Am I missing something...? New NASA rocket...
Sep 14th 2011, 9:05 pm
#1
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,847
Am I missing something...? New NASA rocket...
Am I missing something?
NASA has today unveiled it's proposed new launch vehicle for deep space missions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14915725
It will cost $18Bn to develop and get tested, ready for use around 2017.
It will be able to loft 70 metric tonnes to low earth orbit.
It uses many parts from previous vehicles, such as the Shuttle.
I must be missing something, because from what I can see, we can do all of this by about the middle of next week for a little over $100(!!!) if we do the following... (OK, I'm being a little extreme!!)
Build a vehicle shaped like a Shuttle orbiter, which weighs around 100 tons. Give it the same engines and control system as the original orbiter. Don't worry about the the heat shield - this thing isn't coming back.
Where the cargo bay is - well, that's where you put the real cargo/vehicle... about 70 tonnes plus would be available - no heat shield, wheels, etc etc - cargo bay doors, robot arm, toilet etc etc etc
Launch to LEO - deploy the cargo and then continue on to the space station and ride one of their Soyuz modules back home perhaps...
How does $18Bn of money spent on using existing technology & components work... sounds like an awful lot of pork barrel money here...
Just a thought...
Still, having to rely on them Ruskies for a lift to the space station must smart a little...
Cheers
HTS
Take a Shuttle orbiter - remove most of the innards - it doesn't matter if the heat shield gets damaged - we won't need it.
NASA has today unveiled it's proposed new launch vehicle for deep space missions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14915725
It will cost $18Bn to develop and get tested, ready for use around 2017.
It will be able to loft 70 metric tonnes to low earth orbit.
It uses many parts from previous vehicles, such as the Shuttle.
I must be missing something, because from what I can see, we can do all of this by about the middle of next week for a little over $100(!!!) if we do the following... (OK, I'm being a little extreme!!)
Build a vehicle shaped like a Shuttle orbiter, which weighs around 100 tons. Give it the same engines and control system as the original orbiter. Don't worry about the the heat shield - this thing isn't coming back.
Where the cargo bay is - well, that's where you put the real cargo/vehicle... about 70 tonnes plus would be available - no heat shield, wheels, etc etc - cargo bay doors, robot arm, toilet etc etc etc
Launch to LEO - deploy the cargo and then continue on to the space station and ride one of their Soyuz modules back home perhaps...
How does $18Bn of money spent on using existing technology & components work... sounds like an awful lot of pork barrel money here...
Just a thought...
Still, having to rely on them Ruskies for a lift to the space station must smart a little...
Cheers
HTS
Take a Shuttle orbiter - remove most of the innards - it doesn't matter if the heat shield gets damaged - we won't need it.
Sep 14th 2011, 9:44 pm
#2
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 8,106
Re: Am I missing something...? New NASA rocket...
One word: pork
You'll note that a huge component of the system is the solid rocket boosters formerly used on the SST and formerly part of Aries and formerly part of seemingly any suggested program at Nasa. ATK has powerful friends in congress/senate.
I would rather the money be spent on finishing James Webb and other robotic missions. Leave rocket building to the private sector (e.g. SpaceX).
You'll note that a huge component of the system is the solid rocket boosters formerly used on the SST and formerly part of Aries and formerly part of seemingly any suggested program at Nasa. ATK has powerful friends in congress/senate.
I would rather the money be spent on finishing James Webb and other robotic missions. Leave rocket building to the private sector (e.g. SpaceX).
Sep 15th 2011, 2:09 pm
#3
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Am I missing something...? New NASA rocket...
Florida politics?
Sep 15th 2011, 5:40 pm
#4
BE Site Lead
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 92,170
Re: Am I missing something...? New NASA rocket...
Stick the money into a healthcare program, let the private sector take care of this?
Sep 15th 2011, 7:06 pm
#6
Wolf In Sheeps Clothing
Joined: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 947
Sep 15th 2011, 7:58 pm
#8
Badger Badger Badger
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Montpelier, Vermont
Posts: 491
Re: Am I missing something...? New NASA rocket...
Yes, you're missing something. The payload capabilities are a huge step forward from anything that anyone's built before.
No where does it say (because it would be totally untrue) that this is ALL reuse of old components. There is a lot of new technology to be developed and implemented here - they're just being smart and making use of existing technology for things that don't need improvement.
No where does it say (because it would be totally untrue) that this is ALL reuse of old components. There is a lot of new technology to be developed and implemented here - they're just being smart and making use of existing technology for things that don't need improvement.
Sep 16th 2011, 6:29 am
#9
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: Am I missing something...? New NASA rocket...
Yes, you're missing something. The payload capabilities are a huge step forward from anything that anyone's built before.
No where does it say (because it would be totally untrue) that this is ALL reuse of old components. There is a lot of new technology to be developed and implemented here - they're just being smart and making use of existing technology for things that don't need improvement.
No where does it say (because it would be totally untrue) that this is ALL reuse of old components. There is a lot of new technology to be developed and implemented here - they're just being smart and making use of existing technology for things that don't need improvement.
Sep 16th 2011, 6:17 pm
#11
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: WA state
Posts: 3,062
Re: Am I missing something...? New NASA rocket...
Getting things into space is immensely complicated. The cost of the safety checks to make sure it won't kill people would blow your mind. Doing the work itself is a whole order of magnitude more.
Sep 17th 2011, 7:27 am
#12
Arrogant ****
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 4,323
Re: Am I missing something...? New NASA rocket...
Oh, wait...
Sep 17th 2011, 2:26 pm
#15
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,847
Re: Am I missing something...? New NASA rocket...
Yes, you're missing something. The payload capabilities are a huge step forward from anything that anyone's built before.
No where does it say (because it would be totally untrue) that this is ALL reuse of old components. There is a lot of new technology to be developed and implemented here - they're just being smart and making use of existing technology for things that don't need improvement.
No where does it say (because it would be totally untrue) that this is ALL reuse of old components. There is a lot of new technology to be developed and implemented here - they're just being smart and making use of existing technology for things that don't need improvement.
...Hmmm - empty orbiter is around 78 tonnes, with around 25 tonnes for useful payload... so, 'leave out' all the stuff in the orbiter not needed for a return to earth, or to get it in to orbit - crew area and life support/stores, wings, undercarriage, heat shield, robot arm, and I'm guessing you're going to be able to significantly increase the payload size/weight allowance.
I appreciate it's very complex... my OP was a little tongue in cheek and in part aimed at what my nose was smelling - pork!!!
Leaving the 'exciting' stuff to private industry... as Henry Ford once mused (apparently) - if he'd asked his market what they wanted, they'd have asked for a faster horse!
The last few years have clearly shown that private industry generally isn't interested in risky stuff with little obvious return. The exciting stuff is risky and the return is not obvious. It's individuals with vision, cash and drive that make an impact - SpaceX being one example, and Composite Science the other...
I wonder how tall a ladder we could build for $18Bn...
