Comments on: Orion launch date slips to September 2014

By: Franko

Franko — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:12:23 +0000

Private space launches could not make money.
Not because of bad design. Well funded bad, drives out the unfunded good.

By: LB

LB — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:37:53 +0000

Why they are going to an old design is beyond me but it sickens me that there are so many people out there that think studying outer space is a waste of time and money. Your dark age ignorant way of thinking is scary to say the least.

By: Press to Digitate

Press to Digitate — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:11:56 +0000

You can chalk this up to either "Corruption" or "Conspiracy", but the one thing you cant label NASA's Aries/Orion programs with is "Competence".

The original space program went from Mercury Redstone to Apollo Saturn V in the length of time between now and the projected first Orion manned flight in 2014. But there is nothing new in Orion or Aries. Orion launches on a Space Shuttle SRB first stage, with LOX/LH2 second-stage engines that are nearly identical with those used 40 years ago. Other than bringing the Command Module heat shield and capsule avionics up to current – and virtually 'Off-the-Shelf' technology, NASA is merely selling us the same system we paid for in the 1960s, and charging us to engineer it all over again – but more slowly and expensively this time. For it to take this long to put together is nothing but a scam.

But, have no fear, just like the National AeroSpace Plane, and VentureStar, you can be sure that the next President, whoever he is, will cancel Aries/Orion, and set them about designing something completely different, which will also drag on for years with no result, before it too gets replaced with a new chimera. Its all designed to keep us out of space, beyond the token crew of ISS in LEO. Just watch, as soon as the ISS is completed, NASA will announce plans to decommission and de-orbit it.

In his NYT Bestseller "Dark Mission", Richard Hoagland is right. NASA has become a circus, run to entertain the public and distract them from whatever really IS going on. Corrupt management with ulterior motives and a hidden agenda. Its such a sharme; so many good people under them with so much talent, and its all being put to waste – literally.

Give Burt Rutan 10% of the NASA budget, and scrap the rest; disband the buraucracy and liquidate the agency's field centers and other assets. NASA is keeping us out of space, and the survival of our species demands that they be pushed aside, in favor of more honest and competent explorers and technologists in the private sector.

By: Franko

Franko — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:21:02 +0000

For 100 km orbit Wiki gives 31.8 MJ/kg. or 8.83 Kwh/kg
At $0.10/kwh, less than a dollar. Need efficient method.
Build rail gun tunnel to top of Mt Everest, then beam power ?

"The microwave thermal thruster and its application to the launch problem"

By: blobzilla

blobzilla — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:17:11 +0000

The basic problem folks is the amount of energy it takes to get a pound of mass accelerated to 18,000 mph (orbita speed). Its a 1000 bucks a pound currently and we dont have the resources to develope much at that cost. We need to lower the cost thru more efficent reactions than chemical ones. mag drive, nuclear, or many othe proposals are out there. Our current way wont work, chemical reactions are inefficent,, hydrogen oxegen is the best at 10% and the engines can only run for a few minutes. The answer is ovbious on two fronts one electromagnetic rail guns and one is the super cannons. both will drop non g sensitive into orbit for about 10 bucks a ton after capital expenditures,,side of a mountan,,rail 1 mile long and electricty can accelerate a ton into orbit cheaply.

We will never develope space at a grand a pound,,dont care what vehicle you develop?

just my opinion

By: blobzilla

blobzilla — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:10:14 +0000

I appreciate the true humor some have come up with,,omg. Its way funny,,one girls said she dated bigfoot and his name is a misnomer,,big feet but,,sigh,,lol. Ive had more laughs out of the ET, elvis, bigfoot birthing aliens,,than i ever imagined,,lauged alot. My fav was one who said it was a big fat hairy hillbilly who got drunk and then naked and died in the bushes,,too funny as it was from the start,,thanks for the fun all

By: Concerned Bystander

Concerned Bystander — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:26:54 +0000

RELATED NOTE, PLEASE READ

In light of Russia's invasion of Georgia and subsequent confrontation with the US and NATO their Soyuz bus service to the International Space Station is likely to be withdrawn, thus leaving NASA without a ready replacement.

Shuttle External Tank tooling is slated for destruction NEXT MONTH!!

Please look into the matter as carrying out such a move will be a disaster! We need to retain Shuttle capability until this situation with ISS's Russian participation is confirmed, stabilized, or replaced with another manned lift vehicle.

Stop the tooling destruction process NOW

By: Franko

Franko — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:11:26 +0000

Forward or backward in time comparison, misses the simple up and down.
Mission, optimized for maximum to orbit, implies minimum to bring back.

The goal is to get heavy to orbit. Then options for Moon and Mars.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:34:40 +0000

I don't get it why not build a jet that goes up to 40,000 feet then have a rocket built into it so it can blast into orbit. then when you need it to come back down it just fly's back into the atmosphere and decelarates with a backwards rocket till it's back at 40,000 feet and flying like a jet. it would be effecient and probably have a quick turnaround time

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:03:51 +0000

Would you guys please write in complete sentences?

Unintelligible short...

What did he..?

If your not in my mind you can't..?

... english 101.

Wasting time typing to myself....

Bloody mindstream garbage.