The X prize and NASA...

I was just wondering on your views about this:

we are still living in the wake of the Columbia disaster, yet private companies are being offered prizes to send people into space?
is there not some sort of contradiction here....

is there not just some accident waiting to happen, especially on the second run?

should this not be delayed until NASA has finished the studies and reports about safety problems, so that small companies NOT backed by the government on astronomical budgets wont make a similar mistake?
or am i missing something here?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought NASA had finished the columbia report. Anyway, I think that it's about time for a private space industry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

really? to do what?

and i thought it was finished as well, but i read an article online that said they are now recieving compplaints and problem reports that are usually brushed off, because of columbia. so the wake of it is still here, and should be for ever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NASA's space shuttle is obsolete, old and basically a piece of junk.
I speculate that most of the x-prize craft is much more advanced tech.
Besides as stated in this thread ..-> what does a government company have to do with private enterprise? Reject everyone to fly to space?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Russia or any other country will be more than willing to offer their spaceyards for liftoffs.
Come to think of it, Brasil would be ideal, Europe would do too.

 

The X-Prize is entirely a private venture. It is nothing to do with NASA.

Shuttle safety issues in the wake of Columbia are also irrelevant to the X-Prize, as no X-Prize contender is using a shuttle orbiter. NASA's findings with regard to the Columbia accident are relevant to that system only. Soyuz flights were not cancelled because of Columbia because Columbia was not relevant to the operation of Soyuz spacecraft.

The problem with Columbia was its heat shield failed while re-entering the atmosphere from orbital velocity. The velocities attained by X-Prize contenders will be substantially less than this (in most cases, by an order of magnitude) so sophisticated, re-usable heat shields are not required.

 

The equatorial location may be beneficial to what Interoribital Systems wants to do, but this is not beneficial to X-Prize contenders as they are attempting sub-orbital spaceflights. They are required to reach an altitude of 100km, so the velocity gain from an equatorial launch site will not assist them in any way.

 

Really? I hear you asking, "If the old way doesn't work, why dare to try a new way?" (I'm paraphrasing what you've said, correct me if i'm wrong here). That seems even more ridiculous that quitting.

If mankind had held this view from the start, we'd still think fire was magic.

 

dont take me wrong, i think the X prize and so forth is excellent, its just on one side of... things are people crying "oh my god its terrible" after columbia,
and on the other side there are people from small countries trying to do... go into space.
from what ive read i was gibberishing.

 

nasa sucks? you know how much a space suit costs? in the range of millions per suit. How much pressure? about 8 psi for the newer suits. Am i mistaken or could some guy make a way cheaper version of this in his garage for a few hundred or thousand bucks?

 

that's sounds cool, but what about radiation?

 

Both of the Orbiters and crews NASA has lost in the Shuttle program were not entirely caused by design flaws, but by a lack of concern for the crews of the orbiters. While it's true the O-Ring design of Challengers booster joint had issues, it didn't help that NASA left Challenger out in sub-freezing temperatures the night before the launch. Norton-Thiokol designed the SRB join for use above 40F. Challenger was out in 24F weather.

Have any of you wondered why what happened to Columbia hadn't happened to before to any of NASA's orbiters? Clearly something was changed, and of course, it was the insulations. New EPA regulations objected to some of the chemecles used in the tank so of course, NASA had to redesign. The new insulation was the problem, but that wasn't the crux of it. Columbia was not examined via sattilites despite concerns from both Commander Husband, and ground control.

If SpaceShipOne can do what NASA does with higher degree of safety, more power to them. People die all the time in car accidents, plane crashes, ect. Space Travel won't be any safer in the long run. Right now, it's just seems like a more exotic way to die.

 

NASA is a highly inefficient, under paid agency. With there present budget and bureaucracy they can’t do much, Private enterprise though far from ideal is are least best hope now, either that or china,

Russian is broke, Russia had Energia and Buran those would have been much better then the shuttle, but Russia does not have the money to support such a thing anymore.

 

it's inefficient because they're under paid.

They are basically being asked, "solve all the problems of physics and mankind's sociologically issues. Oh, by the way, do it by next week and stop whining that your budget is $200."

At least when kennedy asked for such ridiculous results he gave nasa some cash to try.

 

I completely agree! Back in the 1960's NASA did some amazing things: to think the Saturn V could support a launch price of $4-8 thousand per lbs and was non-reusable and out of date with the space shuttle that ended up costing over $10 thousands per lbs put in orbit!

but as it is no politician in there right mind would double or triple NASAs budget to what they really need.

 

awesome point, by today's standards the shuttles are a joke. But where does that leave us now? Nasa made the unbelievable leap to the moon (in an era where most people seriously believed aliens made canals on mars)... that was followed by the shuttle.

In my opinion, the shuttle gets too much flack, it's an amazing piece of engineering. The problem is it's an amazing piece of 1970's engineering being critiqued by 2000 engineers.

The forward inertia has stopped in the space program, it's not NASA's fault. There is just no political incentive anymore.

 

Oh I got it!!! Lets stick our head between our legs, raise a white flag, and cry for help! Then, in 2010, we can finally get back to space travel because thats how long its gonna take the political engine to get back up to speed (space wise).

Seriously, Astronaughts know the risks, we all do. To have so few disasters with so many launches, on such a risky undertakng (and yes, traveling to space on a giant firework is risky), is absolutely amazing. Did anyone actually ever think there was never going to be a loss of life/accident involved with space?

Columbia was sad and a great loss. But thats that, and nothing is going to change it. We know what went wrong, lets correct our mistakes, become a little wiser, and push forward. After all, about 90% of the original guys who helped create rockets wanted to go to the a.) the moon and b.) mars. I dont know about you guys, but I think we NEED to go to mars, and soon.

 

Before the Chinese get there, how that for political incentive?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Space ship one is a joke. Its not space flight. Until a private organization can deliver two or more orbits ill continue to LOL at the so called space faring civilians... I wish I had 10 Mil to put up as the prize, or should that be 100 Mil.

The Xprize was suppose to carry 3 but that was not done instead they carried the weight of 3. Haaaa they should not get the prize, don't they trust the hardware.

Spaceship one would be useful if you could take of from New York fly to 64000f launch and then land in england one and a half hours latter. Or better Hong Kong to New York in an hour.

 

when you consider what was asked of them, I think they deserve the 10 mil (it had to cost more than that to achieve what they did). On the other hand you're right, it doesn't really advance manned space flight very much. It doesn't change/improve international transport, it can't dock with satellites or space stations and it can't go to other bodies (the moon, mars, etc.). It's an impressive but ultimately useless achievement (aside from bragging rights).

The flaw isn't with "space ship one" though, the problem was in the contest itself. The X-prize's goal should have been redesigning the shuttle, and since that requires serious advancement it needed a serious prize. 10 mil sounds like a lot if you are raising a family but fundamentally changing the way we escape earths gravity is about as expensive a proposition as one can imagine. They needed a 100 million or a billion dollar prize before anyone could reasonably invest the time and manpower necessary for such a difficult challenge. I say take nasa's budget for 1 year and devote it all to this, I guarantee that'll get a result.

The irony is, the shuttles' maintainance alone could probably pay for this. I used to have a 1976 bobcat (I paid $300 for it) and I ended up putting $2800 of repairs into it before I woke up and bought a new car, I can't think of a better analogy to the shuttle program.

 

The shuttle was a piece of crap even by 1970's technology, it was suppose to be a all liquid fueled fully reusable vehicle, but budget cuts forced major compromises.