Commercial Space and Why Are We Doing It?

[Valerij]

SETI Panel: Private Funding Opportunities for Space Research
Posted by Doug Messier on February 7, 2014, at 5:35 am in News
   

   
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]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/02/07/seti-panel/
   
Мнения трех экспертов о возможностях привлечения венчурного финансирования в космические исследования и коммерческих возможностях освоения космического пространства.

[Valerij]

Nield: Moratorium on Regulations Should End in 2015

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

 
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]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/02/07/nield-moritorium-regulations-2015/
 
Глава управления коммерческих космических перевозок Федерального Агенства гражданской авиации США (Office of Commercial Space Transportation FAA) Джордж Нильд собирается ввести в 2015 году государственное регулирование коммерческих пассажирских перевозок.

[Valerij]

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

R.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.

   
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&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.

   
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.
   

http://www.space.com/24628-will-spacex-kill-nasa-sls.html
   
Популярная, но снабженная ссылками на все упомянутые факты статья о том, почему финансируется SLS, хотя летать она не будет.

[Valerij]

 

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

R.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.
   

   
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.

   

http://www.space.com/23898-let-nasa-change-course.html
   
 Статья о предпочтениях Конгресса.

[Valerij]

Private 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."
   

http://www.galvestondailynews.com/space/article_8d1be17e-83e3-11e3-a803-001a4bcf6878.html
     
Выступая перед студентами в Университете Райса , Майкл Лопес-Алегрия сравнил текущее состояние частной космической отрасли с первыми днями коммерческой авиации.

[Bell]

Valerij 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!"

[Valerij]

Bell 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, опыта длительных полетов на Земле не было ни у кого. Так что цитирую сеья, любимого- "Мобилизационные методы позволяют добиться впечатляющих результатов. Но мобилизационные методы не позволяют научиться эффективно использовать эти достижения...."   Время пришло.

[vlad7308]

Valerij пишет:

Bell 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

Она (сумма) и сейчас еще не освоена.

[Valerij]

vlad7308 пишет:

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

Она (сумма) и сейчас еще не освоена.

Вся сумма технологий не будет освоена никогда, идеал, как известно, недостижим. Но для современной развитой страны создать с нуля ракетно-космическую фирму полного профиля уже можно.Это означает, что необходимый минимум (технологии ракетного двигателя и ракеты, грузового космического корабля и доставки ПН на орбиту) уже достигнут. Сейчас находятся в процессе достижения или доступны для освоения технологии "второго этапа" (пилотируемого КК и орбитальной станции и стыковки, длительного пребывания человека в космосе и ВКД). Это означает, что сейчас основным ограничителем является экономика, а не техника. 
 
С этой точки зрения 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.

[Not]

Valerij 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.

И жизнерадостный Valerij во главе, на лихом коне!

[Valerij]

Завидуете?

[Not]

Конечно. Только гений может за деньги SLS и на Луну слетать, и ОС построить, и космическое производство открыть, и все за каких то там десять лет. Вам  нужно рекомендоваться в Локхид.

[Valerij]

Зачем? Они это и без меня знают. Не зря предлагали НАСА забить на SLS (тогда он еще назывался Арес) и создать супертяж за четыре с половиной миллиарда. Вы, надеюсь, уже в курсе, сколько будет стоить создание SLS и Ориона? Просветите нас....

[Not]

Вас просвещать - только портить. Светоч вы неиссякаемый  

[Valerij]

Not 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.

[avmich]

Bell пишет:

Valerij 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!"

По-моему, если смотреть не на окончательный вариант, а на промежуточные шаги - прогресс вполне ощутим. Сколько там килограмм на орбите стоил во времена КО-2001?

[avmich]

Valerij пишет:

Not 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.

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 .

[Старый]

avmich 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. 

[Valerij]

Старый пишет:

avmich 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.

   
Спасибо, Старый *удак за справедливую оценку. Факты из реальности выложены в теме, и еще будут добавляться. Вы хотите познакомить нас с вашими фантазиями? Велкам!

[Старый]

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

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