Re: Dear NASA Administrator Michael Griffin
- From: "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigation@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Dec 2006 16:03:22 -0800
George Evans wrote:
in article 1165584238.910635.29050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alex
Terrell at alexterrell@xxxxxxxxx wrote on 12/8/06 5:23 AM:
George Evans wrote:
in article 1165483248.903714.97290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alex Terrell
at alexterrell@xxxxxxxxx wrote on 12/7/06 1:20 AM:
George Evans wrote:
in article 474fa$4575b182$927a2cda$7197@xxxxxxxx, Jeff Findley at
jeff.findley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 12/5/06 9:50 AM:
<snip>
Access to Low Earth Orbit for payloads up to 20 tons is not a commodity, butAnd yet NASA is determined to develop its own launch vehicles (atAs long as NASA quits trying to make money by offering commercial launches,
taxpayers'
expense) despite the existence of Atlas V and Delta IV. Everyone knows
that
NASA would be the only users of Ares I/V.
what's wrong with them developing their own launchers. Vehicles to reach
the
moon and Mars are not commodities. Gasoline is.
it is almost "off-the-shelf".
If NASA were to buy 24 of these flights per year, they would be a commodity,
probably at below $70 million per shot. So all NASA's launch requirements,
for
a significant moon program, at $1.5 billion per year.
I think there is room for both opinions, still. The first thing NASA will
probably outsource is putting cargo up.
Many options ...
NASA now plans a moon base. That will need a crew rotation twice (or
better still) once per year. So of the 24 flights I mentioned, 18 are
fuel stages, 4-5 are cargo or lunar landers and 1-2 are crew. (Crew
flights are really expensive - need eight 20-24 ton launches instead of
4 for the cargo).
OTOH, when is the last time a
private carrier put people up or brought anything down? And even with takingAs Rand will tell you ad infinitum, no one's paid any one else to do it
payload up, I think if I were orbiting, I would want NASA to control the
upper stage.
yet.
But if we had a multipurpose Delta IV launcher going up 24 times per
year, or a Stick going up once per year, I would feel much more
comfortable on the 48th launch of the Delta than on the 2nd launch of
the Stick.
As soon as these facts are true, then NASA would be motivated to use the
Delta IV. Why would they want to waist money that could be spent on the
frontier?
And this constant whining about no one gives us money has got to go. Sell
your product. Private enterprise (with some balls) will always beat
government.
George Evans
Here is some more benefits in the form of cost reductions, and possible
technology export control relief the U.S. government has provided for
commercial launches.
Commercial Space Launches GAO-07-16
"Results in Brief
Page 6
"The government also provides indemnification (7) for commercial
launches and has attempted to reduce costs to the industry by
streamlining the licensing of commercial launches through FAA's and
the Air Force's development of common safety standards and acceptance
of each other's waivers of specific licensing requirements. In
addition, industry representatives that we interviewed interviewed said
that they would like fewer items to be regulated by export controls or
a streamlining of the process for obtaining authorization to export
these items to improve the U.S. industry's competitive position.
Export controls are in place to ensure that sales and leases of
controlled U.S. technologies are consistent with U.S. national security
and foreign policy interests. Although we have not examined the issue
of which specific items should be subject to export controls, we have
examined the export control system and have recommended ways to improve
its overall efficiency.(8)
(7)"Indemnification" is catastrophic loss protection in the event
of a launch accident. Subject to congressional appropriations, the U.S.
government may pay successful third-party liability claims in excess of
required "maximum probable loss" (MPL)-based insurance up to $1.5
billion above the amount of the MPL-based insurance. MPL-based
insurance is launch insurance that the commercial space launch provider
is required to obtain as part of its license.
(8)GAO, Defense Trade: Arms Export Controls Vulnerabilities and
Inefficiencies in the Post-9/11 Security Environment, GAO-05-468R
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2005); and Export Controls: Reengineering
Business Processes Can Improve Efficiency of State Department License
Reviews, GAO-02-203 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 31, 2001). ""
tom
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Anyone know if this book is non-fiction? -- SPAM!
- Next by Date: Re: Billions of dollars for nothing
- Previous by thread: Re: Dear NASA Administrator Michael Griffin
- Next by thread: Re: Dear NASA Administrator Michael Griffin
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
