Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner

[KellySt@aol.com]

I shudder at any paper that writes:

  ====The Soyuz spacecraft is the most reliable and cost-effective human-rated
  ==   spacecraft ever flown. 
  ==   
  ==   NASA can 'cheaply' and 'safely' satisfy its mission needs through the 
use
  ==   of Soyuz vehicles for the rest of the decade. At the same time it 
ensures
  ==   a primary role for the Russians, a key partner on the ISS. ===

First teh Russians have been ripping us off badly on anything in ISS they 
have ben involved with, and Soyuz isn't that safe!!  Its rates are better 
tehn shuttle  - but not a lot better, and the capacities are low, adn it 
usually beats up its crew.

ISS is irrelevant, it really serves no purpose other then a token US Rusian 
cooperative deal.  More critical is fielding a  family of relyable launchers.

I do strongly agree with the complaint that NASA is focused on coming up on 
one super launcher that can do everything.  Politicaly thats where NASA is, 
but it makes no sence, and sets you up for more cripling is your single 
system is grounded for some reason.

NASA should not bne a partner.  They should be a customer.  And they should 
have atleast three different RLV's.  Sometrhing like a big BlackHorse for 
launching a couple people or a ton or two of stuff to LEO.  And able to doi 
it on demand as a rescue craft.

Some medium to big RLV.  Maybe TSTO, maybe a big airbreather/combined cycle 
for heavy (by current def) lift, or god sized crew.  Not the shuttes both at 
once, but something that can fill the bukl of the heavy loadds.  And finally 
some modular BIG booster.  Something that can be stacked up to lift up to 
hundreds  of tons.  Enough for a station, a deep space craft, etc. 



In a message dated 5/15/03 6:07:32 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes:

>NASA As an Equity Partner
>
>
>
>
>
>by Kenneth Schweitzer
>
>Washington - May 13, 2003
>
>
>
>NASA was embarking on a Space transportation system to replace the Space
>
>Shuttle before the Columbia disaster occurred. The current national Space
>
>transportation plan calls for the development of both near-term and
>
>long-term Space vehicle development programs.

I shudder at any paper that says something like



>The government's near-term development program, designated the Orbital
>Space
>
>Plane (OSP), is intended to utilize existing technologies to develop a
>small
>
>human transportation vehicle to fulfill International Space Station (ISS)
>
>support needs, both for personnel transport to the ISS and rescue from
>the
>
>Station.
>
>
>
>Following the Columbia disaster there are calls to fully fund and even
>speed
>
>up this vehicle system, instead of trying to build a new Shuttle orbiter
>to
>
>replace Columbia as was done following the loss of Challenger.
>
>
>
>The OSP is to use currently available technology, something private industry
>
>can handle on its own. It is NASA's (aka the government's) duty to
>
>facilitate the commercial application of high-potential high-risk
>
>technologies by mitigating the risks through an extensive research and
>
>testing program too expensive and risky for private companies to pursue
>on
>
>their own.
>
>
>
>The Soyuz spacecraft is the most reliable and cost-effective human-rated
>
>spacecraft ever flown. It has repeatedly proven itself both for the ISS
>
>roles of transport and rescue.
>
>
>
>NASA can 'cheaply' and 'safely' satisfy its mission needs through the use
>of
>
>Soyuz vehicles for the rest of the decade. At the same time it ensures
>a
>
>primary role for the Russians, a key partner on the ISS.
>
>
>
>The recent commitment by the Russian government to provide the necessary
>
>support to keep the ISS program functioning and on track to completion
>
>demonstrates their willingness to be an equal partner if given the credit
>
>and recognition their proud Space industry deserves and demands from the
>
>world. This solves the OSP mission immediately and far less expensively
>than
>
>pouring billions of dollars into the OSP program.
>
>
>
>The reusable launch vehicle (RLV) start-ups that have come on the scene
>over
>
>the past decade are ready to bring a more modern OSP capability to NASA
>and
>
>commercial users. Capital in the form of money, not technical inability
>nor
>
>management incompetence, is the reason they have failed to date.
>
>
>
>Kistler Aerospace, a small start-up founded some ten years ago encompassing
>
>ex-NASA managers and engineers, had reportedly been able to obtain hundreds
>
>of millions of dollars for the development of their Two-Stage-To-Orbit
>
>(TSTO) vehicle, which is based on existing technologies.
>
>
>
>Northrop-Grumman, a contractor on their vehicle, became an equity partner,
>
>investing more than $30 million into their vehicle's development. Through
>
>the assistance of this 'large established aerospace contractor', the small
>
>rocket start-up nearly completed their first vehicle before funds ran out.
>
>Kistler's rocket services would have included ISS support flights such
>as
>
>Station re-supply.
>
>
>
>This is just one example of a multitude of capable start-ups that were
>able
>
>to find millions of dollars in private investment in the past few years.
>
>They were ready and capable to support NASA's needs but only lacked
>
>sufficient capital to complete their vehicle's developments.
>
>
>
>NASA needs to become an equity partner with two or three of today's most
>
>promising smaller launch start-ups to satisfy the ISS's needs, either
>
>through matching the privately raised funds or through investing a direct
>
>fixed amount.
>
>
>
>Not a competition between Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman,
>but
>
>between the smaller 'new' players.
>
>
>
>Expending just 50% of the funds earmarked for the OSP program, NASA can
>
>easily support two or three of these start-ups through first flight. The
>
>remaining funds from the OSP program should be used to support and ensure
>
>the research and development activities of the 3rd-generation launch
>
>technology projects, such as the flight-testing of X-vehicles containing
>
>scramjet engine technologies and new materials, too risky and expensive
>for
>
>private industry to pursue on their own.
>
>
>
>There is no justification for the government to continue to waste funds
>on
>
>the OSP program when the agency's needs can be met more productively by
>
>'investing' in the small launch start-ups.
>
>
>
>Not learning the lessons of the Shuttle program of putting all your eggs
>in
>
>one basket, NASA's OSP program as currently defined would select only one
>
>vehicle concept for development in 2004 from of the established 'big boys',
>
>where instead 2 or 3 promising start-ups can receive the capital support
>
>they require.
>
>
>
>With the adequate capital provided by NASA at least one of these firms
>would
>
>be able to prove themselves. By some chance they fail, a Russian government
>
>and Space industry that feels needed again can continue to develop their
>
>Soyuz craft or perhaps even China at that point can join the ISS program,
>
>supporting the ISS through their more modern Soyuz-based spacecraft. Either
>
>way everyone wins. By going with the current OSP program nobody wins.
>
>
>
>Under this new path, NASA is taken out of the RLV business for at least
>a
>
>generation, opening up a new playing field of smaller operators for the
>
>Shuttle follow-on system, one where NASA has an equitable interest in their
>
>success.
>
>
>
>By giving a chance to these new players today, the government will be
>
>helping to build a mature, competitive, and vibrant Space transportation
>
>industry, that in fifteen years will be able to utilize and bring to market
>
>the government's 3rd-generation technology research efforts.
>
>
>
>Kenneth Schweitzer is the author of MADE IN SPACE
>
><http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/15126>, now available through 1stBooks.com