Steve
En-Route
Last edited:
Well my head has been in the sand. I did not know we had that kind of military space program.
That is pretty darn cool.
Yeah, it only took us 20+ years to accomplish what the Soviets did. Unmanned, computerized shuttle landing.
Yeah, but look at the soviets now.
I guarantee that Russians never were "content" with the original R-7. They would not be building Angara if they were. But even within the R-7 family the progress was rather significant. Moreover, TsKB is working on re-engining R-7 with NK-33. It's like putting a PT-6 into Bonanza, only worse, because the tanks have to be changed significantly.Might it be that they are content with what is basically the same design of rocket that put Sputnik in space?
Well, yeah, that may be the case. NASA would be much more successful if they stopped lusting for the days of Apollo and quit building redundant and unnecessary mega-rocket which eats 37% of the whole budget of the agency.Or might it be that they know their budget and can work within it?
Huh? You mean Buran? The thing that flew once, then sat in a hangar until the roof caved in on it?Yeah, it only took us 20+ years to accomplish what the Soviets did. Unmanned, computerized shuttle landing.
Same as X-37B, then, right? Except the roof - hopefuly!Huh? You mean Buran? The thing that flew once, then sat in a hangar until the roof caved in on it?
Excuses, excuses. Astronaut Office did their darnest to make sure that Shuttle was impossible to fly and land unmanned. Does it matter though? Russians did it first.About the only thing our Shuttle couldn't (easily) do autonomously during the reentry / landing phase was deploy the landing gear. That was a design choice, not a "geez, we've got no idea how to autonomously deploy the landing gear!" technology gap between us and Russia.
Huh? You mean Buran? The thing that flew once, then sat in a hangar until the roof caved in on it?
About the only thing our Shuttle couldn't (easily) do autonomously during the reentry / landing phase was deploy the landing gear. That was a design choice, not a "geez, we've got no idea how to autonomously deploy the landing gear!" technology gap between us and Russia.
Compared to what Shuttle did and SLS burns per year now, X-37B is insignificant. We're talking at most 200 million a year, much of which is hitching a ride on Atlas. So, those buckets are pretty small, considering. Your question still stands, because X-37B is utterly useless. Pentagon was unable to articulate just what they are trying to accomplish with it, hiding behind the secrecy. My answer is: they cannot answer. The X-37 has no purpose. It only exists because some jocks in Air Force brass want a spaceplane real bad.Still, why is the USAF spending buckets of cash on a program that the Soviets demonstrated years ago?
Does it matter though? Russians did it first.
Compared to what Shuttle did and SLS burns per year now, X-37B is insignificant. We're talking at most 200 million a year, much of which is hitching a ride on Atlas. So, those buckets are pretty small, considering. Your question still stands, because X-37B is utterly useless. Pentagon was unable to articulate just what they are trying to accomplish with it, hiding behind the secrecy. My answer is: they cannot answer. The X-37 has no purpose. It only exists because some jocks in Air Force brass want a spaceplane real bad.
I was responding to KSCessnaDriver who said the Air Force "accomplished" something 20 years after the Russians did it. My point was that if I wore Velcro shoes for the first 20 years of my life, then decided to buy a pair of lace-ups, you could claim that it took me 20 years to "accomplish" the task of tying a bow knot on my shoe. But it would be kind of a silly claim.Excuses, excuses. Astronaut Office did their darnest to make sure that Shuttle was impossible to fly and land unmanned. Does it matter though? Russians did it first.
Lite is no more. They went back to the normal one in MPCV, for a couple of reasons. First, the Boeing CST-100 takes over the Lite's taxi functions anyway, it is low risk and on schedule. Second, SLS has excess capacity and you don't have to "lite" Orion in order to fit it on top of Mike Griffin's Corndog Rocket anymore. Third, SLS is the long pole in the tent. They are even going to test-fly MPCV on top of Delta 4H since MPCV paces ahead even if the plan to run Delta's stage in SLS proceeds. Lite was last gasp of the desperate Griffin regime.I don't know about the Orion-lite vehicle being developed, ()
This is a good point, Ron. However...But no one in the upper echelons of the Air Force would get emotionally invested in a space drone.
Manifestly X-37 does nothing of what you listed.The X-37 provides much of what the Shuttle was SUPPOSED to provide: Low(er) cost, flexible, re-usable, access to space.
One country is putting people in space and one isn't. Funny that the Russians are still up and running and we've got nothing. Might it be that they are content with what is basically the same design of rocket that put Sputnik in space? Or might it be that they know their budget and can work within it?
You may want to do a compare and contrast between the economics and government of Russia and US. The US is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world, let alone Russia.
Where are de nuk-u-lar wessels?Thank you Ensign Chekov.
Yup, one has a government which supports a manned space program and one that doesn't. The Russians are at least smart enough to keep using what they have.
Yup, one has a government which supports a manned space program and one that doesn't. The Russians are at least smart enough to keep using what they have.
I'd tout SpaceX as a poster child for successful performance in spaceflight vs. Scaled Composites. SpaceShipOne barely reached 100km suborbital, and that was 8 years ago. SpaceX has put paying customers into orbit, and has a significant backlog of missions to fly.Private entrerprise will be able to do better in space than NASA did, that's for sure.
SpaceShipOne wnet from drawing board to fruition in 10 years. NASA went to the moon in 1969, AND HASN'T BEEN BACK SINCE.
SpaceX is essentially a government program...just a different kind.
NASA is far from a monolith stuffed by faceless stone-butts. Someone have developed Nautilus, right? I would not shed a tear if Marshall was shut down tomorrow and everyone there fired, but there's more to NASA than that. And I'm sure Elon understands it, even after Bowersox.SpaceX is what NASA should be. An organization that is forward thinking and willing to move to new things.
Almost every successful small startup is successful because of highly talented, highly motivated people, usually guided by some fresh idea or exciting project. SpaceX has all those things, and they've achieved so much partially because their very talented people are willing to work 60-80 hour weeks for months on end.SpaceX is what NASA should be. An organization that is forward thinking and willing to move to new things. I've spoken to their recruiters and been to an information presentation about the company, and while they won't come out and say it, they really want nothing to do with people who have worked for NASA.