Тема возраждается как Феникс :wink:
USAF On Road To Competitive Launch Market
The U.S. Air Force is kicking off a series of meetings with industry in the coming weeks to outline the path for would-be competitors to break into the typically exclusive U.S. government launch sector, potentially creating a healthier and more cost-effective rocket market in the next decade.
Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, commander of the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), has signed off on a first-ever detailed guide for certifying companies seeking to compete for U.S. government launches.
This document, long awaited by potential contenders, will provide a detailed outline of what Pawlikowski says are the "mechanics" that new entrants must follow to gain certification to loft various payload types—from experimental systems that are more risk-tolerant to high-cost monoliths such as the Space-Based Infrared System that require foolproof mission assurance. The guide will not be publicly disseminated, she says, owing to sensitive data protected by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, she says.
In the coming weeks, SMC plans to hold an industry day for potential entrants. Each must provide a statement of intent—including the company's reliability, accuracy and selected orbits to which they can launch—to kick off the certification process.
This is an opening for Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and its Falcon 9 to eventually challenge the United Launch Alliance (ULA), a Boeing/Lockheed Martin venture that holds a monopoly over large-class Air Force payload launches. Additionally, an Alliant Techsystems/EADS Astrium team and Orbital Sciences Corp. are expected to compete for work.
Interested companies will work with SMC to develop a certification path. Though the Air Force will help guide the process, the service will not spend money developing the rockets, as it did with the Atlas V and Delta IV a decade ago. "We really want to have [the competitors] leverage as much of their commercial activity as we can," says Pawlikowski. "The whole idea of having competition is what has got us interested in doing this new-entrant criteria. But we want competitors that have a viable business base."
.............................
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2011/11/14/AW_11_14_2011_p49-389711.xml&headline=USAF%20On%20Road%20To%20Competitive%20Launch%20Market&channel=defense
Atlas V rises as vehicle of choice for manned missions
It's beginning to look more and more like the Atlas V rocket is going to one day carry astronauts into Earth orbit........
.....This past week, United Launch Alliance and NASA quietly noted that the rocket met two important deadlines on its way toward being deemed capable of safely launching human space missions. A pair of detailed analyses have determined preliminarily that the rocket can be made to meet stringent NASA Human Spaceflight Requirements.
......
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20120205/COLUMNISTS0405/302050041/John-Kelly-Atlas-V-rises-vehicle-choice-manned-missions?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Space
...............Президент Барак Обама запросил у Конгресса США 17,7 млрд долларов на деятельность Национального управления США по аэронавтике и исследованию космического пространства (NASA) в 2013 финансовом году.
Это на 1 млрд меньше, чем утвержденные законодателями расходы на космос на нынешний год. Белый дом решил урезать почти на 310 млн долларов программу планетарных исследований, на что в целом планируется выделить почти 1,2 млрд долларов.
Ни цента не предусматривается на исследования Луны, уменьшены ассигнования на марсианские проекты, передает ИТАР-ТАСС. ................
http://www.newsru.com/world/14feb2012/cosmos.html
ЦитироватьНАСА хочет послать астронавтов на 15% дальше, чем когда-либо
(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/8343/604644main3l2mission15p.jpg) (http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/8343/604644main3l2mission15p.jpg)
ЦитироватьExploration Gateway Platform hosting Reusable Lunar Lander proposed
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/exploration-gateway-platform-hosting-reusable-lunar-lander-proposed/
(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/21535.jpg)
(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/23178.jpg)
A human mission to the Moon as a precursor, though, was no longer a nearer-term goal. "We've been there before," he said of the Moon. Instead, he proposed human missions into deep space by 2025, specifically, "we'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history." While much of the space policy debate over the last two years has focused on the Obama Administration's separate decision to cancel the Constellation Program, that directive has also been a point of contention. Does it make sense to send humans to an asteroid in lieu of, or at least before, a human return to the Moon?
While the idea of sending humans to asteroids, near Earth or otherwise, isn't a new one, the inclusion of asteroid missions in the administration's plan is linked to the work done in 2009 by the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, better known as the Augustine Committee after its chairman, retired aerospace executive Norm Augustine. That committee was chartered by the White House to examine the then-current state of NASA's human exploration plans and offer several options for the future.
One of those options was what it called the "Flexible Path", which the committee's final report described as "a steadily advancing, measured, and publicly notable human exploration of space beyond Earth orbit that would build our capability to explore, enable scientific and economic return, and engage the public." A human mission to an asteroid would actually not be the first mission under the scenario laid out in the report--it would be preceded by human missions to lunar orbit and to Earth-Moon and Earth-Sun Lagrange points--but it would be the first body humans would actually set foot on.
What made the Flexible Path compelling to the Augustine Committee and the administration is that it allowed NASA to stretch out the development of the infrastructure needed for human exploration. Unlike the Moon, missions to asteroids wouldn't require a separate lander because of the asteroids' very low gravity. "What this Flexible Path does is it allows us to take some of the components that you would build first anyway, the heavy booster and the capsule, and start exploring while we're building the lunar landing system and the lunar surface system," explained Ed Crawley, an MIT professor of aeronautics and astronautics who served on the Augustine Committee.
Just how much infrastructure would be needed for human missions to asteroids is still an area of study and debate. One notional concept examined by NASA's Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) requires the use of three launches of a heavy-lift vehicle like the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the development of chemical and solar-electric propulsion systems, as well as a habitation module. One problem with the HEFT's proposed mission is that it wouldn't meet the president's stated goal of a human asteroid mission by 2025: its proposal would instead fly no earlier than 2031.
ronatu, сколько раз нужно просить вас давать ссылки? Дело не в том, что вам не доверяют, а в том, что интересно окружение этой информации - комментарии, сопутствующая информация и прочее.
Что то я делаю не так, если единственный кто читает эти посты - Валерий... :oops:
ЦитироватьЧто то я делаю не так, если единственный кто читает эти посты - Валерий... :oops:
Два варианта: либо остальные не умеют читать на английском либо умеют пользоваться гуглом, в отличии от ;-)
PS В "раздерганном" виде это уже обсуждается, без привязки к FP.
ЦитироватьЧто то я делаю не так, если единственный кто читает эти посты - Валерий... :oops:
Я прошу прощения, в данном случае я был раздражен....
Тем не менее я снова прошу вас сопровождать ваши цитаты ссылками.
Да, по этой цитате источник мгновенно нашелся гуглом, но так бывает не всегда, особенно когда цитата маленькая, а источник успели процитировать в большом количестве СМИ.
И да, я не читаю специально все космические издания и около космические статьи даже на русском языке, времени не хватает. Но заинтересовавшую меня статью стараюсь прочитать, познакомиться с комментариями и тд.
З.Ы.
Если вас раздражает, что отозвался только я, то вспомните, что вас читают и не зарегистрированные посетители, и их на сайте в разы больше, чем зарегистрированных.
ЦитироватьWASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force's proposal to cancel a decades-old program that finds rides to orbit for promising space technologies was a product of the final deliberations on the Pentagon's 2013 budget request and was not widely coordinated with the affected government organizations, a top service official told lawmakers March 8.
Testifying before skeptical members of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, Air Force Gen. William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command, defended the planned cancellation of the long-running Space Test Program (STP) as well as the newer Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. He said the moves are necessary as part of the Air Force contribution to the $487 billion in planned reductions in defense spending over the next decade mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) characterized the cancellations as "penny-wise and pound-foolish" considering the minimal investment involved. He said it does not make sense to try and lower costs by canceling the programs that were specifically established to find ways to save money.
....
ЦитироватьWASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force's proposal to cancel a decades-old program that finds rides to orbit for promising space technologies was a product of the final deliberations on the Pentagon's 2013 budget request and was not widely coordinated with the affected government organizations, a top service official told lawmakers March 8.
Testifying before skeptical members of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, Air Force Gen. William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command, defended the planned cancellation of the long-running Space Test Program (STP) as well as the newer Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. He said the moves are necessary as part of the Air Force contribution to the $487 billion in planned reductions in defense spending over the next decade mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) characterized the cancellations as "penny-wise and pound-foolish" considering the minimal investment involved. He said it does not make sense to try and lower costs by canceling the programs that were specifically established to find ways to save money.
....
ЦитироватьЦитироватьЦитироватьЦитировать3000 летний опыт Человечества учит - есть только ОДНО лекарство - КОНКУРЕНЦИЯ.
А в ПК как назло нет даже конкуренции. :) Диагноз: Больного не спасти. :P
Конкуренция это соревнование за ограниченный ресурс. ПК, как одна из многих областей человеческой деятельности, пронизана конкуренцией. :wink:
Не надо сводить конкуренцию к завоеванию доли на рынке. (тем более что его в классическом виде вообще еще не существует) :?
ЦитироватьNASA Astronaut Leaves Agency To Run Commercial Spaceflight Federation
:wink:
http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/031212-nasa-astronaut-leaves-agency-run-commercial-spaceflight-federation.html
How Commercial Space Is Paying Off Now
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2012/04/16/AW_04_16_2012_p40-444890.xml&headline=How%20Commercial%20Space%20Is%20Paying%20Off%20Now
It's still a "Field of Dreams" proposition—"if you build it, they will come." Even so, NASA's as-yet-unrealized efforts to offload routine human space access onto the private sector is beginning to ripple across the U.S. launch industry in ways that could go well beyond transporting people and their stuff into space.
Brash entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, who openly declares his intention to take over the worldwide launch industry with lower-cost launchers than the competition's, are exerting downward price pressure on traditional launch-vehicle manufacturers. And the possibility of an off-planet economy in low Earth orbit (LEO) has triggered a new round of innovative launcher designs, not all of them "paper rockets" and some of them quite different from traditional vehicles.
"We've selected the Atlas V for our test flights through the Commercial Crew Program," says John Mulholland, vice president and manager of Commercial Programs for Boeing Space Exploration. "But we will continue to maintain our design to be compatible with multiple launch vehicles so that we can competitively procure launch vehicles in the future, which is important for us to maintain best value, obviously. The launch vehicle is such a huge portion of our offer."
Mulholland's group has just completed the preliminary design review on the CST-100, Boeing's entry into the NASA-run commercial crew development competition. Two other teams have baselined the Atlas V to launch their space taxis, but Atlas-builder United Launch Alliance (ULA) is not resting on its laurels. The Boeing/Lockheed Martin joint venture is scrambling to cut costs of its Atlas V and Delta IV launcher lines to meet the anticipated competition from Musk and other startups, while stressing the demonstrated reliability of their products and working to improve them (see p. 44).
And as ULA goes after the nascent human space-flight market with the Atlas V it uses to launch big government satellites and space probes, new entrants in the commercial cargo and crew game are not pinning their hopes on the human market alone. If a launcher is reliable enough to send astronauts aloft, the argument goes, it certainly is reliable enough to handle high-value satellites and other spacecraft, and perhaps open up new space businesses such as satellite servicing and orbital tourism.
If it all works out—and that remains a pretty large "if"—NASA's commercial approach to carrying astronauts to low Earth orbit could lower the cost of space access to the point that the business cases for new LEO applications can close.
Beginning with the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program initiated by then-Administrator Michael Griffin, NASA has invested about $925 million of taxpayer seed money to help create a private human spaceflight industry. That money has attracted significant private investment, and the agency is optimistic that this can generate one or more new ways to get humans and cargo to the International Space Station (ISS) for less money than traditional government procurements.
The COTS program could start to pay off as early as next month, provided Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Inc. (SpaceX) succeeds in getting its next Dragon capsule off the ground with its Falcon 9 rocket and berthed at the ISS for the first time, carrying 1,000 lb. of food and other relatively low-value cargo. Orbital Sciences Corp., NASA's other COTS partner, also hopes to reach the station this year with its Cygnus cargo vehicle riding the company's new Antares liquid-fueled launcher.
That could be just the beginning. With the space shuttle fleet retired, NASA is paying Russia more than $60 million a seat to train and fly astronauts to the ISS in Soyuz capsules. Starting with $50 million in federal economic stimulus package funding in fiscal 2009, NASA has been seeding development of commercial space taxis under its Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) and Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiatives.
The latter has attracted several different proposals for full-scale systems that would ferry ISS crews to orbit beginning as early as 2017. Funding commercial crew is contentious in Washington, and the first human flights already have been delayed a year because Congress does not want NASA to put all of its eggs in the commercial crew basket (AW&ST Dec. 19, 2011, p. 20).
......................................................
Sidemount might still have been a faster, cheaper choice for an interim HLV
NASA might have been wiser to have chosen the three RS-25D engine Sidemount design as an interim Heavy-lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) instead of the initial Block 1 version in-line SLS now (now confirmed as having four RS-25D engines), especially if the expendable RS-25E engine version never comes to fuition.
The Sidemount design, was, in effect, a wingless expendable space shuttle with which had much the same 70 tonne LEO performance as the Block 1 SLS but would have been much much faster and cheaper to produce. In the end, the Sidemount concept was rejected in favour of the much more expensive SLS inline design over Sidemount's obvious lack of evolvability and, less convincingly, due to crew escape concerns (Sidemount should only ever have been used as an unmanned heavy lift launch vehicle with crew launched separately to orbit and their exploration vehicles via a commercial crew launch system).
(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/77463.jpg)
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2012/04/we-need-a-bigger-engine-apollo.html
(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/65905.jpg)
http://www.owensarchive.com/technicians-inspect-f-1-engine-for-the-saturn-v-rocket-474