Briefs: NewSpace News; X-37 test; An Orion update

"A story of the challenges involved in developing a new space capsule in just eight years with only eight billion dollars"

Ohhh, burn. Vicious. :)

Posted by anon at 12/01/07 14:21:24

Yah big deal give one of the private guys eight years and eight billion they would produce a real Orion.
If anything that budget and time line is an embarrassment.
I hope the COTS spacecraft end up working better then hoped so we can put this white elephant down ASAP.

Posted by Ruri at 12/01/07 15:09:53

Also I don't think the success of Orion is really as important as they make it out in this story.
This time we are in a unique position as it's not the only orbital spacecraft under development instead it's only one of over a half dozen some of which have much greater capabilities then Orion.
If it fails the only ones to suffer will be those at Marshall as they see some private spacecraft succeed where they failed.
Take spacex for example they don't just have a mockup but an actual test unit the life support systems on dragon are mostly finished and have been tested.
They are now building the launch vehicle Falcon 9 real hardware vs models of real hardware.
Or t/space they got to where the Orion design team is now in just a few short months it was a shame they didn't get picked as the second COTS winner.
Personally I'd rather see that eight billion completely handed over to COTS type programs as we could fund a dozen private space access systems with that.
IF it sounds like I'm being harsh so be it but we should be as Nasa is making some very obvious mistakes such as not dropping Ares I very early in the program esp when their own engineers when and designed a better vehicle called direct launcher.
I challenge anyone to come up with real proof as to why Ares I is better then Direct launcher or even an EELV.

Posted by Ruri at 12/01/07 15:27:32

"I challenge anyone to come up with real proof as to why Ares I is better then Direct launcher or even an EELV."

Actually I think that the burden of proof is exactly the other way around.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at 12/01/07 22:51:36

Reading through this, it seems apparent that NASA is no longer on the cutting edge of technological development.

When the Apollo spacecraft was originally put together, it was cutting edge in so many ways that getting to the Moon was almost an afterthought in terms of what sorts of things were developed. The Apollo Guidance Computer, just to use an example, was one of the very first computers to use integrated chips as primary components of its design. At the time, something like 90% of all chip production was bought by NASA or NASA contractors. No wonder many people think that NASA invented the things in the first place, and that did provide some of the initial capital to get much of the modern computer industry started.

Especially in going through the fastcompany article, it makes me really question if NASA is on the leading edge of nearly any technology any more. They certainly have the most experience of managing real astronauts and doing things in space, and the Space Shuttle is still a masterpiece of aviation hardware.

But new ideas simply aren't being implemented and built into real hardware by NASA much any more. I certainly don't see the 1960's level of raw technological bleeding edge, but of course NASA doesn't have a 1960's level of funding either. Congress is getting what they are paying for here, for good or bad.

Posted by Robert Horning at 12/02/07 09:13:24

"Actually I think that the burden of proof is exactly the other way around."

Did this bozo even bother to read the GAO report at all?

http://democrats.science.ho...

Or even the long lists from the report of crippling problems with Ares I, as summarized here:

http://www.rocketsandsuch.b...

Or here:

http://hobbyspace.com/nucle...

How willfully ignorant does one have to be to cling to the evaporating hope that Ares I design can even fly, nevertheless be safe and/or cheaper than the alternatives?

Sheesh...

Posted by Joe Blow at 12/02/07 12:33:50

"The country hardly seems aware of this critical juncture, not just in 50 years of spaceflight but in 200 years of American exploration. If Orion does not succeed, Americans will be left grounded, for the first time in history simply shrugging at the frontier... there will be a nearly five-year gap during which the U.S. will not be able to launch its own astronauts..."

It would have been more accurate, if less high-pitched, to at least acknowledge that somehow we survived the "gap" of 1975-1981.

Posted by Monte Davis at 12/02/07 15:31:57

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me