in the 60's.. I hope you ment to say that sarcastically.


RE: 20 years?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/17/2008 3:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
What was the quote used in the movie "the right stuff", after the astronaut was allowed to releaved himself in his space suite.

"well what are we waiting for? Let's light this bottle rocket and go" or "let's light this candle stick and go"

I would say it was more like 15 bottle rockets duck taped together and and a cherry bomb for extra boost. After watching a video with all the failed launch attempts it amazing anyone was willing to be an astronaut. Today it's more or less old hat. Yes, we are still learning new things, however back in the 60's everyday was a great advancement in new knowledge.


RE: 20 years?
By maven81 on 7/17/2008 6:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
Shepard said light this candle. You can see it in the excellent documentary "when we left the earth" which was just shown by the discovery channel.

The website had clips of voicemails from retired engineers, one of which revealed that they found a dead roach in one of the capsules. I can only imagine the reaction today!


By randomly on 7/16/2008 8:08:23 PM , Rating: 4
For more information about DIRECT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT

it has a lot to recommend it. Cheaper, quicker to develop, safer, development costs lower than ARES.

It suffers from NIH though since it was developed outside official NASA. I'm sure the lower development costs and unit costs will make the contractors unhappy also.

NASA is still too much politics and not enough engineering.




By masher2 (blog) on 7/16/2008 8:31:45 PM , Rating: 5
Write your congressional representatives, and ask them to call for an independent review of DIRECT compared to Ares. I did so last month, and I'll do it again next month if I don't receive a reply.


By kake on 7/16/2008 9:07:45 PM , Rating: 4
This is the inherent problem in your suggestion: the word 'congressional'. Space flight based within a bureaucracy is going to be inherently expensive and slow. Free market based extraterrestrial exploration will be rife with problems as well, but whenever you base a target upon a monetary gain, you gain the prospect of monetary renewal. If it will make money, people will do inexpensively, safely (because who spends a bundle to die), and successfully.

But who is going to front the money. Private corporations see no benefit. Therefore, the question must be asked: why go? Until there is a good reason, can any reason be considered truly justifiable?

I think I might have just argued myself into a logical corner. I'll let it stand and post.


By Ringold on 7/17/2008 11:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
The Orlando Sentinel has also endorsed it, ran a big write-up on it not long ago. Hopefully it'll get some traction locally here.


By Sanity on 7/16/2008 8:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure the lower development costs and unit costs will make the contractors unhappy also.


You got that right. The higher the cost of the project, the higher that 50% mark-up turns out to be. Those contractor board members gotta survive man! How could they do that without those million dollar bonuses?!


Orion Will Bust
By Cygni on 7/16/2008 6:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I support NASA and its programs, the entire Orion program is going to be the biggest bust in their history if it moves forward, and I think they know it.

Look for the next administration to mercifully pull the plug sooner rather than later.




RE: Orion Will Bust
By grath on 7/16/2008 8:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
The republicans will not be the ones to pull the plug on this, and even the democrats will have a hard time of it.

Spaceflight in general, and manned spaceflight in particular, is too firmly entrenched in the corporate-military-industrial-congressional complex for real change to take place within any reasonable timeframe. The so called Vision for Space Exploration is a magnificently crafted piece of propaganda designed to perpetuate the status quo.

They claim that by using "off-the-shelf" technology there will be cost savings, and while that may be true, its absurd to regard shuttle-era solid rocket boosters and external tanks as off-the-shelf. Thats just the cute euphemism they chose to use, when in reality all it accomplishes is to keep the plants that build those components in business, which for the most part are located in firmly republican constituencies as it was the republican senators and congressman who originally doled out the contracts.

Thats just one example of the typical politics before science mindset that only ends up producing systems that are inefficient and costly to the point of being inherently flawed. Its not just a matter of pulling the plug, you have to fight the system to even get a look at the plug.


RE: Orion Will Bust
By Noya on 7/16/2008 11:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
Touche.


RE: Orion Will Bust
By lifeblood on 7/17/2008 1:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
"Off the shelf" goes for parts but also concepts. When the Apollo module was being designed, some engineers wanted to use parafoil type parachutes so it could steer while descending. Others argued that the parafoil was too experimental and would require a lot more research and testing while the round parachute was a standard proven by experience. In the end the standard round was chosen based on it's "off the shelf, proven" history.

The design of the Orion spacecraft is “off the shelf” in that it’s a modernized version of Apollo. For example, it's a capsule design with the heat shield enclosed and therefore protected, as opposed to the shuttles exposed and therefore more susceptible design.

Who knows, maybe Orion will use parafoils rather than standard round parachutes.


Hazardous Construction?
By mikefarinha on 7/16/2008 6:22:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
... and work on a new rocket that could be easier and safer to build.


I didn't know building rockets was so hazardous?! I'm sure OSHA and the workers union would have something to say about this!




RE: Hazardous Construction?
By kake on 7/16/2008 8:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is coming from the standpoint of an commercial electrician with a considerable degree of experience.

OSHA comes by when there's an accident. They find reasons to fine people for things they are doing wrong. The best thing to do when OSHA arrives is to go on an extended break. All day. Or all week.

OSHA does NOT, I repeat, does NOT prevent accidents. They profit off of them.

My five senses and two pennies.


RE: Hazardous Construction?
By Bruneauinfo on 7/16/2008 9:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
word.

i just put my crew on an extended break a few weeks ago when OSHA made a surprise visit. if you put all your tools away and send all your people home its harder to get a fine.


Some comedian said...
By RU482 on 7/17/2008 1:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
NASA - welfare for smart people




RE: Some comedian said...
By nasaidiot on 7/17/2008 6:13:20 AM , Rating: 4
It's actually called "scientific welfare". That's what we called it during the years I worked at NASA. Most people there are truly idiots who wouldn't be able to get a job doing anything else.


rocket science
By EbolaZaire on 7/18/2008 12:28:00 AM , Rating: 2
To all of you that think NASA and JPL are doing so little with so much, I suggest you just actually send someone to the moon; and bring him (or her) back alive before the end of the next decade.

This should be no problem as this would give you more time than NASA had. Besides, its already been done.

Despite all the whining I read, the Chinese the Russians and the ESA haven't done it yet and they are way ahead of you.

Quit complaining. Show the world you have the right stuff. Instead of just claiming that the people that are doing the work aren't doing it fast enough, or correctly, please show us morons how it should be done.




RE: rocket science
By maven81 on 7/18/2008 10:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
If you give me 50 billion dollars I'll show you. But seriously that's a very flawed arguement. The NASA of today is not the NASA of the 60s. They don't have the will, the pride, and very likely even the skill. I'm willing to bet that the best and brightest engineers these days are not going to NASA, they are going to the private sector where the salaries are higher, and where they aren't in danger of being let go.
To make matters worse China, Russia and ESA haven't exactly been standing still.
JPL however should not be lumped into this... they have been launching successful robotic missions consistently, just with little fanfare, and little respect. They also tend to retain people for decades, some of the people involved in Cassini were around during Voyager for example.


RE: rocket science
By dwalton on 7/18/2008 1:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'll complain all I want because NASA doesn't bum money to pay for their projects, they tap my checks in the form of taxes.


By wrack on 7/17/2008 1:25:29 AM , Rating: 2
Wasn't that NASA who spent $1.5 million in the 60s to invent a "Astronaut Pen" over simply using a pencil?




By misuspita on 7/17/2008 3:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
I rated you up by mistake and now I have to reply. Do some reading first, it's as easy as searching in Google. Like this: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1

That is a myth. Busted.


Jupiter flawed??
By HrilL on 7/16/2008 8:48:48 PM , Rating: 3
I think they simply don't want to even give it a chance because that would clearly prove that they mismanage our tax dollars. I like how start ups are starting to do what that shuttle does with billions with just millions. NASA needs a complete overhaul and have the politics removed. I wouldn't be surprised if a private company could get to the moon sooner with only 10 billion.




By jeff834 on 7/16/2008 9:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
It sure wouldn't be ours. The only way we're ever getting anywhere in space exploration is in the private sector. As they figure out ways to make money from it we will get farther and farther along. It's gotten to the point that I have more respect and interest in what Virgin Galactic does than NASA.

Give a company that wants to really make some money a budget of $230 billion over 20 years and you'll see some serious advancements.




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki