Comments on: Obama Transition Recommendations (Updated)

By: Phillip

Phillip — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:56:20 +0000

I read the paper and I thought it was very good. I do not know what was giving to Transistion Team. What I felt that may have helped was a table that listed, what was short, medium, longer term, cost –in times and materials, and priority and impact statements.

By: Roderick Reilly

Roderick Reilly — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:39:32 +0000

Jon, thanks for the reply.

I’m familiar with that Falcon program. I worked with a Col. (then Maj.) Thongchua at the Pentagon before he moved on to California and the program you mention above.

I mentioned the X-37 becuase right now, it’s the only spaceplane-type RLV development program that I know of that’s actually flying, and that’s intended to be orbited for testing. Couldn’t it be the basis for a “clear-cut program?”

By: Jonathan Goff

Jonathan Goff — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:44:22 +0000

Roderick,
I guess I’m just really skeptical that the X-37 is going to have much impact on the development of reusable launch vehicles. If there were a clear-cut program that I was confident in, I probably would have mentioned it.

As for the ORS stuff, yeah quick launches, as well as other related concepts. However this isn’t new. ORS has been around for years. The DARPA FALCON SLV program (SpaceX and AirLaunch) was part of the whole push for ORS.

~Jon

By: Roderick Reilly

Roderick Reilly — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:38:49 +0000

I read the position paper at the Kos site, and agree to the main points and the thrust of it. Am still digesting it, but have a quick preliminary comment:
The section on “High Flight Rate Reusable Launch Vehicles” brings to mind the X-37, which is scheduled for an orbital launch Summer, 2009. Wouldn’t specific support and mention of this project be useful as a frame of reference for the new administration?

By: Roderick Reilly

Roderick Reilly — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:53:38 +0000

I thought the Obama paper was fairly good on commercialization.

I also read what I found to be an intriguing item under the category dealing with military space (Protecting America’s Space Assets). The language here vaguely implies (to me) support for quick-response launches and related capabilities. Tell me if you see the same thing:

“”"Obama will work to protect our assets in space by pursuing new technologies and capabilities that allow us to avoid attacks and recover
from them quickly. The Operationally Responsive Space program, which uses smaller, more nimble space assets to make US systems more robust and less vulnerable is a way to invest in this capability.”"”"

Am I reading too much into that?

By: Jonathan Goff

Jonathan Goff — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:59:40 +0000

Karl,
Of course. I also agree it’s unlikely that they’ll make all the changes we suggested. I just figured that when given the chance and requested by a member of the transition team to say something, that if I didn’t, I wouldn’t have the right to complain when things don’t go the way I wanted them to….

More seriously, yeah I’ve always figured that NASA proactively doing the right thing with propellant depots of their own accord was unlikely, and have been trying to find ways to go about it commercially. The commercial path is much longer, but what can you do?

~Jon

By: Karl Hallowell

Karl Hallowell — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:53:41 +0000

Do you have a “plan B”, if this president doesn’t want to take such an active role in developing a spacefaring society? Because honestly, I think that’s likely.

By: Jonathan Goff

Jonathan Goff — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:43:21 +0000

Vladislaw,
Good question. I discussed it a bit in comments on a post a few years back:
http://selenianboondocks.com/2006/10/apogee-tugs-and-cryo-transfer/

Basically, while it may be feasible, it’s tricky. Getting a rendezvous to work at high speeds like that is a non-trivial problem. But so long as the stage actually puts the payload into a low parking orbit, the tug can bring it up the rest of the way.

~Jon

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:38:37 +0000

Great paper Jon,

I was talking about in-space tugs with Farris, he said you might beable to answer a question.

How robust will the vehicle be in moving into a lower orbit. My thoughts were running to could a space based vehicle move to or near the suborbital level to grab a package or will it stay in a lot higher orbit.

By: Roderick Reilly

Roderick Reilly — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:00:19 +0000

A bit OT (my apologies), but I was wondering if you folks had seen this:

An article about SpaceX and Elon Musk and future plans:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/musk-ambition-spacex-aim-for-fully-reusable-falcon-9/

Excerpts:

“We’re hoping for a summer launch of the Falcon 9, though I predict that is pending (based on) the development of its payload.”

“However, the goal for Falcon 9 is that it ends up being the first fully-reusable launch vehicle.”

Again, sorry for the interruption!