Форум Новости Космонавтики

ЦитироватьPhil McAlister
.
(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/81953.jpg)
  
Special Assistant for Program Analysis
 Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation
 NASA Headquarters
  
Phil McAlister is a veteran of the space industry with over 20 years of experience in civil, military, and commercial space programs. He is currently in the Studies and Analysis Division, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, NASA Headquarters. The Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation is an independent assessment organization that provides objective, transparent, and multidisciplinary analysis to inform NASA's strategic decision-making.
  
Prior to NASA, he was the Director of Futron's Space and Telecommunications Industry Analysis Division where he managed a Division of approximately 20 people involved in space industry analysis and market research. Before joining Futron, he served as a Senior Manager during a ten-year career at TRW's Aerospace and Information Systems Division (formerly BDM International). Prior to that, he worked as a Technical Analyst for ANSER, Inc.
   
Over his career, he has participated in the design and development of new launch vehicles, the redesign of the International Space Station, plus several commercial satellite endeavors. He is an experienced program/project manager with extensive demonstrated successes in business development. In addition, he is a recognized member of the aerospace industry with 11 publications to his credit.
  
Phil has an MBA degree fr om Averett University, an MS in Systems Engineering from George Mason University, and BS in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Maryland.

ЦитироватьPhil McAlister
  
Специальный помощник для анализа программ
Управление анализа и оценке программ
Штаб-квартире НАСА
  
Phil McAlister является ветераном космической отрасли с более чем 20-летний опыт работы в гражданских, военных и коммерческих космических программ.
  

ЦитироватьPrior to this assignment, he was in NASA's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation wh ere he served as the Executive Director for the "Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee" (also known as the Augustine Committee).

ЦитироватьHow the US can become a next generation space industrial power
   
by Charles Miller
Monday, November 5, 2012
   

ЦитироватьEditor's Note: the following is an address given by Charles Miller at a Marshall Institute event titled "Exploring Space: Considering U.S. Goals and Aspirations for Its Space Exploration Programs" in Washington, DC, on November 1.

I want to thank the Marshall Institute, Jeff Kueter, and Eric Sterner for holding this important discussion about the "why" and the "how" of space exploration and development. Their wisdom shows in first discussing the "why", and then the "how". To paraphrase Lewis Carroll, "If you don't care where you are going, any road will get you there."
   
First to "why". My answer is simple. Our goal should be to extend human civilization across the solar system. A human civilization led by free people, and founded upon free enterprise.
   
It behooves us to ask "Why?" again.
   
Human civilization needs a new frontier, to challenge the best in us, and to seed the greatest new ideas. That frontier is space. Permanent human expansion into space, led by free people and founded upon free enterprise, is the tonic humanity needs.
   
The heart and soul of America, the core values of America, were born on the frontier. The Declaration of Independence, which declared that "all men were created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" would have died a bloody death on the continent of Europe. Indeed, the French Revolution was quite bloody. The powers in Europe did not hold these truths to be self-evident. The same is true around the rest of the established world. Billions still live under tyranny.
   
"The Blessings of Liberty" and the "Bill of Rights" were born as part of the Constitution, which was born in America. All of these ideas would survive, grow, and then flourish on the American frontier. Freedom is a disruptive innovation, a disruptive cultural innovation. The existence of a new geographic market to take root in—where the competing tyrannies and powers were weak—has accelerated the growth of freedom for all people on this planet.
   
We declared, "We are a free people." We established our self-identity and image on the frontier. We then fought our greatest wars—a war to end slavery and a war to defeat fascism—because of who we said we are. While we have our failings, as we are forever becoming a more perfect union, America has led the charge for freedom for all humanity across the planet these last several centuries.
   
But the American frontier is now closed. I watch as we increasingly turn inwards, becoming more self-absorbed, more bureaucratic, and more divided. I fear that America is the metaphorical frog, sitting quite cozily in a pot of water, and slowly becoming more like Europe.
   
Human civilization needs a new frontier, to challenge the best in us, and to seed the greatest new ideas. That frontier is space. Permanent human expansion into space, led by free people and founded upon free enterprise, is the tonic humanity needs. This human civilization will be the ultimate light on the hill. This human civilization, if only by example, will contribute to the elimination of the last vestiges of darkness here on Earth.
   
While this goal is persuasive to me, and perhaps to some of you and to a few others, there is a major problem. There is a trap that we must avoid. We represent the visionaries, and leading adopters, but most Americans (including our elected representatives) have much more pragmatic concerns.
   
The vast majority of Americans cannot, and will not, put a high priority on space exploration, or extending human civilization across the solar system. This was Newt Gingrich's mistake in Florida in late January. Newt mistook the repeated standing ovations he received fr om the hundreds of space industry people in the room for something that the far larger electorate cared about. We all need to learn fr om his mistake.
   
We need an answer to the "why" question that appeals to the pragmatic majority. We need a pragmatic strategy that ties near-term national and economic security to a fiscally-responsible but visionary economic development plan for the solar system.
   
I will now lay out a pragmatic general strategy, and a five-point plan to achieve it. I have two simple prescriptions to lay the foundation.
   
Prescription 1: complete the analysis before prescribing a solution. Stop doing what does not work. Do more of what is working.
   
American free enterprise is working in space. Let's build off America's strength—we are the land of free enterprise innovation. Our strategy must be to do things that amplify and reinforce market forces. China is scared we will figure this out. So too is Europe.
   
While China can copy our rocket designs, and steal our satellite technology, please tell me how they are going to copy our American free enterprise system. They can steal, and they can imitate. But they can't copy our value system without becoming us.
   
Prescription 2: commercial space and national security space can be fundamentally aligned at the strategic level.
   
Alfred T. Mahan, a visionary sea power theorist from the late 19th century, figured out the linkage between power and free enterprise a long time ago. Admiral Mahan, the father of the Steel Navy, wrote the following about sea power:
   

Цитировать"If sea power be really based upon a peaceful and extensive commerce, aptitude for commercial pursuits must be a distinguishing feature of the nations that have at one time or another been great upon the sea."

Let's extend Mahanian theory to space. In the 21st century, an aptitude for commercial space is the distinguishing feature of nations, who are, or will be, great in space. The corollary is also true: the nation that dominates future commercial space markets will accrue great advantage to its national security, as well as great wealth for its people.
   
With this as context, I propose that America's national space strategy should be to become a Next Generation Space Industrial Power. Here is my five-point plan to do so.
   
Point 1: America must recapture world leadership in commercial space transportation. We are now fourth in the world in commercial space transportation, behind Russia, Europe, and Ukraine. China and India are coming on fast. This is completely unacceptable. The loss of these markets is an economic tragedy.
   
With a radical reduction in launch costs, and high flight rates, we are a next generation space industrial power. Without it, we are not.
   
If this was only about jobs and profits, I would say let the markets decide. But this is a national security problem. Our national security is harmed because US launch vehicles are more expensive, and less reliable, because they fly less often. Our national security is harmed because of the hollowing out of the space industrial base. Our national security is harmed when it depends on Russian rocket engines.
   
Becoming number one again in commercial space transportation is an easy first goal. We may already be on a path to achieve this goal because of the American entrepreneurial spirit. But we need to declare this an important goal, and take effective action to see it through.
   
Point 2: We should set the national goal of low-cost, reliable access to space—an order of magnitude reduction in cost, and an order of magnitude increase in reliability.
   
Low-cost access is a critical national and economic security issue. It is the one key point to becoming a Next Generation Space Industrial Power. It is the one key point to expanding human civilization across the solar system. With a radical reduction in launch costs, and high flight rates, we are a next generation space industrial power. Without it, we are not.
   
Whichever country achieves low-cost and reliable access to space first will start a virtuous cycle that will deliver tremendous national and economic security benefits. This nation will dominate the carrying trade, which will create new markets, which will drive new technologies and new capabilities, which will increase flight rates and lower launch costs, which will allow us to expand into more new markets and so on. Low-cost access is Mahanian theory in action.
   
At NASA, in the summer of 2011, a team I led that included all mission directorates and all centers unequivocally concluded that low-cost and reliable access to space was the number one priority from among all emerging commercial space opportunities.
   
This NASA team came to two other critical conclusions:
   

ЦитироватьAmerican industry can build a two-stage reusable launch vehicles with today's technology. Technology was the primary barrier forty years ago. Technology is not the primary barrier today.
The primary problem is that we can't close a traditional business case. The flight rate from existing markets does not justify the investment.

In another business, private risk-taking capital would take over at this point, and make the investment. But the huge size of the required investment, combined with the speculative nature of the future markets, makes the risks far too high for any private investor. This has much in common with the Transcontinental Railroad, which could not be justified as a pure commercial investment. Both are examples of market failure at the national strategic level.
   
The key to closing the business case is not for government to take over design and development. It is not loan guarantees. It is not a multibillion-dollar 2nd Generation RLV technology program. The key is to stimulate on the demand side, to create incentives that drive up the flight rate and close the business case for reusable systems.
   
The easiest and best methods to close the business case for commercial RLVs are large prizes and commercial propellant delivery.
   
Prizes are demand-side incentives that only pay for success. Further, they prevent government bureaucracies from picking winners. It leverages the power of the private investment market, as private investors (like Paul Allen) will ultimately take the risks and pick the winners.
   
No matter who wins the election, we are probably looking at a return to a Clinton-era policy wh ere human spaceflight is the ISS and only the ISS. Deep space human exploration is on the verge of being deferred for another decade as a luxury we can't afford.
   
Beyond prizes, we need a hard requirement for high flight rates. That large demand market is right in front of us. We only need to separate propellant from expensive, valuable exploration spacecraft. Propellant is cheap and easily replaceable. If there is a launch failure, you fill up and fly again. It is the perfect commercial market opportunity. It is also 70–80% of the mass needed for deep space exploration. This one decision could close the business case for commercial investment in RLVs.
   
Point 3: We need an affordable human space development strategy that flies soon, often, and advances us as a space industrial power.
   
Right now I fear that our national leadership is on the verge of cancelling all deep space human exploration. I don't care who wins this week: both parties are face-to-face with trillion-dollar deficits and $16 trillion in debt. I have talked to senior space policy thought leaders in both parties, and we are on the edge of a cliff. No matter who wins, we are probably looking at a return to a Clinton-era policy wh ere human spaceflight is the ISS and only the ISS. Deep space human exploration is on the verge of being deferred for another decade as a luxury we can't afford.
   
With this in mind, I propose point #3 in my plan: we should set the goal of returning humans to the surface Moon in a decade in partnership with commercial industry for the primary purpose of using the resources of the Moon to open up the solar system, and do so within the existing NASA budget.
   
At NASA, I led a six-center NASA team that developed a plan to do this entirely with commercial launch. This plan withstood multiple independent reviews from all human spaceflight centers. The numbers add up.
   
Point 4: We should completely privatize all US launch systems. The process of privatization started over 25 years ago, when Ronald Reagan removed commercial satellites from the Space Shuttle in 1986 by executive order. It continued when a Democratic Congress passed the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, which was signed by a Republican President. Then, again, when a Republican Congress passed the Commercial Space Act of 1998, which was signed by a Democratic President. Finally, a second President Bush proposed the Commercial Crew and Cargo program in 2004, and President Obama made it his top space policy priority.
   
The government does not design or develop airplanes, or trucks, or trains, and it should not be designing launch vehicles. Based on their written policies, I believe that both President Obama and Governor Romney would agree.
   
There is a critically important role for NASA in helping industry be successful with launch, but it is based on the highly successful model of the NACA that helped create the world's most advanced airline industry, and Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS). Which leads to point 5.
   
Point 5: COTS works. It saves money. Lots of money. We should expand the now proven COTS-commercial service purchase procurement model to other areas.
   
We now have definitive proof that the COTS model works, and can save the US taxpayers billions of dollars. NASA's cost experts used the NASA-Air Force Cost Model, or NAFCOM, to estimate what it would cost to develop the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, plus new engines and avionics, using the traditional NASA approach. The answer: $3.9 billion. The SpaceX cost? Less than half a billion dollars.
   
This factor of eight difference shocked many at NASA, but not me, because I knew my history. In the early 1990s, SpaceHab spent $150 million to design, develop, and manufacture two pressurized modules that had to be human spaceflight certified to go on the Space Shuttle. Price Waterhouse worked with NASA, using NASA's then standard cost model, and estimated that it would cost $1.2 billion using traditional methods. This was eight times what it cost SpaceHab to develop the same system using commercial practices. In other words, SpaceHab demonstrated the exact same magnitude of cost savings that SpaceX demonstrated almost two decades later.
   
We now have definitive proof that the COTS model works, and can save the US taxpayers billions of dollars.
   
Another fact. Most people don't realize that the COTS-model now has three successes in a row. It is three-for-three. They are called Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9. The EELV development process followed the COTS model. The EELV program used the DOD's other transactions authority, and commercial industry put major skin in the game. In each case, the private company (not the government) was in control of the development process. This is a critical point. All three of them took exactly four years to develop a new rocket. All three of them have succeeded on their first, second, and third launch. COTS works.
   
So when you see lists by others of all the "failures" of the last two decades, that is only half of the story. Ask them, "Where is your list of successes?"
   
Let me make clear that there will be COTS failures. But based on the multiple hard empirical data points we now have, I can say with certainty that there will be fewer failures, and more successes, than among traditional programs.
   
It is fine to develop a list of failures, but before we start discussing changes in national policy, we need to also look at all the data, including what works. The COTS-CRS model works. The Launch Service Purchase Act worked. The NGA "NextView" model worked.
   
There are many existing services and systems that we might consider for applying these models. At the top of the list, I think we should seriously consider, again, privatizing and commercializing Landsat, TDRSS, and even our weather satellites. The Carter Administration was right to say we should privatize all these functions. The Reagan Administration was right to try to do so.
   
Obviously, better and smarter people have tried and failed. Some of you are in this room. But we have three decades of lessons learned about how—and how not—to commercialize these systems.
   
More importantly, the American commercial space industry now dwarfs US government space budgets in total funding. There is no good reason we cannot find a way to buy these important but routine and repeatable services in a commercial manner.
   
Considering our trillion-dollar deficits, it is time to consider commercial approaches again.
   
Thank you and I look forward to the discussion.

ЦитироватьЕсли морская сила действительно опирается на мирную и обширную торговлю, то стремление к коммерческой деятельности должно быть отличительной чертой наций, которые, в то или другое время, были велики на море. История подтверждает это почти без исключений; кроме истории римлян, мы, действительно, не находим ни одного серьезного примера, противоречащего этому заключению. (Мэхэн, Алфред Тайер)

ЦитироватьThe World's Most Powerful People
David M. Ewalt, Forbes Staff
Tech 12/05/2012
 
There are nearly 7.1 billion people on the planet. These are the 71 that matter the most.
 
What do the president of the United States, the Pope and the founder of Facebook all have in common? They're all featured on Forbes' 2012 ranking of the World's Most Powerful People –an annual look at the heads of state, financiers, philanthropists and entrepreneurs who truly run the world.
 
To compile the list, we considered hundreds of candidates from various walks of life all around the globe, and measured their power along four dimensions. First, we asked whether the candidate has power over lots of people. Pope Benedict XVI, ranked #5 on our list, is the spiritual leader of more than a billion Catholics, or about 1/6th of the world's population. Michael Duke (#17), CEO of Wal-Mart Stores, employs two million people.
 
Next we assessed the financial resources controlled by each person. Are they relatively large compared to their peers? For heads of state we used GDP, while for CEOs, we looked at measures like their company's assets and revenues. When candidates have a high personal net worth –like the world's richest man, Carlos Slim Helu (#11)– we also took that into consideration. In certain instances, like Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al Saud (#7), we considered other valuable resources at the candidate's disposal –like 20% of the world's known oil reserves.
 
Then we determined if the candidate is powerful in multiple spheres. There are only 71 slots on our list – one for every 100 million people on the planet – so being powerful in just one area is often not enough. Our picks project their influence in myriad ways: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (#16) has power because he's a politician, because he's a billionaire, because he's a media magnate, and because he's a major philanthropist.
 
Lastly, we made sure that the candidates actively used their power. Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin (#3) scored points because he so frequently shows his strength — like when he jails protestors.
 
To calculate the final rankings, ten senior Forbes editors ranked all of our candidates in each of these four dimensions of power, and those individual rankings were averaged into a composite score.
 
U.S. President Barack Obama emerged, unanimously, as the world's most powerful person, for the second year running. Obama was the decisive winner of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, and now he gets four more years to push his agenda.The President faces major challenges, including an unresolved budget crisis, stubbornly high unemployment and renewed unrest in the Middle East. But Obama remains the unquestioned commander in chief of the world's greatest military, and head of its sole economic and cultural superpower.
 
The second most powerful person in the world also happens to be the most powerful woman: Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, jumps up from #4 last year to take the runner-up spot on the list. Merkel is the backbone of the 27-member European Union and carries the fate of the Euro on her shoulders; she's shown her power through a hard-line austerity solution for the European debt crisis.
 
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (#25) is one of the youngest persons on the list, at age 29; he dropped significantly from last year's top-ten ranking after Facebook's much-anticipated IPO turned out to be a flop. Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff (#1 8)  is one of the list's biggest gainers: At the midpoint of her first term, Rousseff's emphasis on entrepreneurship has prompted a slew of new startups and energized Brazilian youths.
 
Apple CEO Tim Cook (#35) made a big upward move, too: A year after he succeeded iconic founder Steve Jobs, the company is the most valuable in the world. Apple stock hit an all-time high in September, reaching above $700 a share.
 
New members of the list include LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman (#71), the world's most powerful venture capitalist and the most-connected man in Silicon Valley. Elon Musk (#66), the entrepreneur behind PayPal and Tesla Motors, is the most powerful man in space: His company SpaceX is a leader in the private space industry, and with that business set to boom, Musk stands to make out like a 19th-century railway tycoon.
 
A number of prominent people fell off the entirely. Last year's #2, Chinese President Hu Jintao, is on his way out of office; he's already handed over some of his duties, and will surrender the rest early next year. We removed U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the list for the same reasons: They're both not expected to return to their powerful posts for Obama's second term.
 
Any ranking of the world's most powerful people is going to be subjective, so we don't pretend ours is definitive. It's meant to be the beginning of a conversation, not the final word. So tell us what you think: Is ex-president Bill Clinton (#50) really more powerful than the current Prime Minister of Russia (#61)? Does someone like the chief of the Internal Federation of Association Football (#69) belong on the list at all? Who did we miss? What did we get wrong? Join the conversation by commenting below.

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

Another fact. Most people don't realize that the COTS-model now has three successes in a row. It is three-for-three. They are called Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9. The EELV development process followed the COTS model. The EELV program used the DOD's other transactions authority, and commercial industry put major skin in the game.

ЦитироватьSFN пишет:
Форбс - это американский взгяд. Спросите у китайцев!

ЦитироватьКомпания Apple потратит сто миллионов долларов на перенос части производства из Китая в США
07 декабря 2012 | 15:32
 
Об этом пишет газета Файненшнл Тайм со ссылкой на исполнительного директора компании Тима Кука.
 
 В течение последних десяти лет все производство Apple было сосредоточено в Китае, хотя дизайн разрабатывался в США. Однако в последнее время китайская компания, которая является партнером Apple оказалась замешанной в нескольких скандалах. Они в основном были связаны с забастовками работников. Все это, безусловно, влияло на репутацию Apple.
 

Цитироватьсаша пишет:
Мэхэн с его теорией морской силы, как теоретическая основа космической политики США, автор жжёт

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
 
 А предыдущее ваше сообщение я не понял. Что вы хотели сказать?

ЦитироватьValerij пишет

Цитироватьсаша пишет:
Мэхэн с его теорией морской силы, как теоретическая основа космической политики США, автор жжёт

Тем не менее Мэхэн один из основателей геополитики, а принципы его теории морской силы вполне применима при разработке космической политики.

Цитироватьсаша пишет:
тут лили горькие слёзы по поводу доли пусковых услуг на рынке и соответственно  их важности(вы в том числе)
Эти парни явно другого мнения

Цитироватьсаша пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
Тем не менее Мэхэн один из основателей геополитики, а принципы его теории морской силы вполне применима при разработке космической политики.

Вам медаль из "пентагона" уже доставили?

ЦитироватьАльфред Тайер Мэхэн (англ. Alfred Thayer Mahan; 27 сентября 1840, Уэст-Пойнт, Нью-Йорк — 1 декабря 1914, Куог, Нью-Йорк) — американский военно-морской теоретик и историк, контр-адмирал (1906), один из основателей геополитики.

ЦитироватьНаряду с Челленом классиками геополитической науки считаются британский географ и политик Хэлфорд Маккиндер, американский историк морской стратегии А. Мэхэн, германский географ, зачинатель политической географии Ф. Ратцель, германский исследователь К. Хаусхофер, американский исследователь международных отношений Н. Дж. Спикмэн.

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

 Вообще, если приглядеться, то "эти парни" ни слова не говорят о сравнительном размере или особой роли пусковых услуг. Речь идет о стоимости пуска и доставки ПН на орбиту ракетами разных классов и назначений, созданных по различным организационным принципам.
 

Цитировать пишет:
Альфред Тайер Мэхэн (англ. Alfred Thayer Mahan; 27 сентября 1840, Уэст-Пойнт, Нью-Йорк — 1 декабря 1914, Куог, Нью-Йорк) — американский военно-морской теоретик и историк, контр-адмирал (1906), один из основателей геополитики.

Цитироватьсаша пишет:
Об этом говорили в том числе Вы утверждая что роль пусковых услуг следует оценивать по массовой доле их на рынке.

Цитироватьсаша пишет:
Вы даже в Вики читаете только первые абзацы? поздравляю, Вы попали в число "полезных идиотов" которым даже платить не надо.

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

 Нет, и кроме того, я читаю не только Вики.
 
 Кстати, вас тоже нужно поздравить, вы попали в число "вредных идиотов", готовых присоединить свой ​​голос к любой ахинеи, если за это кто-то денежку зашлет?

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
 Независимый доступ в космос, естествено, тоже имеет значение. Проблема в том, что, кроме возможности забросить свою ПН на орбиту не менее важно иметь возможность сделать эту ПН, управлять ею и получать с нее данные, эффективно и своевременно использовать полученную информацию.

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
 

ЦитироватьНо это не означает, что смотреть на ниши нужно только с одной стороны. Независимый доступ в космос, естествено, тоже имеет значение. Проблема в том, что, кроме возможности забросить свою ПН на орбиту не менее важно иметь возможность сделать эту ПН, управлять ею и получать с нее данные, эффективно и своевременно использовать полученную информацию

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
Но это не означает, что смотреть на ниши нужно только с одной стороны. Независимый доступ в космос, естествено, тоже имеет значение. Проблема в том, что, кроме возможности забросить свою ПН на орбиту не менее важно иметь возможность сделать эту ПН, управлять ею и получать с нее данные, эффективно и своевременно использовать полученную информацию

.  
Валерий, Вы преподаватель начальных классов?

ЦитироватьValerij цитирует:
 Мы должны, в качестве промежуточной цели, установить возвращение на поверхность Луны в течении десятилетия, в партнерстве с коммерческими фирмами, и должны сделать это для того, чтобы использовать лунные ресурсы для дальнейшего освоения Солнечной Системы.

Цитироватьсаша пишет:
Короче, в этой "парадигме":
"Кузнечик" это блок "Д" который не сбрасывается перед посадкой а садится вместе ЛК на поверхность Луны, дозаправляется кислородом и Выводит ЛК на орбиту и далее

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
Во первых' "парадигма" понятие, намного более широкое

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
 во вторых, если вспомнить, что топливная пара метан и кислород,

Цитироватьсаша пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
Во первых' "парадигма" понятие, намного более широкое

Забыл уточнить что это только третий пункт из большой статьи с историческим экскурсом вплоть до работы над ошибками программы шаттл восьмидесятых годов, в которой(статье) отсутствует второй, провальный, этап этой работы и исправление новых ошибок. По результатам исправления их и дан старт нынешнему этапу с участием Маска в том числе.

Цитироватьсаша пишет:
Выкинув всё плохое и сохранив всё хорошее, удачно, по их мнению, пристегнув военных, авторы составили план действий который Вы выложили на предыдущей странице.

Цитироватьсаша пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
 во вторых, если вспомнить, что топливная пара метан и кислород,

К сожалению(есть причины?) Маск молчит как партизан не называя даже размерность движка, а "кузнечик" хотя бы подпрыгивает

ЦитироватьMusk: So I started with a crazy idea to spur the national will. I called it the Mars Oasis missions. The idea was to send a small greenhouse to the surface of Mars, packed with dehydrated nutrient gel that could be hydrated on landing. You'd wind up with this great photograph of green plants and red background—the first life on Mars, as far as we know, and the farthest that life's ever traveled. It would be a great money shot, plus you'd get a lot of engineering data about what it takes to maintain a little greenhouse and keep plants alive on Mars. If I could afford it, I figured it would be a worthy expenditure of money, with no expectation of financial return.

Anderson: You were going to buy a ride to Mars, in a sense.

Musk: Right. So I started to price it out. The spacecraft, the communications, the greenhouse experiment: I figured out how to do all that for relatively little. But then came the rocket—the actual propulsion from Earth to Mars. The cheapest US rocket that could do it would have cost $65 million, and I figured I would need at least two.

Anderson: So, $130 million.

Musk: Yeah, plus the cost of everything else, which would have meant I'd spend everything I made from PayPal—and if there were any cost growth I wouldn't be able to cover it. So next I went to Russia three times, in late 2001 and 2002, to see if I could negotiate the purchase of two ICBMs. Without the nukes, obviously.

Anderson: Obviously.

Musk: They would have cost me $15 million to $20 million each. That was certainly a big improvement. But as I thought about it, I realized that the only reason the ICBMs were that cheap was because they'd already been made. They were just sitting around unused. You couldn't make new ones for sale at that price. I suddenly understood that my whole premise behind the Mars Oasis idea was flawed. The real reason we weren't going to Mars wasn't a lack of national will; it was that we didn't have cheap enough rocket technology to get there on a reasonable budget. It was the perception among the American people—correct, given current technology—that it didn't make financial sense to go.
   
Anderson: Instead of buying rockets for a philanthropic mission, you realized that you needed to start a business to make them more efficiently.

Musk: We needed to set rocket technology on a path of rapid improvement. In the course of trying to put together Mars Oasis, I had talked to a number of people in the space industry and got a sense of who was technically astute and who wasn't. So I put together a team, and over a series of Saturdays I had them do a feasibility study about building rockets more efficiently. It became clear that there wasn't anything to prevent us from doing it. Rocket technology had not materially improved since the '60s—arguably it had gone backward! We decided to reverse that trend.

Anderson: And you have reversed it.

Musk: Six years after we started the company, we launched our first rocket, Falcon 1, into orbit in 2008. And the price—not the cost, mind you, but the total price to customers per launch—was roughly $7 million.
     

Цитироватьykpoi пишет:
Во-первых, он не про нас говорит, а про американцев: "The real reason we weren't going to Mars wasn't a lack of national will; it was that we didn't have cheap enough rocket technology to get there on a reasonable budget."

Цитироватьykpoi пишет:
Во-вторых, он что, хотел отправить на Марс лабораторию на Днепре?

Цитироватьykpoi пишет:
P.S. Да и вообще, он причиной называет отсутствие государственной воли.....

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

Цитироватьykpoi пишет:
Во-вторых, он что, хотел отправить на Марс лабораторию на Днепре?

Как я понял - многопуском. Тогда он был зелен и "желал странного", важно, что выросло из этого побега.....

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
кстати, это вполне достаточное доказательство, что "Золотой Колос" может быть финансово выгодным проектом. Достаточно подключиться к этому проекту мощному медиа синдикату и начать производить видеоматериалы и продавать права на их показ.....

ЦитироватьHale: Approach to Funding Commercial Crew is Penny Wise, Pound Foolish
Posted by Doug Messier on May 19, 2013, at 2:13 pm in News
 
In prepared testimony last week before the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space, former space shuttle program manager Wayne Hale urged lawmakers to boost spending for the commercial crew program:
 
(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/86477.jpg)
 

ЦитироватьPoised on the cusp of these new systems, we run the risk of being penny wise and pound foolish as we make the same mistake that doomed the space shuttle to much higher cost operations: starving a spacecraft development program in the name of saving a few pennies for today's budget bottom line resulting in the compromised systems that, if they fly at all, will not be cheap enough to enable business in space....

Currently, the commercial space effort stands uncomfortably close to the brink of financial starvation. Deep space transportation development is being stretched out by similar restrictions. Business is looking to see if the government is serious about providing the critical support or whether this effort will be wasted as so many earlier government programs which withered away on the very cusp of success: National Launch System, Orbital Space Plane, and others.

Hale's full testimony is reproduced after the break.
 
Testimony of N. Wayne Hale, Jr.
before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
May 16, 2013
 

Спойлер

I thank the committee for inviting me to testify concerning the growth of the space industry including the private sector space transportation.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am hardly a disinterested party in this topic. I am and have always been a passionate believer that space exploration and the industries that may derive fr om it will benefit humanity in ways beyond our imagining. I have spent most of my professional life working in the large government space programs of the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. During those years I have seen NASA at its very best and at its worst. The hard working dedication of my colleagues at NASA personnel is nothing short of phenomenal, and their talent and creativity is second to none. However, their endeavors have frequently been stymied due to the inherent bureaucratic inefficiencies of government work and the frequent shifts in priorities and funding that whipsaw most space initiatives. This has led me to believe there must be a better way to develop and operate space systems.

In my last assignment before retirement fr om government service, I worked with Frank Bauer, the Chief Engineer of the Exploration Systems Directorate, to define the management philosophy, protocols, and processes for the then new Commercial Crew Program within NASA. After my retirement, my work has continued as a consultant. My company, Special Aerospace Services,and I are paid advisors to a number of entities involved in the commercial crew and commercial space cargo enterprises. And I have volunteered my time to work with the Commercial Spaceflight Federation to establish safety, management, and engineering standards for all the members of this fledgling industry. So the committee can see that I am hardly a disinterested party and should weigh my testimony as such.

Establishing good, effective safety, engineering, and management standards in a voluntary industry association is the hallmark of any reputable and mature industry. I am pleased to report that the CSF is making good progress in setting up voluntary processes which will ensure public safety and promote general success in this difficult business. Industry group standards can alleviate the need for government regulations by allowing the members of a trade association to tailor best practices specifically for their industry. Evolution of these industry standards inevitably proceeds more rapidly than the development of government regulations and can therefore take rapid advantage of best practices as they emerge.

The most singularly vexing problem with space flight is the high cost of getting to low earth orbit. As the noted science fiction writer Robert Heinlein once observed, 'when you are in earth orbit you are half way to anywhere in the universe' which accurately reflects the physics of the
situation.

The lack of low cost transportation to that point located just above the earth's atmosphere and moving at 17,500 mph forward velocity has prevented potential space entrepreneurs more than any other factor. Hundreds of potential business opportunities in the limitless resources of the solar system have floundered on the high cost of transportation to low earth orbit. Asteroid mining, energy production, zero gravity manufacturing are all within our grasp technologically but will not be profitable until reliable and reasonably affordable transportation systems are in place.

New systems for transportation to low earth orbit have enormously high development costs. Private investors, with a few exceptions, are loath to provide the capital needed to develop low earth orbit transportation without clear and immediate business ready to purchase tickets.

So we are in a 'chicken or the egg' paradox. Space business needs low cost transportation to become profitable, while potential private transportation
services need established business to justify the cost of construction. This is not the first time that America has been in this situation. Both the early railroads and fledgling air transportation industries found themselves becalmed in similar straits. In both these cases, and others, the federal taxpayers stepped in to provide critical resources to help new industries develop. Those investments have been paid back myriad-fold in tax revenues when the new industries caught fire and provided transportation systems that were the envy of the world.

NASA and its predecessor agency the NACA provided needed aeronautical research to make air transportation as inexpensive and safe as we find it today. The federal investment in aeronautics development has paid off handsomely in the development of a multi-billion dollar industry. Indeed, one of the largest sectors of net exports in the American economy is aerospace with billion dollar sales a common occurrence.

The history of space flight – after the first early steps to demonstrate that space flight was even possible – has been marked with the goal of decreasing the cost of transportation to low earth orbit. In my home I have an entire shelf of books populated by volumes of studies and proposals from a multitude of thinkers spread over decades on that subject: how to provide reliable safe space transportation on the cheap.

The space system that consumed much of my professional career, the space shuttle, was established to achieve just such a low cost goal. But the technologies of the 1970s, harnessed to a risk adverse government apparatus resulted in a system that was only slightly less expensive than those which went before.

In the last decade, the United States embarked on a bold new experiment to turn over the creative reins of spacecraft development to entrepreneurial, nimble, flexible, creative private commercial teams. Bolstered with a modicum of taxpayer resources, these businesses have leveraged private investment to create the critical mass to develop new, much cheaper transportation systems. We see the first fruits of success today with cargo carrying craft: the SpaceX Falcon and Dragon, and the Orbital Antares and Cygnus. These cargo carrying privately developed vehicles are starting to supply our government outpost, the International Space Station. In future years others, the Boeing CST-100 and the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser will be added to the fleet to carry human beings as well as cargo.

Poised on the cusp of these new systems, we run the risk of being penny wise and pound foolish as we make the same mistake that doomed the space shuttle to much higher cost operations: starving a spacecraft development program in the name of saving a few pennies for today's budget bottom line resulting in the compromised systems that, if they fly at all, will not be cheap enough to enable business in space.

This is not to devalue the development of truly deep space exploration systems by the government. Those high risk, high cost systems payback over such are long term that they would never be funded by private investment. But, like the expenses incurred by Lewis and Clark, Captain Zebulon Pike, and a host of other government expeditions in our history, the payback from exploration will be enormous for both the country and for all of humanity. Just at a more distant point in the future than business spreadsheets normally run. The SLS and the MPCV should be developed in conjunction with the commercial low earth orbit transportation systems. Flying to cis-lunar space to inspect a captured asteroid is an engineering and operations test worthy of a first deep space mission. But that mission can only be a first step. More should follow.

The commercial systems will enable the deep space exploration initiative in substantial ways. First of all because the ISS is our space test laboratory for the technologies and systems that deep space exploration will need. Operation in space, aboard the ISS, is the most effective means to wring out life support, communications, propulsion, and other technologies. Commercial transportation of cargo and crews to the ISS directly support deep space systems development. As deep space exploration proceeds, commercial cargo and crew vehicles will likely be called upon to aid with assembly and fuel delivery to low earth orbit wh ere we will finalize preparations to head into the vast deep. Cost effective commercial transportation to low earth orbit can make a vital difference in equipping the deep space fleet.

So the two efforts go hand in hand. Funding equity between the two programs is necessary to ensure the timely success of both. Currently, the commercial space effort stands uncomfortably close to the brink of financial starvation. Deep space transportation development is being stretched out by similar restrictions. Business is looking to see if the government is serious about providing the critical support or whether this effort will be wasted as so many earlier government programs which withered away on the very cusp of success: National Launch System, Orbital Space Plane, and others.

I urge the Congress to fully fund these vital activities, both the commercial crew program and the exploration systems. They will allow America and American industry to lead in the exploration and development of human activity in our solar system. When the historians of the future look back on our era, they will recognize the movement of humanity from planet earth into the solar system as the pivotal event of our times. There is no project that is so important for the long term success of humankind. I would hope that those historians record that at this crossroad of history that a creative, enterprising, farsighted nation called America led the way.

The prizes both economic and historic are too great to bypass. If America does not lead in these enterprises, somebody else will. And the leader will reap the greatest rewards both in the near term and in the longer term.

For all our lim itations, America is a very rich country. There are many things which America needs to do for the present moment: provide for a strong military to protect us in a dangerous world, educate our children, care for our elderly and infirm, revitalize our transportation infrastructure of roads, bridges, airports, and more. All of these activities are of vital importance today. Space exploration is about the future. Space exploration is possibly the only line item in the federal budget that is all about the future. Currently we spend one half of one percent of our nation's treasure on the future. Isn't the future worth that investment?
 

[свернуть]

ЦитироватьValerij пишет: В этих "показаниях" Уэйн Хейл призвал увеличить финансирование коммерческой программы доставки экипажа на МКС. 

ЦитироватьRobert Clark (to) cosmic • 4 days ago −
 
The key fact that has hindered making spaceflight routine is the huge upfront development costs it was thought necessary to produce an orbital rocket, regarded as being in the range of several billions of dollars.
What's key is that NASA has proven by its commercial spaceflight program that it can be 1/10th of that, or a few hundreds of millions of dollars. This has been proven now both with SpaceX with the Falcon 9, and Orbital Sciences with the Antares.

What's notable about the Falcon 9 is that with fully private funding it was able to be done for ca. $300 million for a 10 metric ton (mT) launcher. What's notable about the Antares is the $472 million development cost covered both the 5 mT launcher and a pressurized capsule. And what's extremely important here is that the government only had to fund $288 million of that for a 5 mT capable launcher.
With development costs this low, only a few hundred million dollars for fully private development or for the portion that has to be funded by a government, any industrialized country in the world can have its own, independent spaceflight program, no consortiums such as the ESA required.
That was the point I was making in my blog post. Then the success of NASA's commercial spaceflight program should be trumpeted by them, not spoken of in hushed tones. It is the means by which we will finally achieved routine spaceflight.

Bob Clark http://exoscientist.blogspot.ru/
 

ЦитироватьРоберт Кларк космических • 4 дней назад -
Ключевой факт, что мешало делать космический полет процедура авансом огромные затраты на разработку было признано необходимым для производства орбитальных ракет, рассматриваются как находящиеся в диапазоне от нескольких миллиардов долларов.
Что Главное то, что NASA доказало его коммерческих космических полетов программа, которая может быть 1/10th этого, или несколько сотен миллионов долларов. Это было доказано теперь оба с SpaceX с Falcon 9 и Orbital Sciences с Antares.

Что примечательно, о Falcon 9 является то, что с полностью частным финансированием он был в состоянии сделать для CA. 300 миллионов долларов на 10 метрических тонн (MT) пусковой установки. Что примечательно, о Антарес $ 472 млн стоимости разработки охватывают как пусковая 5 мТл и герметической кабине. И что крайне важно здесь то, что правительство только должны были выделить $ 288 млн из этого заняли 5 м способна пусковой установки.
Разработки, затраты по этой низкой, всего лишь несколько сотен миллионов долларов на развитие частного полностью или часть, которую должен финансироваться правительством, любой промышленно развитой страны в мире может иметь свой собственный, независимый космический полет программы, ни консорциумов, таких как ЕКА требуется.
Это был момент, который я делал в моем блоге. Тогда весь успех коммерческой программы космических полетов НАСА следует котором они трубят, не говорили вполголоса. Это средство, с помощью которого мы будем, наконец, достигнуто рутинных полетов.

Боб Кларк

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет: В этих "показаниях" Уэйн Хейл призвал увеличить финансирование коммерческой программы доставки экипажа на МКС.

Ато чтото волшебной силы фикс-прайс контрактов недостаточно...

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
В показаниях Хейла есть ссылки на предшествующие случаи, когда федеральные инвестиции многократно (это в данном случае очень мягко - миллионами, возможно миллиардами раз) вернулись в бюджет в виде налогов.

ЦитироватьPrivate Firm Sets Sights on First Moon Base
MAY 24, 2013 11:52 AM ET // BY IRENE KLOTZ
   
(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/86485.jpg)
Robert Bigelow discusses a model of a Bigelow Aerospace lunar outpost.
   
NASA may not be going to the moon anytime soon, but private companies plan to do so, a study by space habitat developer Bigelow Aerospace shows.
   

Спойлер

The study, commissioned by NASA, is intended as a supplemental roadmap for the U.S. government as it charts human space initiatives beyond the International Space Station, a permanently staffed research complex that orbits about 250 miles above Earth.
   
"Instead of being the typical approach where we put together all the plans and we ask for participation, we wanted to look at it the other way and see what's available," NASA's head of space operations, Bill Gerstenmaier, told reporters during a press conference on Thursday.
   
"This is a holistic kind of effort," added Robert Bigelow, president and founder of the Nevada-based firm that bears his name. "It's intended to encompass as much (information) as possible and it's intended to evolve and to grow."
   
The first part of the study surveyed about two dozen companies and research organizations about their ideas, plans, capabilities, schedules and costs for upcoming space initiatives. A draft report was submitted to NASA on Thursday -- 40 days ahead of schedule -- and has not yet been publicly released.
   
NASA intends to use the information to figure out where it can collaborate with private space initiatives and where it might, for example, entirely skip an expensive research and development program and just buy services or hardware commercially.
   
For example, after the International Space Station is removed from orbit, NASA could be a tenant aboard a Bigelow Aerospace-owned habitat for any microgravity research or technology development it wants to do.
   
"We think station can fly to 2028," Gerstenmaier said.
   
After that, "we won't be in the business of maintaining and operating a facility in low-Earth orbit. We believe that there will be a service available for us and the private sector," he said.
   
NASA plans to follow the space station program with human missions to an asteroid by 2025 and to Mars about a decade later. The most recent version of its exploration blueprint calls for a robotic mission to retrieve a small asteroid and relocate it into orbit around the moon. Astronauts then would launch for a scientific sortie.
   
By that time, NASA may find it has neighbors on the lunar surface.
   
"The brass ring for us is having a lunar base," Bigelow said. "That is a desire we've had for a long, long time."
   
"I think that's perfectly acceptable," added Gerstenmaier. "NASA and the government focus on maybe deep space, we focus on asteroids. The private sector picks up the lunar activity and then we'll combine and share with them to see what makes sense."
     
"This gives us a chance to step back and do a bigger view of our planning and not doing it in our own little stovepipes. We're actually reaching out and starting to look right at the beginning as we start to formulate our thinking," he added.
   
NASA expects to release the first part of Bigelow's study within a few weeks. The second section is expected to be finished this fall.
   

[свернуть]

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
В показаниях Хейла есть ссылки на предшествующие случаи, когда федеральные инвестиции многократно (это в данном случае очень мягко - миллионами, возможно миллиардами раз)

ЦитироватьNot пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
В показаниях Хейла есть ссылки на предшествующие случаи, когда федеральные инвестиции многократно (это в данном случае очень мягко - миллионами, возможно миллиардами раз)

Миллиардами раз или миллиардами долларов?  :)

ЦитироватьSalo пишет:
 http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/38365startup-generation-orbit-launch-service-bets-big-on-%E2%80%98small-space%E2%80%99

ЦитироватьStartup Generation Orbit Launch Service Bets Big on 'Small Space'
By Dan Leone (http://www.spacenews.com/users/dan-leone) | Nov. 26, 2013
 
Generation Orbit's GOLauncher system would use a small business jet to carry a two-stage rocket to altitude for launch. Credit: Generation Orbit artist's concept
     
(http://www.spacenews.com/sites/spacenews.com/files/styles/large/public/images/articles/GOLauncher_GO4X3.jpg)
   
WASHINGTON — With fresh votes of confidence — and money — fr om NASA, Generation Orbit Launch Services of Atlanta is working on an air-launch system capable of sending about 40 kilograms of payload to orbit in single shot.
The company's GOLauncher system would use a small business jet to carry a two-stage rocket, with a solid core and a liquid upper stage, to altitude for launch. Its first mission, a 2016 launch for NASA, is slated to take off from GOLauncher's home base at the Cecil Field Spaceport, part of Cecil Airport in Jacksonville, Fla.
 Скрытый текст In the long term, Generation Orbit is betting on the emergence of a commercial market for tiny satellites. But in the here-and-now, the company is relying on NASA to get flying. On Nov. 12, Generation Orbit netted a $100,000 grand prize in the NASA-sponsored NewSpace Business Plan Competition, which follows a $2.1 million contract it got from the agency in September. To staff up to 10 full-timers and compete for the NASA funding, the company had to spend about $800,000, Chairman and Chief Executive John Olds estimates.
The prize money "is a great boost for our fundraising efforts," Olds wrote in a Nov. 12 email. However, it is small fry compared with the NASA Launch Services Enabling eXploration & Technology (NEXT) contract the company received to launch a 15-kilogram payload to an orbit of at least 425 kilometers in 2016.
NEXT is part of NASA's plan to reduce a backlog of more than 50 cubesats — small spacecraft assembled from standardized units weighing about 1 kilogram each and measuring 10 centimeters on a side — the agency has built up through its Cubesat Launch Initiative flight-brokerage program.
Although there are ample rideshare opportunities — such as the Nov. 18 Minotaur 1 launch from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility, Va., that carried the U.S. Air Force's STPSat-3 spacecraft and 28 smaller satellites — tiny satellites could get to space faster and more regularly with a dedicated launcher, NASA officials say.
Generation Orbit plans to provide that launcher, and it plans to do so without building things like airplanes, rocket engines or runways.
"Instead of starting from scratch, we see ourselves much more as systems architects or designers, integrators and operators," Anthony Piplica, the company's chief operating officer, told SpaceNews in September. "It's kind of a lot closer to the original Orbital Sciences model, versus a vertically integrated SpaceX [Space Exploration Technologies Corp.] model."
Piplica believes the space launch technologies the U.S. government has been investing in over the years are becoming mature enough for a company like Generation Orbit to cherry pick a few subsystems and integrate them into a low-cost launcher — for very small payloads, anyway.
"At this point in time, the government has made these types of investments in technologies that haven't been applied yet," Piplica said. "They've been developed, their [technology readiness levels] are high, and we see it as our opportunities to apply those to a commercial business."
A sampling of the technologies Generation Orbit plans to combine to test suborbital versions of its GOLauncher system includes:
n A Gulfstream T3 business jet modified for under-fuselage payload carriage by Calspan Corp. of Buffalo, N.Y.
n A kerosene-fueled rocket motor provided by Ventions of San Francisco — a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency contractor contributing to the agency's Airborne Launch Assist Space Access program, which is aimed at launching small payloads with 24 hours notice for less than $1 million a launch. GOLauncher would use the Ventions engine as a second stage. Its first stage would use a solid motor built by a U.S. solid rocket producer he declined to identify. "[W]e are not acquiring the solid rocket from this company's sort of standard space production solid rocket line," Olds said. "In fact, it's derived from a missile application that they have and is built on a missile assembly and production line and is in production and is available already.".
n Avionics and payload integration systems from Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems of Irvine, Calif.
Calspan, Ventions and Tyvak are all under contract with Generation Orbit, Olds said.
Meanwhile, in February or March, the company plans to fly a captive-carry test, in which the GOLauncher aircraft will take to the skies with a dummy rocket strapped to its underbelly, Olds said. Manufacturing on this rocket-shaped mass-simulator began in October.
Despite the NASA patronage the company is depending on to make its first flight, Generation Orbit's ultimate aspiration is to position itself for a commercial small-satellite boom that one of its executives believes is lurking just over the horizon.
"In the last 18 months, there has been an interesting trend: Suddenly you have all these companies, whether it's Planetary Resources, Planet Labs, GeoOptics, NovaWurks, Skybox, Deep Space Industries, they all have raised funding, many of them on the open capital markets, of more than $100 million between them for business plans predicated upon not two or three but dozens of spacecraft," Max Vozoff, Generation Orbit's senior business strategist, told SpaceNews in September.
Vozoff, who joined Generation Orbit in May, is the former senior mission manager and director of civil business development at SpaceX, wh ere he learned something about the intersection of space entrepreneurship and the U.S. government's aerospace traditions — namely, that big-government funding can open doors for space companies looking to squeeze into truly commercial markets.
This time, Vozoff said, he sees NASA's experiment to field a small-sat launcher as a means of positioning Generation Orbit to capitalize on the small-satellite launch boom he expects to arrive sometime around 2014 or 2015.
Around then, "there are six, eight, 10 or more companies, each of which plan to launch dozens of ... short-lived spacecraft ... that go one or two years on orbit and need replenishment," Vozoff said.
"It is a unique moment in time," he added. "We are seeing the emergence of real demand in the small satellite industry."
 
Follow Dan on Twitter: @Leone_SN

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

ЦитироватьG.K. пишет:

ЦитироватьДмитрий В. пишет:
бизнес-джет меньше, поэтому дешевле в эксплуатации.

Его надо переделывать для пуска, как под него вообще подвесить ракету? У них не ахти высокое шасси ( которых я видел) и просто как у орбитала повесить не получится. А на картинке там даже бомболюка нет, что бы выдвигать РКН из самолёта перед пуском. Консоль жёсткая...
А из транспортника- выкинул и всё. По принципу воздушного пуска МБР, который был на испытаниях в США.

Похоже у них вообще нет собственного самолета и для запусков они арендуют его у другой компании:
     

Цитировать(http://www.calspan.com/images/default-source/home-rotator/g3.jpg)
   
Calspan has responded to the growing need for large scale testing of avionics systems by developing a testbed based on a Gulfstream G-III aircraft. This system is specifically designed to handle large Fire Control Radars, EO/IR sensors and heavy external stores. With more than 65 years of experience in airborne Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Calspan has specifically modified and configured the airframe to support cost-effective flight testing of new airborne sensors and/or systems for manned and unmanned aircraft alike. Calspan's staff of experienced test pilots, engineers, technicians, and mechanics are ready to assist customers with the safe and efficient design, installation, and flight test of prototype airborne installations in the latest addition to the Calspan fleet of test aircraft.

http://www.calspan.com/aerospace/flight-test-aircraft-operations
     
(http://www.calspan.com/images/default-source/default-album/calspanplanes.jpg)
   

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

ЦитироватьАлександр Ч. пишет:
Забавно, только только Пегаса удушили...

Как не смешно, но это классический пример эффективного менеджмента. Небольшая компания реализует противоположную СпейсИкс концепцию системного интегратора, заказывающего или покупающего большую часть комплектующих на стороне.

ЦитироватьSETI Panel: Private Funding Opportunities for Space Research
Posted by Doug Messier on February 7, 2014, at 5:35 am in News
   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeIBgcpiBRU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeIBgcpiBRU)
   
Video Caption: Join our three expert panelists to find out about opportunities for funding science with venture capital and other commercial opportunities.

Panel:

 Amaresh Kollipara
 Managing Partner, Earth2Orbit, LLC
 Principal, Space Angels Network

Спойлер

 
Amaresh Kollipara
   
Amaresh is a Founder and Managing Partner of Earth2Orbit, LLC, which is an aerospace consulting firm and global provider of launch services. Earth2Orbit is working with the Indian Space Research Organization to provide commercial launch services to a variety of satellite clients. In addition to his role at Earth2Orbit, Amaresh serves as a management consultant and financial advisor to a generation of entrepreneurs by helping them develop viable businesses and prepare for the world of venture finance.

Amaresh currently serves as a Principal of the Space Angels Network, a professionally managed national network of seed- and early-stage investors focused on aerospace-related startups.

Prior to his aerospace related endeavors, Amaresh enjoyed a successful career with the Strategy group of Accenture, where he managed key Internet strategy offerings and developed strategic recommendations for Global 500 clients such as Cisco, HP, and Siemens. Amaresh's diverse background also includes roles as a biotechnology researcher, planetarium presenter, and physics teacher. Amaresh holds an MBA degree fr om the Graduate School of Business at Columbia University. He also earned a B.A. in Molecular and Cell Biology with an emphasis in Neurobiology from the University of California at Berkeley.

Christopher Horgan

Christopher J. Horgan is a registered patent attorney with experience in a wide variety of technical areas. He has been in the intellectual property field since starting at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office in 1990 as a Patent Examiner. Mr. Horgan received his J.D. from the Catholic University of America, M.B.A. from Union College and B.S.E.E. from Lafayette College.

Mark Bunger

Mark Bünger directs the Lux Research analyst team from the firm's San Francisco office. He has 15 years of business strategy experience, both as a management consultant and a technology analyst. In this time, he has advised more than 40 Fortune 500 corporations, led hundreds of engagements, and authored over 60 reports and other publications. Most recently, he was a Principal Analyst at Forrester Research,where he studied and advised clients in manufacturing industries including automotive and aerospace. Prior to that, Mark was a Managing Director at European technology consultancy Icon Medialab (now LB International). He also co-founded the leading online promotional currency company, SoftCoin, which manages multimillion-dollar campaigns for clients such as Kodak, Proctor & Gamble, Frito-Lay, and Nokia.

The first six years of Mark's career were spent at Accenture in the U.S. and Europe, wh ere he was a consultant in a variety of industries and technologies. Mark and his work have figured in leading business journals and other media outlets in the U.S. and Europe, including CNN, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and other regional and trade publications.

Mark's education includes International Marketing at Mälardalen Polytechnic in Sweden, and Market Research at the University of Texas in the U.S. In addition, Mark studied biochemistry through the University of California at Berkeley's extension program, and currently assists part-time in a lab at the UCSF Department of Neurology.

[свернуть]

ЦитироватьNield: Moratorium on Regulations Should End in 2015

Posted by Doug Messier on February 7, 2014, at 8:29 am in News
 

Цитировать(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/92014.jpg)
 
George Nield

Looks like the honeymoon between the FAA and the nascent commercial space industry is coming to an end. Or at least the moratorium on government regulation.

George Nield, who heads up the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation, said earlier this week in Washington that he is against extending the "learning period" for commercial human spaceflight when it expires in 2015.

Спойлер

During that period, the FAA is generally restrained from rule making to allow the commercial spaceflight industry to experiment with different designs and systems for getting into space. However, the FAA can act if there is an accident or a close call.

Nield said that the "learning period" implies that there haven't been useful lessons learned during the previous 50 plus years of human spaceflight. He pointed to NASA's long record of spaceflight, which included 135 space shuttle missions. The US Air Force also has experience with the X-15 rocket plane, which flew 199 missions with 13 reaching above the 50-mile Air Force boundary of space.

Nield's position puts him at odds with the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), which wants to extend the learning period by eight years after the first commercial spaceflight. COMSTAC is a body composed of industry officials that provides information, advice, and recommendations on the field.

Nield said that although many of the companies the FAA works with have excellent safety cultures, there is a risk that a "bad actor" will come along to ruin it for the entire industry. If the FAA has no any pass/fail criteria, he added, then everyone in the field passes regardless of the quality of their vehicles and operations.

Nield said the FAA has been criticized in the past as having a "tombstone mentality," in essence waiting for accidents to happen before acting to improve aviation. He would prefer to be proactive, and believes that the government, industry and academia can work together to develop a set of regulations that will improve safety in advance of accidents.

In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space, Nield also called for the FAA to have authority to regulate on-orbit operations of commercial space vehicles. Currently, the FAA is involved in issuing licenses for launches and re-entries only.

"The FAA believes it is time to explore orbital safety of commercial space transportation under the Commercial Space Launch Act licensing regime," Nield said in prepared testimony. "The FAA's experience with collision avoidance includes conducting analysis and implementing orbital debris mitigation practices consistent with international standards, but these are limited to commercial launch and reentry activities....

"Should the FAA authority be increased, we would work to ensure appropriate levels of orbital safety are maintained in addition to our responsibilities of licensing launch and reentry," he added. "The goal would be for the FAA to address orbital transportation safety, including for orbital debris mitigation, for spacecraft whose primary function was transportation."

Nield also called upon Congress to make a regulatory change to accommodate government astronauts flying to the International Space Station on new commercially owned transports being developed under NASA's Commercial Crew Program.

"We strongly support the Administration's requested changes to the Commercial Space Launch Act that would add a third category of occupants called government astronauts," Neild said in his prepared remarks. "The changes would complement our existing definitions of crew and spaceflight participants, and would increase transparency and ease the administration of our regulations in the context of NASA astronauts serving as crew."

[свернуть]

ЦитироватьWill SpaceX Super Rocket Kill NASA's 'Rocket to Nowhere'? (Op-Ed)
R.D. Boozer   |   February 10, 2014 07:00pm ET
   

ЦитироватьR.D. Boozer is an astrophysics researcher, member of the Space Development Steering Committee, host of the Astro Maven blog and author of the book "The Plundering of NASA: an Exposé" (lulu.com, 2013). He contributed this article to Space.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/92071.jpg)
   
The private spaceflight company Space X plans to build a rocket so big it would "make the Apollo moon rocket look small,"the company's CEO, Elon Musk, announced on "CBS This Morning"on Feb. 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U44geuM6iQ0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U44geuM6iQ0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U44geuM6iQ0&feature=player_embedded
   
The huge rocket would ultimately send colonists to Mars, but what would SpaceX do in the meantime? The company's primary focus right now is giving NASA astronauts access to the International Space Station (ISS) on American vehicles, drastically lowering prices to Earth orbit versus what the Russians are charging, Musk said. (SpaceX Breaks Ground on Launch Pad for Huge Private Rocket http://www.space.com/12271-spacex-groundbreaking-launch-site-falcon-heavy.html )
   
I would add that the company should also use its rockets and spacecraft to open up orbital space access to friendly governments, companies and individuals who could not afford it otherwise. That would provide a significant stimulus to the U.S. economy. Musk further mentioned SpaceX doing a manned flight around the moon, possibly including a landing. Following those events, he said, SpaceX would use the huge rocket for trips to Mars.

This all begs the question: If SpaceX is going to build this gargantuan rocket on its own dime, anyway, why is the U.S. Congress forcing NASA to develop the less capable Space Launch System (SLS) for many billions of dollars more?

 Earlier, SpaceX stated it could develop a rocket that would launch 150 metric tons of payload,or 20 metric tons more than the most powerful version of SLS at a fixed price development cost of $2.5 billion http://aerospaceblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/nasa-studies-scaled-up-spacex-falcon-merlin/ (an amount that comes to roughly 1.25 years of SLS's funding). Also worthy of consideration is spacecraft launch company United Launch Alliance's (ULA) proposed — but not currently pursued — economical, large launcher that would loft 140 metric tons at $5.5 http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf billion total development cost.

 Wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to buy a huge rocket from SpaceX or ULA and get much more capability for less money? If SLS were cancelled now, couldn't a small part of the resulting savings help speed up development of the large SpaceX or ULA launch vehicles — or both? In fact, this was exactly what NASA proposed to Congress before SLS http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/hearings/space10/mar24/Cooke.pdf was legally forced on them.

 Musk's statements also imply that SpaceX must develop an advanced interplanetary spacecraft http://www.space.com/18596-mars-colony-spacex-elon-musk.html much more capable than the upsized 1960s-style Orion vessel that NASA has already spent billions on, and on which it is slated to spend billions more. http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653866.pdf Why not have NASA help SpaceX and other groundbreaking aerospace companies speed things up with a safe spacecraft that is better than Orion, yet less expensive? This craft could be developed via the competitive "fixed-price/pay-only-for-success"format successfully used in NASA's Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew programs.

 SLS is so expensive that there is no money left to develop the huge payloads it is designed to carry. Thus, it is often referred to as "The Rocket to Nowhere."As mentioned in a report from Booz-Allen-Hamilton, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/581582main_BAH_Executive_Summary.pdf this rocket will probably only successfully meet goals for the first 3 to 5 years. Thereafter, the SLS will produce only a very few (if any) exorbitantly expensive flights, after an extravagant amount already spent.

 If SLS and Orion were scrapped and a fraction of their funds applied to the SpaceX or ULA launchers, NASA could use the resulting savings to produce needed technologies for deep-space exploration. The agency cannot currently develop those technologies because the SLS/Orion costs leave no money for these other projects. Those needed technologies could include radiation protection, artificial-spin gravity, advanced space-propulsion systems and in-space filling stations — all of which are now on the back burner.

Additionally, NASA astronauts could perform many more deep-space missions with the alternate launchers. The much smaller unit cost and lower operating expense http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1 of these other rockets would permit these more-frequent missions. More ambitious robotic missions would be feasible for the same reason — all within NASA's current budget. Again, NASA proposed this very stratagem http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/hearings/space10/mar24/Cooke.pdf before Congress forced SLS on the space agency.

By the end of this year, http://www.spacex.com/missions SpaceX plans to launch its Falcon Heavy (FH) rocket. This craft will have three-quarters of the payload capacity of the low-end version of SLS (not to be launched until 2017 at earliest). FH will have been produced totally without funds from NASA, which appears to be the case with the earlier-discussed Super Rocket, as well.

 FH is more than powerful enough to send a manned SpaceX Dragonrider spacecraft on the loop around the moon that Musk mentioned. In fact, FH will be the most powerful rocket to fly since the Saturn V moon rocket. http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy And Dragonrider's heat shield is designed to withstand the greatly increased stress that occurs when re-entering Earth's atmosphere from the moon or from interplanetary distances. Two Falcon Heavies (one to launch Dragonrider and a service module, the other to launch a lunar lander) would be quite sufficient for a manned moon landing. Those two scenarios are just conjecture on my part, since SpaceX has not yet announced the details of how they plan to accomplish either of those proposed missions. But they are real and tantalizing possibilities, given the capabilities and relatively low costs of the SpaceX projects.

Цитировать(http://i.space.com/images/i/000/036/786/original/plundering_NASA_book_cover.jpg)
   
Cover for the paperback edition of "The Plundering of NASA: an Exposé" (lulu.com, 2013).
Credit: Copyright 2013 R.D. Boozer, artwork created by R.D. Boozer.

But Congressional politics currently stand in the way of those possibilities. Certain U.S. Senate and House of Representatives pork-barrel politicians garner votes from constituencies in sel ected parts of the country through the short-sighted use of NASA's budget dollars. SLS and Orion are prime examples of this tendency. Unfortunately, the mainstream media have not yet reported this fact. Even network TV news anchors (some of whom claim to be space enthusiasts) seem unaware of this fleecing of the American taxpayer, which allows foreign competitors like China to gradually erode the huge technological advantage that the United States currently enjoys.

 Despite all of that, private commercial companies are making innovations that will drastically lower the cost of spaceflight. When faced with this reality, it would seem the ultimate end of SLS/Orion is inevitable within the not-too-distant future.

 It's time for U.S. citizens to insist that NASA's budget go toward advancing the entire nation's long-term future in space, not just short-term employment for certain areas of the country. By advancing more rapidly into space, the country will create many more American jobs in the future than will come fr om NASA spinning its wheels with SLS and Orion.

The author's most recent Op-Ed was "Allow NASA to Do Great Things Again." The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Space.com.
   

ЦитироватьAllow NASA to Do Great Things Again (Op-Ed)
R.D. Boozer   |   December 09, 2013 10:45pm ET
   

ЦитироватьR.D. Boozer is an astrophysics researcher, host of the Astro Maven blog and author of the book "The Plundering of NASA: an Exposé" (lulu.com, 2013). He contributed this article to SPACE.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

NASA has pushed back its first crewed flights to the International Space Station (ISS) from 2015 to 2017 — after Congress allocated less money to the Commercial Crew program than President Barack Obama's administration says the space agency needs. That's two extra years the United States must pay Russia to taxi American astronauts to the ISS, two years when that same money could instead support American jobs back home.

 In the Commercial Crew Development program (or Commercial Crew), NASA is helping companies develop launch vehicles and spacecraft to transport astronauts to the ISS with partial financing while the companies pay the remainder of the development costs themselves. Indeed, it's amazing that the Commercial Crew has made any significant progress, since it received just over one-third of its total requested funds for the period covering the last three years.

 Worse, NASA's inspector general says insufficient funding of Commercial Crew may cause an even longer delay of the first crewed flight — to 2020. That puts the first expedition near the end of the ISS's life expectancy, and adds five extra years of sending money to Russia.

 Though the Space Launch System (SLS) wouldn't fly astronauts until 2021 under the most optimistic estimates, certain powerful legislators ensure that this program suffers little compared to Commercial Crew. Indeed, the size of the SLS program's budget in recent years has largely come at the expense of Commercial Crew. Meanwhile, the former executive secretary of the National Space Council under the G. H. W. Bush administration has dubbed the SLS technology and contracting methods "too expensive, too slow and too old."
   
The irony is that even if such an enormous launch vehicle is truly needed, other groups could build it for less money.United Launch Alliance (ULA) has quoted $5.5 billion to develop a launcher that could lift a total of 140 metric tons (154 short tons) for 10 metric tons (11 short tons) more payload capacity than the most powerful proposed version of SLS, whilst Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) quoted an unchangeable contract cost of $2.5 billion (equal to about 1.25 years of SLS development costs) for a rocket lofting 150 metric tons (165 short tons); that is, 20 metric tons (22 short tons) more than SLS's 130 metric tons (143 short tons) maximum payload.

 NASA is supposed to work on daring, cutting-edge technology that it is not profitable for industry to develop. It made sense for NASA to create its own rockets in the 1960s and 1970s, when producing boosters was a new and highly experimental field. But now, industry has taken the booster tech that NASA developed back then and adapted it; today, the private sector can develop such vehicles more economically and efficiently than NASA can.

 Meanwhile, page 55 of a report issued by the Government Accountability Office states that workers developing NASA's Orion spacecraft (costing another 1 billion dollars a year) want to lighten the vessel by 5,000 pounds (2,300 kilograms) without compromising either capability or safety.

 NASA could be working on real advancements instead of the obsolete monstrosity that is SLS/Orion — advancements that could lead to exciting deep-space missions. The money would come from the budget savings made available by using commercial market vehicles.
   

Цитировать(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/92072.jpg)
   
Cover art for the Kindle ebook version of "The Plundering of NASA: an Exposé" (lulu.com, 2013)
Credit: Copyright 2013 R.D. Boozer, artwork created by R.D. Boozer.
   

For example, NASA has an excellent design for an advanced spaceship called Nautilus-X that would stay in space and never land on Earth. By implementing "artificial gravity" via a spinning module, Nautilus-X would prevent severe bone loss in astronauts during long periods of weightlessness. It would also protect crew from severe radiation hazards during interplanetary flight, such as coronal mass ejections. Spacecraft like Sierra Nevada's Dreamchaser, Boeing's CST-100 and SpaceX's Dragonrider could haul people between the Earth and Nautilus-X to embark or disembark on deep-space journeys.

 NASA should also pursue in-space filling stations to top-off spacecraft propellant tanks. Instead, the money-hungry SLS/Orion now takes political precedence over everything else.

 The solution would involve allowing NASA's engineers and technicians to do something worthy of their talents, something that involves 21st-century breakthrough technology rather than just another launcher that industry can now do better. "Reinventing the wheel" with SLS is an insult to the fine people at NASA when you think of the new technology and human exploration missions they could be working on with the money saved by using commercial launchers.

 NASA is being set up for failure via SLS/Orion, as it was with Ares 1 crew launch vehicle and Constellation spaceflight program. Many will blame NASA for SLS's inevitable failure, no matter which presidential administration orders the program cancelled. The talented space-agency professionals don't deserve such mistreatment, when the real blame for the loss lies with Congress.

 Nonetheless, the political purveyors of pork prefer a launch system that wastes billions of taxpayers' money and gives the Chinese extra time to narrow the considerable space-technology lead that the U.S. currently enjoys. Even now, there is already maneuvering in Congress to prevent the future cancellation of this shameless boondoggle.

The author's most recent Op-Ed was "It's Time to Send Americans into the Inner Solar System." The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on SPACE.com.

   

ЦитироватьPrivate spaceflight industry set to take flight, federation president says
By ALEX MACON January 23, 2014 12:30 am
   
HOUSTON — Privately owned orbital facilities and regular space tourism could be a reality by the end of the next decade, the president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation said Wednesday.

Speaking to students at Rice University, Michael Lopez-Alegria compared the current state of the private space industry to the early days of commercial air flight.

The growing success of the industry will lead to the "democratization of access to space" and create thousands of jobs, he said.

The former astronaut and International Space Station commander, who holds NASA records for the longest spaceflight and cumulative spacewalking time, pointed toward the space agency's commercial cargo program, which has seen recent successes with orbital cargo deliveries conducted by SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp.

The Commercial Spaceflight Federation represents about 50 commercial space organizations, including SpaceX, Sierra Nevada and the Boeing Company, which are developing crafts to transport NASA astronauts to the space station.

"[NASA] can leverage the idea of competition, entrepreneurship, et cetera," to benefit space exploration, he said.

About 535 people have traveled to space. That number is likely to skyrocket in the future – about 1,000 people have already signed up for future flights on Virgin Galactic and EXCOR Aerospace for suborbital flights

Virgin Galactic developed the SpaceShip-Two craft intended to take tourists on suborbital flights, Lopez-Alegria said.

The prospect of near space tourism is also close to becoming a reality. In 2016, the Tucson, Ariz.-based World View Enterprises plans to take tourists on a balloon ride more than 18 miles above the Earth.

The company plans to charge about $75,000 a ticket, but that's to be expected at first.

"When you think about what people were paying in the 1930s for commercial air flight, it's not incomparable," Lopez-Alegria said.

The commercial space industry's role won't be limited to space tourism or government contracts, he said.

Bigelow Aerospace is developing its own space station, which it hopes to launch in coming years. Executives at other companies have expressed a willingness to move beyond NASA contracts and service other "sovereign clients."

Eight spaceports already exist in the U.S., with many more, including one at nearby Ellington Field, being proposed.

Economic growth created by the relatively new industry will be invaluable, he said.

Lopez-Alegria sees the commercial space industry providing a complementary role with NASA and international space agencies. As NASA focuses on deep space exploration and other goals, the role of private industry in space will become more prominent.

"The government's role is to be the point at the end of the spear – at the very end of the spear – with private industry filling in behind."
   

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
Выступая перед студентами в Университете Райса , Майкл Лопес-Алегрия сравнил текущее состояние частной космической отрасли с первыми днями коммерческой авиации.

ЦитироватьBell пишет:
В еще в 1960-мохнатом году в Одиссеи 2001 тоже предрекали коммерческие полеты в космос, орбитальные отели и все такое, однако до сих пор 3,14здеж не превратился в реальность...

Так что,как в том анекдоте "И вы говорите!"

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

ЦитироватьBell пишет:
В еще в 1960-мохнатом году в Одиссеи 2001 тоже предрекали коммерческие полеты в космос, орбитальные отели и все такое, однако до сих пор 3,14здеж не превратился в реальность...

Так что,как в том анекдоте "И вы говорите!"

"Одиссея 2001" никогда не была научным трудом. Еще не была освоена необходимая сумма технологий

Цитироватьvlad7308 пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
 "Одиссея 2001" никогда не была научным трудом. Еще не была освоена необходимая сумма технологий

Она (сумма) и сейчас еще не освоена.

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
сейчас имеет смысл объявить COTS-подобную программу создания космической станции и космического производства. Одновременно можно объявить вторую подобную программу "возвращения на Луну". Обе подобные программы вместе потребуют из бюджета денег меньше, чем один СЛС. Длительность этих программ вполне вменяемая - порядка восемь - десять лет.

ЦитироватьNot пишет:
Вас просвещать - только портить. Светоч вы неиссякаемый

ЦитироватьBell пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
Выступая перед студентами в Университете Райса , Майкл Лопес-Алегрия сравнил текущее состояние частной космической отрасли с первыми днями коммерческой авиации.

В еще в 1960-мохнатом году в Одиссеи 2001 тоже предрекали коммерческие полеты в космос, орбитальные отели и все такое, однако до сих пор 3,14здеж не превратился в реальность...

Так что,как в том анекдоте "И вы говорите!"

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

ЦитироватьNot пишет:
Вас просвещать - только портить. Светоч вы неиссякаемый

Ну, я тоже не собираюсь вас переубеждать. Я выложил здесь доводы не самых глупых, и достаточно авторитетных в индустрии людей, в расчете не на вас, а на тех, кто читает этот форум. Вот ради этих молчаливых читателей и откройте вашу священную тайну - в чем ошибаются эти авторитеты?
 
А без доводов ваши замечания не убеждают.

Цитироватьavmich пишет:
Отличие оптимистов от скептиков в этой теме - в том, что оптимисты приводят факты из сегодня, а скептики - из разной степени далёкости прошлого. И чем более глубоко в прошлое приходится забираться, тем сомнительнее выглядят доводы скептиков .

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:

Цитироватьavmich пишет:
Отличие оптимистов от скептиков в этой теме - в том, что оптимисты приводят факты из сегодня, а скептики - из разной степени далёкости прошлого. И чем более глубоко в прошлое приходится забираться, тем сомнительнее выглядят доводы скептиков .

Для начала здесь нет пессимистов и оптимистов. Здесь есть реалисты и фантазёры.
Так вот реалисты приводят факты из реальности а фантазёры - из своих фантазий.

ЦитироватьValerij пишет: Вы хотите познакомить нас с вашими фантазиями? Велкам!

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет: Вы хотите познакомить нас с вашими фантазиями? Велкам!

Жалко. Очень жалко. Невероятно, сказочно жалко...

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет: Вы хотите познакомить нас с вашими фантазиями? Велкам!

Жалко. Очень жалко. Невероятно, сказочно жалко...

Вот и я говорю. Вы, Старый *удак. выглядите очень жалко. 

ЦитироватьБез фактов, или, как минимум, без ссылки на авторитетный источник, вам в этой теме появляться не стоит.

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:
А вы должны появляться как можно чаще. Иначе кого я буду тыкать палочкой в пушистый пузик?

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:
А вы должны появляться как можно чаще. Иначе кого я буду тыкать палочкой в пушистый пузик?

А что, без моих пинков ваше пушистое пузико уже не справляется со своими прямыми обязанностями, что вы сюда его вонючую продукцию грязными руками тащите?

ЦитироватьОтдохните, сходите ко врачу, вот стул и нормализуется. И вообще, может вам в больничке, под надзором, полечиться? 

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:
Ой, что я вижу! Вы решили сосредоточиться на моей нескромной персоне

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:
Ой, что я вижу! Вы решили сосредоточиться на моей нескромной персоне

Много чести, Старый *удак.

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
Старый *удак, пошел в задницу.

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
Не беспокойтесь, я не настолько жаден, так что оплаты не жду. А вот флуд и троллизм Старого вы зря недооцениваете, он разогнал из форума массу интересных людей.

ЦитироватьNot пишет:
Все с точностью до наоборот. Суждения и профессионализм Старого людей привлекают, а Ваш флуд и троллизм практически в каждой теме - отталкивают.

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
Старый *удак, пошел в задницу.

ЦитироватьValerij пишет: докажите с фактами в руках, что я дурак. Или слабо?

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет: докажите с фактами в руках, что я дурак. Или слабо?

Это классика!
Заметьтьте, джентльмены, что больше никто тут таких речей не произносит!

ЦитироватьДмитрий В. пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:
Старый *удак, пошел в задницу.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVkwoY6dQFo

ЦитироватьValerij пишет:

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:

ЦитироватьValerij пишет: докажите с фактами в руках, что я дурак. Или слабо?

Это классика!
Заметьтьте, джентльмены, что больше никто тут таких речей не произносит!

Старый *удило, пошел в задницу, в дерьме купаться.

ЦитироватьСтарый пишет:
Я не могу... Я не могу уйти от таких классических изречений...
 Давайте ещё.

ЦитироватьNASA, FAA Cooperate on Commercial Crew Program
Posted by Doug Messier on February 27, 2014, at 6:20 am in News
   
(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/92466.jpg)
   
WASHINGTON (NASA PR) — NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have complementary and interdependent interests in ensuring that commercially developed human space transportation systems for low-Earth orbit are safe and effective. The FAA regulates the U.S. commercial space transportation industry for public safety during launch and re-entry. NASA is enabling the development and demonstration of human space transportation systems via the Commercial Crew Program.

To facilitate these complementary interests, NASA and the FAA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in June 2012 to coordinate standards for commercial space travel of government and non-government astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station (ISS). The MOU was the first step in the process to provide a stable framework for the U.S. space industry, avoid conflicting requirements and multiple sets of standards, and advance both public and crew safety.

The MOU signed by the two agencies also established the policy for operational missions to the space station. Commercial providers will be required to obtain a license from the FAA for public safety. Crew safety and mission assurance will be NASA's responsibility. This approach allows both agencies to incorporate experience and lessons learned as progress is made.

Since the signing of the MOU, NASA and the FAA have been working closely together to implement its objectives and policies. The two agencies established a program-level working group with the responsibility to identify potential issues related to NASA astronauts flying on FAA-licensed vehicles. Additionally, a NASA-FAA legal "harmonization team" was established to address specific legal questions and issues identified by both teams.

The teams initially identified dozens of potential issues; some were minor clarification-related issues and others were more significant. More than 40 percent of those issues already have been closed to date. As an example, the FAA recently published an interpretation addressing the ability of NASA astronauts to perform operational functions during an FAA-licensed launch and re-entry. The FAA also published interpretations addressing waivers and international partner participation.

Late last year, NASA, in collaboration with the FAA, submitted to Congress a proposed amendment to the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) to more fully address issues related to FAA-licensed missions providing space station transportation services for NASA astronauts by adding a "Government Astronaut" classification to the CSLA.

These NASA and FAA cooperative efforts are consistent with the National Space Policy of the United States of America (June 28, 2010), which directs federal agencies to "minimize, as much as possible, the regulatory burden for commercial space activities and ensure that the regulatory environment for licensing space activities is timely and responsive." There still is work to be done, but the progress both agencies have made, and will continue to make, is helping to enable a robust commercial human spaceflight industry within the United States.
   

ЦитироватьNASA Hoping for Private Sector Successors to ISS
Posted: 24-Feb-2014 Updated: 24-Feb-2014 11:32 PM
Marcia S. Smith
 
NASA may have gotten the White House's blessing to keep the International Space Station (ISS) operating until at least 2024, but it won't last forever. Speaking to a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) subcommittee today, Bill Gerstenmaier expressed hope that private sector space stations will materialize for the longer term future.

Gerstenmaier, head of NASA's Human Exploration and Operations (HEO) Mission Directorate, spoke to the Research Subcommittee of the NAC HEO Committee this morning. The bulk of his remarks dealt with how best to make use of ISS for research during its lifetime, but he also pointed to the need for the commercial sector to build "mini space stations" as places for future research.

While praising the White House decision to keep ISS operating through 2024 because it gives researchers certainty that they will have time to conduct experiments, he also said "I don't think there'll be another government-sponsored space station." He believes the ISS will be fine through 2028, but he pointed to the desirability of companies flying single-purpose space stations thereafter and the government could buy services or research time from them instead.

In the meantime, ISS facilities are being well utilized today according to Sam Scimemi, Director of ISS at NASA Headquarters, who also briefed the subcommittee. Almost 84 percent of the science racks in the U.S. Orbital Segment (USOS) are occupied with experiments right now, he said, along with 76 percent of EXPRESS racks. He noted that utilization of available research sites on the exterior of the ISS is only 50 percent and his office is working on filling the rest of the sites.

The availability of transportation systems to take experiments up to the ISS (upmass) and back to Earth (downmass) is OK for now, he added, but demand is expected to exceed capacity beginning in 2015.

One research limitation is the availability of crew time, he continued, and NASA is talking to Russia about making Russian crew members available to conduct some of the research. Scimemi said they were negotiating a barter arrangement for 5 hours per week of Russian crew time. The ISS is split into the USOS segment (which includes hardware from the United States, Europe, Japan and Canada) and the Russian segment (Russian modules and systems). A typical ISS 6-person crew is composed of three Russians and three from the United States and its western partners. NASA is looking forward to increasing the crew size to seven (three Russians, four from the western partners) once commercial crew capabilities are available.

NASA is also looking at other upgrades to the ISS now that it has permission to extend operations through 2024. They include upgrades to video and data systems, new freezers, high throughput facilities for materials science and cell science, and additional Earth-pointing and Sun/space pointing platforms, Scimemi told the subcommittee.
 

ЦитироватьDemand for CubeSat Deployments Nearing Space Station Limit
By Caleb Henry | February 26, 2014
 

Цитировать(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/92676.jpg)
 NanoRacks Satellite Deployer inside the ISS. Photo: NanoRacks

[Via Satellite 02-26-2014] The use of the International Space Station (ISS) as a platform for launching CubeSats has grown so much that the station crew may have to adjust their approach to keep pace. The most recent load of 33 satellites fr om Planet Labs, NanoSatisfi, SkyCube and others currently under way is now more than half way through deployment, and future launches to the ISS are already filling up. The demand for these launches has exceeded the expectation of NASA, JAXA and the commercial companies involved.

"This is our first deployment of CubeSats from the station using our own hardware," said Jeffrey Manber, CEO of NanoRacks. "We launched one CubeSat in 2013, and we projected to our investors that we should do three to five satellites this year," he said, laughing slightly at how far off they were. "We expect if all goes well to do 100 this year."
 

Спойлер

To date, NanoRacks has launched 150 payloads. The company used eight deployers to launch 16 CubeSats from the current load, 28 of which come from Planet Labs. The second round of deployments is currently underway. These spacecraft were delivered as secondary payloads onboard Orbital Sciences' commercial resupply services (CRS) Orb 1 mission. Astronauts on the ISS have been busy deploying the satellites, and NanoRacks has two to three more payloads planed for this year alone.

"You come up against the limits of the station," said Manber. "That's something we are talking to NASA about right now."

The demand for these launches comes from a variety of sources in percentages that are not expected. While schools are known for having CubeSat programs, they do not make up the majority of CubeSat users.

"Until this service from NanoRacks came along, everyone assumed it was academic," said Manber. "The shock of Planet Labs was that they are commercial. That is getting all sorts of publicity. We are seeing very strong interest from commercial companies ... second is U.S. government research satellites, and third is academia. And that is exactly opposite of what most people thought two years ago."

Phil Brzytwa, business development manager at Spaceflight Inc, a company that helps match satellites to launch vehicles, has noticed the same trend.

"The demand for CubeSat launches is steadily increasing, not just from universities and government programs, but from commercial entities as well," he said. "This growth extends outside of the U.S. and Europe to countries that are developing space programs."

Small satellites are a compelling route to space for countries that have new space programs. As more nations get involved — often with smaller budgets — CubeSats are becoming a cost-effective option to reach national priorities in space. According to Manber, the company is close to signing its first South American customer. Other customers include Romania, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Denmark.

"Two markets are coming of age here," said Manber. "Small satellites are truly coming of age, and so too the use of an orbital platform for service."
 

Цитировать(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/92677.jpg)
Small Sats Deployed from the ISS. Photo: NanoRacks

To continue to grow, NanoRacks is working with NASA and JAXA to evaluate new options. By demonstrating that the company's hardware works, they are opening up doors for greater space station utilization.

"They really are cognizant that this is a commercial business, and we've started talking with the space station program people about 'how do we grow? Can we get to 200 satellites? Can we get to 300? Can we get propulsion, and can we get to higher orbits?'" said Manber. "These are questions we are all asking now."

Anticipating that small satellites mark the beginning of an important industry, Manber expects other options for deployment to develop. Spaceflight Inc. is working with NanoRacks to provide more desired launch opportunities.

"For the commercial sector we see 400 kilometers and 52 degrees as a great location for customers seeking technology demonstration, but the altitude and inclination does not always meet mission needs, so Spaceflight can also help NanoRacks customers that want a higher altitude or inclination through our network of launch service providers," said Brzytwa.

Alternative methods, including ground-based dedicated small-sat launchers, would come as no surprise as this market develops. According to Brzytwa, Spaceflight Inc. expects existing launch service providers to pay more attention to small satellites as a way to increase profitability and to maximize the use of their vehicles. While NanoRacks may find some of these developments helpful, others would certainly be competition. For now, the company's primary focus remains on opening up space through the efficient use of the ISS.

"I think the future will hold strong competition and multiple opportunities," said Manber. "How much further can this market grow on station? Well, we've got some tricks up our sleeve we are working on at NanoRacks and we'll see what happens."

[свернуть]

ЦитироватьSpaceX and ULA go toe-to-toe over EELV contracts
March 5, 2014 by Chris Bergin
   
(https://img.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/92761.jpg)
   
In what was one of the most fascinating hearings in years, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and United Launch Alliance (ULA) boss Michael Gass faced off against each other over the lucrative Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)-class contracts. Both gentlemen didn't pull their punches, with Mr. Gass cited ULA's superior reliability, while Mr. Musk denounced ULA's costs, even claiming they should cancel their Atlas V rocket.
   

ЦитироватьSix takeaways fr om the "Selling Space" debate
Jeff Foust | March 20, 2014, at 1:14 pm
   
On Wednesday evening, the American Museum of Natural History in New York hosted it annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, this year on the topic of "Selling Space", or the commercialization of spaceflight. Host Neil DeGrasse Tyson brought together both officials fr om a couple commercial space companies (Bigelow Aerospace and Space Adventures) as well as other experts, spending nearly two hours discussing various aspects of commercial spaceflight. Much of the discussion tread familiar ground, but there were a few interesting items brought up during the discussion:

A Space Adventures Soyuz seat goes for $52 million currently. It's been widely known for some time that the approximate cost of flying to the International Space Station on a Soyuz spacecraft with Space Adventures is about $50 million—assuming that a seat is available, which today is rare since all the Soyuz seats are being used for ISS crew transfers. At Wednesday's event, though, Space Adventures president Tom Shelley said on more than one occasion that the price is $52 million. That's about $20 million less than NASA pays for Soyuz seats, the panelists noted, although the NASA contract includes additional services.

Спойлер

Space Adventures believes there's price elasticity in the orbital space tourism market. When Shelley said that $52 million price, there was an audible reaction from the audience at the museum, one of shock. Tyson later asked Shelley if he believed the demand curve for orbital space tourism was elastic: would demand go up if prices went down? "If you dropped the price in half, would you have twice as many people signing up?" Tyson asked. "More than twice as many people, we believe," Shelley responded. He added that the demand Space Adventures has already demonstrated for space tourism has helped support investment in other commercial space transportation systems that could later carry people into orbit.

Space Adventures is still pursuing a circumlunar commercial mission. The company has been quiet in recent years about plans to fly two people on a Soyuz spacecraft that would loop around the Moon, a mission with a current estimated ticket price of $150 million each. In early 2011, for example, Space Adventures said they had sold one seat and were "finalizing" a deal for the second seat. Calling that circumlunar mission "my personal favorite," Shelley said they planned to carry out the mission by 2017 or 2018. "We have a couple clients under contract and we hope to take that forward," he said.

People still get hung up on the definition of "space." How high up to you have to go to be considered to have reached outer space? During the debate, Tyson was critical of Felix Baumgartner's jump from "the edge of space," and the panelists agreed that his jump was nowhere near any such edge. They differed, though, on some of the proposed suborbital flights to altitudes of 100 kilometers or so. Tyson said that some people have the "operating definition" of space wh ere you can see stars in the daytime, which he said is about 100 kilometers. (In fact, 100 kilometers, also known as the Kármán line, is often used as the "boundary" of space and is based on aerodynamics, not the visibility of stars.)

Tyson got so wound up about this he managed to confuse suborbital and orbital spaceflight. "When you say 'low Earth orbit,' you're going up to 100 kilometers and going back," Tyson said at one point, as members of the panel tried to correct him.

People disagree on whether commercial human spaceflight is inspirational. Do people get excited about private citizens going to space in the same way as they do for government astronauts? Space historian John Logsdon doesn't think so. "I don't think commercial space is going to serve as inspiration. That's wh ere the government comes in," he said. "Rich people taking joyrides is not inspirational."

Space Adventures' Shelley strongly disagreed. "We get calls and emails from people on a daily basis saying, 'I am so inspired by what it is you're doing, opening up space. I never thought it was going to be possible for me to be able go to space'" as a government astronaut.

Risk remains a major concern. Spaceflight is in inherently risky, and there was some debate if private spaceflight was riskier than government missions, or if private space travellers would be more willing to accept risks. "One of the big differences in this shift from public-sponsored human travel to private-sponsored human travel is the acceptance of higher risk in the private sector," said Logsdon, noting that some who attempt to climb Mount Everest die in the attempt, but accept that risk given the rewards of scaling the world's highest mountain—even if thousands of people have done it before.

Mike Gold of Bigelow Aerospace stressed that less expensive private spaceflight, though, was not inherently riskier than government sponsored missions. "Lower cost does not inherently mean less safe," he said. "There's this pernicious misperception that commercial space is going somehow to be less safe or more dangerous or we care more about money than NASA. Nothing could be further from the truth... If we have a bad day, we lose everything."

Wanda Austin, president and CEO of The Aerospace Corporation, did argue that spending a little more on "mission assurance" activities (which she said did not have to cost "oodles" of money) was worthwhile. However, at the end of her brief appearance (she appeared via videoconference for the first half-hour of the event because of a prior commitment in California), she did answer positively when Tyson asked her if commercial spaceflight was "ready for prime time." "We are taking the right steps," she said. "We've already walked through the door, Neil. This is not something that maybe will happen, this is something that is already happening."
   
3 comments to Six takeaways from the "Selling Space" debate
   

ЦитироватьDick Eagleson
 March 21, 2014 at 8:19 am

So John Logsdon, a life-long government employee, thinks only the doings of other government employees in space are inspirational, not the doings of regular civilians. Quoth he, "Rich people taking joyrides is not inspirational." I seem to recall one flamboyant guy who was pretty much the epitome of "rich people taking joyrides" back in the 1930′s – Howard Hughes – who was a national hero. The American people of that era had the funny idea that a guy worth 10 percent more than God who, nonetheless, put his personal hide on the line as his own test pilot when he could obviously afford to hire the work done by underlings was – what was that word? – oh yeah... inspirational! And don't even get me started on that rich bitch wife of a major newspaper baron, Amelia Earhart!

ЦитироватьGary Warburton
 March 21, 2014 at 1:58 pm

What no mention of spaceX and what it is doing and what it plans to do. No mention of grasshopper`s flights and there continuation in New Mexico and the landing legs on their next flight to ISS and their planned testing of an ocean landing. I remember John Logsdon saying that SpaceX would soon raise its prices. That he didn`t see how their prices were sustainable. As far as safety goes has he forgotten the two shuttle disasters. Does he know that the next commercial vehicles will all have full escape systems unlike the shuttles. It seems to me if your going to talk about commercial space you should talk about whats happening.

ЦитироватьGary Warburton
 March 22, 2014 at 1:13 am  

I watched the whole thing finally and have to admit that they did mention rather sparingly toward the end that SpaceX was responsible for some the new innovations in space travel including efforts to do reuseability. Mike Gold was the one who mentioned most about SpaceX`s developments although John Logsdon mentioned something about SpaceX rather briefly. Neil seemed completely unaware of what they`ve been doing. I wonder if he will begin following their efforts from now on or whether he will continue to be oblivious to what they`ve been doing.

[свернуть]

ЦитироватьNASA Solicits New Collaborative Partnerships with Commercial Space Industry
Posted by Doug Messier on March 25, 2014, at 3:20 pm in News.
 
WASHINGTON (NASA PR) — Building on the success of NASA's commercial spaceflight initiatives, agency officials announced Monday plans to solicit proposals from U.S. private enterprises for unfunded partnerships to collaboratively develop new commercial space capabilities.
 
 "The growing U.S. commercial spaceflight industry is opening low-Earth orbit in ways that will improve lives on Earth, drive economic growth and power 21st century innovations," said William Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations. "As NASA again pioneers a path into deep space, we look forward to sharing our 50 years of spaceflight experience and fostering partnerships in ways that benefit our nation's ambitious spaceflight goals."
 
 The Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities (CCSC) initiative will advance entrepreneurial efforts through access to NASA's spaceflight resources. Using Space Act Agreements (SAAs), NASA and its partners would agree to a series of mutually beneficial activities. New partnerships must identify benefits under one or more elements of NASA's 2014 Strategic Plan, which include expanding human presence into the solar system and surface of Mars to advance exploration, science, innovation, benefits to humanity and international collaboration.
 
 The partnerships would have no exchange of funds and each party will bear the cost of its participation. NASA's contributions through resulting SAAs could include technical expertise, assessments, lessons learned, technologies and data.+
 

ЦитироватьBringing Space Launches Back to America
Posted on March 25, 2014 by Administrator Charles Bolden.
   
Later today, NASA astronaut Steve Swanson will liftoff towards the International Space Station, not from the Space Coast of Florida or some other American spaceport, but from Kazakhstan on a Russian spacecraft.    And unfortunately, the plan put forward by the Obama Administration to address this situation has been stymied by some in Congress.    

Since the retirement of the Space Shuttle – a decision made in 2004 – the United States has been dependent on the Russians to get our astronauts to the International Space Station.   Recognizing that this was unacceptable, President Obama has requested in NASA's budget more than $800 million each of the past 5 years to incentivize the American aerospace industry to build the spacecraft needed to launch our astronauts from American soil.     Had this plan been fully funded, we would have returned American human spaceflight launches – and the jobs they support – back to the United States next year.    With the reduced level of funding approved by Congress, we're now looking at launching from U.S. soil in 2017.

Спойлер

Budgets are about choices.  The choice moving forward is between fully funding the President's request to bring space launches back to American soil or continuing to send millions to the Russians.  It's that simple. The Obama Administration chooses to invest in America – and we are hopeful that Congress will do the same.

Over the past few years, two U.S. companies, Orbital Sciences and SpaceX, have demonstrated a new way of partnering NASA with the U.S. aerospace industry, providing more bang for the taxpayer buck in space.  There have already been five private spacecraft visits to the ISS with the Dragon and Cygnus capsules – and another one is slated to launch in just a few days.  At the end of last year, SpaceX launched a commercial satellite—a global industry worth nearly $190 billion per year—from Florida for the first time in four years.  One study estimated that if NASA had procured this launcher and capsule using a more traditional contracting method, it could have been about three times the cost of this new public-private partnership approach.

NASA has already returned ISS cargo resupply missions to America using these two companies, bringing space launches and jobs back to our shores – and we are using the same model send our astronauts to the space station.  Three American companies – Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and SpaceX – are developing spacecraft and competing to replace the Space Shuttle and launch American astronauts within the next three years. We are betting on American innovation and competition to help lead us into a new era of space exploration.  As President Obama has said, this is "a capture the flag moment for [U.S.] commercial space flight."

 Earlier this month, the President proposed a $17.5 billion fiscal year 2015 budget for NASA.  This includes $848 million for NASA's Commercial Crew Program and supports the Administration's commitment that NASA be a catalyst for the growth of a vibrant American commercial space industry.  It also keeps us on target to ending our reliance on the Russians for transporting our astronauts to and from space, and frees NASA to carry out even more ambitious missions beyond low-Earth orbit, including a mission to redirect and visit an asteroid and a human mission to Mars in the 2030s.  The International Space Station—which the Obama Administration just extended to at least 2024—remains our springboard to going beyond the Moon and exploring deep space for the first time.

The American commercial space flight industry is boosting our economy and creating thousands of good paying jobs.  More than a dozen states in the U.S. are trying to build spaceports, hoping to help foster the next job-creating, innovation-based industry in their areas.

With such strong economic potential, it is no wonder that this approach has garnered bipartisan support. House Majority Whip Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) recently noted, "Support for U.S. commercial space will lead to American astronauts flying on American-made rockets from American soil."  He added, "That is exceptionalism that both parties can get behind."

It is important to note that NASA continues to cooperate successfully with Russia on International Space Station (ISS) activities.  But even as the "space race" has evolved over the past 50 years from competition to collaboration with Russia, NASA is rightfully focused now more than ever on returning our astronauts to space aboard American rockets – launched from U.S. soil – as soon as possible.

[свернуть]

   

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
Валерий, вы смешной.

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
Ну давайте пробежимся по ней более тщательно.
 https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf

Там две оценки
- первоначальная оценка Initial Estimate
- обновленная оценка Updated Estimate

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
В оценке нигде не написано в явном виде что мол - посмотрите разница в 10 раз.
Это же презентация, почему это не написали в явном виде? Постеснялись в явном виде указать этот бред?  ;)  
Постеснялись в явном виде потому что очевидно что оценка очень субъективная?

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
Сейчас мы увидим почему эта оценка Очень субъективна и не является каким либо серьезным документом, кроме как презентации с чьим то имхо.

По первоначальной оценки SpaceX все сделает за $1,659 млрд

НАСА все сделает за $3,977 млрд . Страница 5

Т.е. разница в 2,5 раза

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
Откуда взялась такая оценка по нормативам НАСА?
Предполагается, что НАСА будет все это DDT&E - design, development, test and evaluation.
Т.е. первое притягивание за уши оценки , что предполагается, что НАСА будет с нуля все проектировать, разрабатывать, тестировать и оценивать для ракеты среднего класса с 9 тонн на НОО. Нормально?
Т.е. абсолютно все будет спроектировано, разработано с нуля. Коэффициент заимствования предполагается НОЛЬ!
И получаем сумму DDT&E - $3,584 млрд (3,5 миллиарда будет стоить разработка обыкновенной ракет среднего класса с 9 тонн на НОО).

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
Нет никаких расшифровок что входит в расчет такой огромной суммы, нет ссылок на аналоги из истории и т.д.

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
Если ракета новая и НАСА ее создает с нуля, то по идее в стоимость создания ракеты должна входить и стоимость создания СТАРТА. Нет? Но в презентации про это ни слова, а значит предполагать можно все что угодно.

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
Идем дальше.
Спроектировали, разработали, протестировали. Далее надо изготовить ее и запустить.
И далее второе притягивание за уши оценки .
Запуск такой ракеты НАСА стоит ВНИМАНИЕ - $393 млн. (!!!)
Для сравнения - Запуск примерно аналогичного Атлас-5 с выводом на НОО 8,2 тонн стоит $110 млн .
 В три с половиной раза дешевле запустить ракету мохрового, зажравшегося монополиста ЛОКХИД МАРТИН , чем вымышленную ракету из презентации.

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
ДАЛЕЕ:
На сайте НАСА написано - читайте http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10
Стоимость запуска ШАТТЛА (!!!!)- $450 млн
Очень похожие цифры.
Может быть в презентации провели сравнительный анализ с ШАТТЛОМ?
Очень может быть, т.к. как раз искали ракету для замены Шаттлов.
Но в презентации про это ни слова. С чем сравнивали?

 Откуда, откуда они взяли в своей оценке стоимость запуска ракеты 9 тонн на НОО за 400 миллионов долларов равной стоимости запуска ШАТТЛА?

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
По второй оценке получили цифры $443.4 (Столько SpaceX потратил на Фалькон-9) и $1,382.7
Разница в 3 раза

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
Что поменялось?
Читаем:
 Assumptions inserted after Space‐X visit:
Составители презентации нанесли визит в компанию SpaceX и пообщались в курилке с сотрудниками компании SpaceX )))
И дальше третье притягивание за уши оценки и самое смешное.
 More heritage from Falcon 1 - т.е. в оценке SpaceX учли, что у них заимствуется опыт создания двигателя Мерлин. При этом в расчете стоимости по нормативам НАСА все будут проектировать с нуля без использования какого либо задела. Офигенно?

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
Кстати, а где стоимость создания СТАРТА? Ах да, старт арендовали у НАСА и стоимость создания старта ноль?

ЦитироватьLRV_75 пишет:
 Excludes Program Support costs - исключили расходы на поддержку программы. При этом в расчете стоимости по нормативам НАСА это почему то аж $263 млн (без объяснения причин)
 Contingency - исключили затраты на непредвиденные обстоятельства. При этом в расчете стоимости по нормативам НАСА это почему то аж $741млн (без объяснения причин)
И ОЧЕНЬ прикольное:
 Excludes Contractor fee - исключили стоимость работ поставщиков )))) Т.е. только прямые расходы SpaceX, несмотря на то, что известно, что SpaceX массово использует всевозможных поставщиков.
   
... (здесь было про старт, смотрите выше).
   
Т.е. из затрат SpaceX исключили все что возможно, а в оценку по нормативам НАСА запихнули все что возможно! И даже не рассказали что они впихнули и на каком основании и без сравнения на каком либо примере из истории проектов НАСА