Narrowing the Space Flight Gap

MarkWhittington writes with an article on the AssociatedContent site, discussing the impending US space flight gap. Between 2010 (the end of the shuttle era) and 2015 (expected date for the launch of the Orion project) the United States will have little or no spaceflight capability. This is an obvious concern to some members of Congress and NASA. "Is all, therefore, doom and gloom? Not necessarily. Just over a year ago, NASA chose two companies for its Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems (COTS) program ... The goal of COTS was for the two companies to build prototype space craft capable of delivering crews and cargo to the International Space Station. A second phase of the COTS program would consist of a competition for a contract to actually deliver crews and cargo to ISS after 2010 ... Private industry may well come to the rescue and preserve American access to space, at least until Orion becomes operational."

Comments

Trickle down effect?

[Radon360]

So if companies are to be contracted to build and operate a transport system to the ISS, would it be too far-fetched to think that these companies might look at other possible revenue streams from their development work? I could see a privately owned/operated spacecraft doing a better job of opening up the space tourism market, even if a ticket is still obscenely expensive.

Re:COTS is the problem.

[morgan_greywolf]

Yes, but isn't it true that most of the stuff is actually built by private contractors? I mean, NASA does the overall project management of building something like Landsat or Orion, and, yes, they actually launch it, but everything else is already built by private contractors, right?

So what would be the difference if a private contractor picked up the remaining two pieces -- project management and launching/operation?

End of US manned spaceflight

[Animats]

So 2010 is the end of US manned spaceflight. There won't be a replacement for the Shuttle. NASA tried four times before, and never even got close to flight hardware. Why should this time be any different?

The Shuttle was designed in the 1960s. Back then, NASA could hire top people. A huge number of experienced aircraft designers were available. Today, who goes into aerospace? NASA is sometimes called "the world's largest sheltered workshop". Aerospace is now so slow-paced that it takes decades to build anything.

The GAO Report on the Orion program indicates that there are significant problems. The most serious is the usual one with large spacecraft - weight growth in the upper stages, requiring huge increases in the size of lower stages. NASA's plan involves adding another section to the Shuttle-type solid rocket boosters, and there are real questions as to whether the resulting stack will be strong enough. (Remember, that's how Challenger blew up; failure at the solid rocket booster joints.)

Yet again, I'll advocate for these...

[Dr. Manhattan]

...even though no one will have the guts to actually build 'em: the nuclear liberty ship.

Will lift a thousand tons to orbit in a reusable and totally non-polluting craft. (Yup, the exhaust isn't radioactive at all.) But it's "nucular", and therefore terrible. Even though we could finally launch a bunch of solar powersats and turn the U.S. into a net energy exporter...

Re:Yet again, I'll advocate for these...

[The Master Control P]

The nuclear lightbulb would be a great thing once it was in space, but it would have some significant problems lifting off. The main one being that since hydrogen is extremely light and UF4 is one of the densest gasses there is, the ship would only be able to acheive extremely small accelerations before the uranium began escaping it's vortex and getting into the exhaust stream owing to bouyancy. The gas core nuke article on wikipedia puts it at around 1cm/s^2.

Frankly, if we're going to go for putting something big in orbit, I say we just freaking do it right and build a super-orion. Eight million tons, anywhere in the solar system in weeks or months, also capable of reaching a measurable fraction of lightspeed for interstellar journeys. Yes, it would mean detonating a bunch of small nukes in earth's atmosphere. Frankly, if the return is putting twenty thousand international space stations up in one go, I could live with that.

*mumble*goddamn sodding gravity well*mumble*

email the owner sam@zoy.org

[Anonymous Coward]

apparently he is an FOSS developer, perhaps he would like a reminder he is hosting a malicious site, good to see the Linux community is full of such nice people perhaps he doesnt care but i expect his ISP will his # +33 681122062 his ISP abuse@tiscali.fr

Re:Monopoly?

[mikelieman]

Google Jerry Pournelle and X-Prizes.

He lays out a great argument for the Government to just GIVE MONEY AWAY as a reward for meeting technological goals ( Such as launching, servicing, and relaunching the same airframe (spaceframe? No, that's something else.. ) 4 times in 90 days, carrying some significant amount of cargo...

That's my off the cuff example, btw, and not any example invoked as part of Pournelle's discussion.

Structured right, we get heavy lift, and space based solar satellites, for a modest expense from the treasury, and develop American businesses and industries at the same time.

OR, we could just tell the Navy it's now responsible for not just Above and Below the seas, but above the atmosphere, too...

Re:I just know this is gonna kill my karma...

[Wellspring]

According to this, it hardly matters, as Congress feels the need to ban at least manned Mars missions altogether. It seems stupid and pointless to me.