NASA Chooses In-Line Booster

Well, it looks like NASA has decided to go with the ATK Full-Employment Plan instead of trying to develop a lunar architecture that might actually lead to the commercial development of space. Can’t say I’m shocked.

The following two tabs change content below.
Jonathan Goff

Jonathan Goff

President/CEO at Altius Space Machines
Jonathan Goff is a space technologist, inventor, and serial space entrepreneur who created the Selenian Boondocks blog. Jon was a co-founder of Masten Space Systems, and is the founder and CEO of Altius Space Machines, a space robotics startup in Broomfield, CO. His family includes his wife, Tiffany, and five boys: Jarom (deceased), Jonathan, James, Peter, and Andrew. Jon has a BS in Manufacturing Engineering (1999) and an MS in Mechanical Engineering (2007) from Brigham Young University, and served an LDS proselytizing mission in Olongapo, Philippines from 2000-2002.
Jonathan Goff

About Jonathan Goff

Jonathan Goff is a space technologist, inventor, and serial space entrepreneur who created the Selenian Boondocks blog. Jon was a co-founder of Masten Space Systems, and is the founder and CEO of Altius Space Machines, a space robotics startup in Broomfield, CO. His family includes his wife, Tiffany, and five boys: Jarom (deceased), Jonathan, James, Peter, and Andrew. Jon has a BS in Manufacturing Engineering (1999) and an MS in Mechanical Engineering (2007) from Brigham Young University, and served an LDS proselytizing mission in Olongapo, Philippines from 2000-2002.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to NASA Chooses In-Line Booster

  1. Bravo Romeo Delta says:

    What would be a better, more-commerce friendly path?

  2. Dan Schrimpsher says:

    Uhh, buying seats from a private company like T/Space? But on the good front, Virgin Galatic said that SpaceShip3 would be orbital.

  3. Jon Goff says:

    Bravo,
    I wrote a recent article about just that exact thing…..look a few days back down the blog for the “constructive ideas” post.

  4. Kelly Starks says:

    Agreed. NASA took the plan that employs the most of their bloated shuttle staff.

    Would be nice if they tried to field a CATS system, or fostered commercials, or something a agency like NASA is supposed to be for..

    I think Griffen nailing NASA into its coffin.

  5. Chris Ferenzi says:

    Griffin is the only one who is going to get NASA back on track.

  6. Dave Salt says:

    > fostered commercials, or something
    > a agency like NASA is supposed to
    > be for..

    What makes you think this, Kelly? Where is the high-level directive that specifies this role for NASA?

    The problem is that we’ve all been assuming this (me included) for the last decade or so but there’s absolutely no evidence for it.

    This decision is, to me, explicit proof that NASA is a self-serving entity. We need to either learn to live with it or try to change it (unfortunately, being a UK citizen, the latter is not an option for me 🙂

  7. Bravo Romeo Delta says:

    Jon,

    I follow (and agree with) the substance of your comments. It’s just that I am not seeing emergent growth in private sector very heavy lift vehicles. I’m on board with launching the CEV – or even better yet, just buying tickets – but the heavy lift seems to be a sticking point.

  8. Dan Schrimpsher says:

    Why do you need heavy lift? Just because Apollo did heavy lift, doesn’t mean the VSE has to. Think multiple launches of medium class launchers.

  9. Bad_Astra says:

    I wouldn’t get too gloomy, yet. If this is the “Longfellow” varient they’ve chosen, it could be fairly positive. I suspect the Longfellow (with 4 RS-68’s at first stage and an extended external tank), would be quiet a bit cheaper then a SDHLV with expendable SSME’s. Time will tell though.

  10. Jon Goff says:

    Bravo,

    It’s just that I am not seeing emergent growth in private sector very heavy lift vehicles. I’m on board with launching the CEV – or even better yet, just buying tickets – but the heavy lift seems to be a sticking point.

    As Dan pointed out already, that assumes that one needs heavy lift for lunar exploration. I’m not sure how real that requirement is. One could do decent lunar exploration with much smaller vehicles if they could deliver a high flight rate. Falcon V size seems about right if you could launch frequently enough.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *