Godspeed Atlantis

[AndyH]

It begs the question - will the ISS become more privatized? Would a company like Space-X be permitted to use it as a staging area to collect pieces and assemble vehicles that could travel to other planets?

And is low-earth orbit the best place to build larger ships/stations? Or would it be better for SpaceX to stake a claim in L4 or L5 for construction and mine their building materials and fuel on the moon?

 

[davewill]

It begs the question - will the ISS become more privatized? Would a company like Space-X be permitted to use it as a staging area to collect pieces and assemble vehicles that could travel to other planets?

And is low-earth orbit the best place to build larger ships/stations? Or would it be better for SpaceX to stake a claim in L4 or L5 for construction and mine their building materials and fuel on the moon?

Even if they do, they should mount THAT mission from low earth orbit. The main point is that you shouldn't need another huge launch vehicle. As far as the ISS being privatized...in order to any work there, Space-X would have to seriously enhance it. Sounds like a win-win.

Anyway, it's just total fantasy. We won't/can't invest in space to that scale, so we'll just keep building wasteful, big-ass rockets...if we build anything at all.

 

[AndyH]

It begs the question - will the ISS become more privatized? Would a company like Space-X be permitted to use it as a staging area to collect pieces and assemble vehicles that could travel to other planets?

And is low-earth orbit the best place to build larger ships/stations? Or would it be better for SpaceX to stake a claim in L4 or L5 for construction and mine their building materials and fuel on the moon?

Even if they do, they should mount THAT mission from low earth orbit.

Agreed!

The main point is that you shouldn't need another huge launch vehicle. As far as the ISS being privatized...in order to any work there, Space-X would have to seriously enhance it. Sounds like a win-win.

Anyway, it's just total fantasy. We won't/can't invest in space to that scale, so we'll just keep building wasteful, big-ass rockets...if we build anything at all.

Please explain - are you suggesting that NASA is wasting their time and money building a heavy-lift vehicle? If so, I cannot agree.

Look at the shuttle and all it's been able to do for the past 30 years. It was designed in the 1970s before computer modeling and our modern tools. Early flight tests were conducted with balsa and paper models! Compare that with SpaceX's 9-engine vehicle that uses modern engines that can be built and operated for much much less than the Saturn 5 that took us to the moon. That doesn't mean that the Saturn 5 or shuttle are 'bad' - it simply means that we keep learning how to do it better/faster/cheaper/safer - and that's the entire point of continuing to push forward! NASA's work is apparently shared with industry, and vice-versa - and that truly helps raise 'all ships'.

I had a chance to chat with a doctor/professor at the local university a month or so back. He'd served in the USAF before becoming a professor. Comparing/contrasting academia and military, he observed that what he missed about the military is the environment where one's ego is set aside in order to work together to achieve the mission, while the civilian world is much more about ego and individual achievement at the expense of others (and the academic world more so). I strongly suspect that the space program is much more like the military and much less like the civilian world. I also suspect that this causes interpretation conflicts and thus cynicism in folks that have no military experience.

The political problems in this country have been beating NASA about the head and shoulders for years - thru the entire shuttle program certainly. Anything they can do to partner with the commercial side of the world should help stabilize their 'world' significantly. If we can influence the budget process to keep NASA funded - and increase their funding - then I'll bet we can speed things along significantly.

I hope.

 

[davewill]

The main point is that you shouldn't need another huge launch vehicle. As far as the ISS being privatized...in order to any work there, Space-X would have to seriously enhance it. Sounds like a win-win.

Anyway, it's just total fantasy. We won't/can't invest in space to that scale, so we'll just keep building wasteful, big-ass rockets...if we build anything at all.

Please explain - are you suggesting that NASA is wasting their time and money building a heavy-lift vehicle? If so, I cannot agree.

I am. In the sense that we should be working our way out from low orbit, to higher orbit, to Moon orbit, Moon exploration, and then Mars, building permanent infrastructure, and space to space vehicles every step of the way. We probably need one more big rocket to bootstrap that, but if we end up using it to launch directly from Earth to the Moon or Mars, then I think it IS a waste.

 

[TEG]

...I hope the private efforts also stay clear of politics. We've got some long-haul ship building to catch-up on!...

Personally I think the two go hand in hand by virtue of all the entities that have to be involved and willing to let thing progress. But the privatized versions are more about shareholder value and success, and less about bringing jobs to certain districts. Also the privatized versions have to be savvy about the politics to get through them to reach their end goal, where some of the old style programs seemed to be stuck in a blur of special interests with the end goal made distant and unfocused.

 

[TEG]

...NASA's work is apparently shared with industry, and vice-versa - and that truly helps raise 'all ships'...

From what I can tell it isn't so simple.
From what little I read of Space-X they tried to "re-invent the wheel in a simpler, cheaper form."
Basically tossing out a lot of baggage technology that was overly redundant and over-engineered.
Through trial and error they added what they ultimately needed but with a more minimalist approach.
At first I think what they learned was more through "osmosis" from staff hired on that knew how "the big guys built rockets."
But I gather over time, as NASA started to see real progress, and contracts came together they probably started sharing a bit more formally, but I don't think the specifics are well publicized.

Another thing about Space-X... Their cost projections seem to be based on reusable components.
I don't think they recovered much from the missions so far, so I think they need to get better at recovering components and prepping them for re-use. Large parts of the shuttles were re-usable which was important.

 

[TEG]

By the way, "Falcon 9 Heavy":
http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

 

[AndyH]

Amazing Technology!

 

[AndyH]

Wheel Stop: 4:57:54AM CDT 21 July 2011

The end of an era.