Posts: 2896 From: Titusville, FL USA Registered: Feb 2005
posted 12-10-2010 06:24 AM
quote:Originally posted by cspg: Acknowledging after 50 years that the Soviets/Russians has a better approach to manned spaceflight than the US?
Why do we need to bash one group while praising another? The Soviets, then Russians have done an outstanding job in LEO. They've built a robust and reliable access. Here in the US we always tried to design "cutting-edge" technology to accomplish a new mission. We have both enjoyed amazing success and heartbreaking loss.
The people who maintain, and launch both systems are justifiably proud and dedicated to their work.
It's necessary to build a new vehicle to bring crew and cargo to the ISS and to accomplish other LEO missions (Hubble). So why not design a vehicle similar to a Soyuz? The vehicle should match the mission. Once the shuttle program ends, we'll need redundancy to the Soyuz just as the Soyuz was a redundant system to the shuttle.
We're not playing catch-up with anyone. We're changing our spacecraft and launch system and change is never easy, even if we wish it to be so. The Russians aren't laughing at us, if anything they are perplexed as to why we would shut down a capability for up mass and down mass that we have with the shuttle.
Hopefully we will one day again build a Shuttle 2.0 system that builds upon that capability - have a fleet of LEO space "taxis" taking crew, cargo and tourists to orbit, a commercial industry expands it's market AND have international missions exploring beyond Earth orbit.
Hart Sastrowardoyo Member
Posts: 3445 From: Toms River, NJ Registered: Aug 2000
posted 12-10-2010 06:31 AM
I don't think one is on the surface better than the other. Both have different missions - Shuttle was designed to bring 30 tons to orbit, stay in orbit for at least two weeks, as well as serve as a mini space-station.
cspg Member
Posts: 6210 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 12-10-2010 07:18 AM
quote:Originally posted by KSCartist: Why do we need to bash one group while praising another?
Beats me. I'm just tired of reading here and there that NASA is the big-fat-ugly-socialist villain that should be erased once and for all and that SpaceX is the a space messiah of some sort.
quote:The Soviets, then Russians have done an outstanding job in LEO.
Couldn't agree more. My post was not a critique of the Soviet/Russian approach to manned spaceflight. Their station construction made also a lot more sense.
Reinventing the wheel doesn't deserve that big of a praise, in my opinion.
issman1 Member
Posts: 1042 From: UK Registered: Apr 2005
posted 12-10-2010 08:00 AM
quote:Originally posted by cspg: Playing catch-up (again)? The 60s are back.
I'm afraid that's the case until someone invents an alternative to chemical rockets (no chance in today's fiscal climate).
One thing I will say confidently is that SpaceX has a powerful case for its proposed Falcon 10 to become NASA's HLV.
onesmallstep Member
Posts: 1310 From: Staten Island, New York USA Registered: Nov 2007
posted 12-10-2010 06:57 PM
Couldn't agree more with the posters against a "better than the other" argument. If the US and Soviet/Russian space/booster programs show any differences, it's in their approach to long-term goals and economies. The Russians have a long tradition in rocketry they can be proud of-why chuck everything away if its proven and works, subject only to the whims of 'blue ribbon studies' or political intrigue (the price NASA pays for existing in a democracy)? It even dusted off and sold some its reliable booster engines to the US-capitalism at work.
Since Apollo, NASA has had to justify its very existance and has attempted to reclaim some of its lost luster-unreasonable goals, in my opinion. Just as it did when it put all its payload eggs in one basket (shuttle) before Challenger, NASA showed lack of imagination in planning for the post-Shuttle world by putting forth a take-it-or-leave-it plan to be the only source for ELV/HLV technologies. By engaging private industry/inventors, doesn't it make sense to have a backup supplier (or two) to haul cargo (and maybe astronauts) to the ISS? ESA, and now Japan, have the capability alongside Progress, and soon a Dragon ATV will join the ranks. The more the better (and merrier), I say. And that would leave NASA to do what it does best, as it shows in its unmanned programs: plan and execute exciting missions of exploration, not go into the U-Haul business..
Hart Sastrowardoyo Member
Posts: 3445 From: Toms River, NJ Registered: Aug 2000
posted 12-10-2010 07:19 PM
Add to which, if there is more than one way to get to ISS or wherever, the cost of spaceflight will go down. Granted, it may not be something like one country offering a ride at $30 million and a private company only $5 million, but I think we can see a bit of savings that can then be used for other NASA programs.
cspg Member
Posts: 6210 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 12-11-2010 12:07 AM
quote:Originally posted by onesmallstep: Just as it did when it put all its payload eggs in one basket (shuttle) before Challenger, (...). By engaging private industry/inventors, doesn't it make sense to have a backup supplier (or two) to haul cargo (and maybe astronauts) to the ISS?
It does make sense. But what then if something was to happen to the ISS that it had to be abandoned? Unlike the Shuttle, there isn't a second station to go to. Developing various means to reach a destination is a good idea as long as there is a...destination! Developing a HLV without knowing what to do next doesn't seem to be a well-thought through idea either.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 12-16-2010 09:11 AM
quote:Originally posted by yeknom-ecaps: Was there a map that showed the target recovery area?
SpaceX has now released a tracking map for the flight.
The yellow triangle over the Atlantic ocean marks Dragon's initial separation from Falcon 9, and the yellow square off the Western coast of the United States marks the location where Dragon landed.
According to SpaceX in an update released yesterday, the Dragon landed less than one mile from the center of the targeted landing zone in the Pacific Ocean.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 42988 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 12-16-2010 09:22 AM
quote:Originally posted by music_space: I'm a bit puzzled by one of the pictures taken from inside the cockpit looking out. It says "T+00:53:50", which is well into the first orbit, yet it looks like it's taken at a few miles' altitude... What gives?
This new flight highlights video, released by SpaceX yesterday, reveals the answer — the Dragon was rotating and the video still was captured while the capsule was still pointing mostly toward Earth.
ejectr Member
Posts: 1751 From: Killingly, CT Registered: Mar 2002
posted 12-10-2010 06:24 AM
advertisement