A contingency plan for fast return of the U.S. to space.

[Robert Clark]

Both SpaceX and Boeing have said they can have crews flying by 2015 with
sufficient funding. In fact, SpaceX expects to have their own crews making
manned test flights to LEO by 2015. Despite this, NASA is holding to a 2017
date for NASA's commercial crew program to send NASA astronaus to the ISS.
It seems likely that the Ukraine problem will continue into 2015. Then it
will be extremely embarrassing to NASA to have SpaceX flying their own crews
to space then, while NASA still has to pay the Russians to carry NASA crews
to the ISS.

The solution would be for NASA to draw up contingency plans to see how much
extra funding would be required for SpaceX or Boeing to not only send their
own crews to LEO in 2015, but NASA crews to the ISS then:

A contingency plan for a fast return of the U.S. to space.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-contingency-plan-for-fast-return-of.html


Bob Clark

--
Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago
with the Titan II first stage.
In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy.
Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time,
and the result will automatically be SSTO.
Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com

[Robert Clark]

The father and son astronauts Owen and Richard Garriot argue we should
accelerate the pace at which we get an independent U.S. space capability:

It's Time to Push for US Human Spaceflight Independence (Op-Ed).
Richard Garriott, Cosmonaut/Astronaut, and Owen Garriott, Astronaut
(retired) | May 07, 2014 12:54am ET
"After more than two decades of development, it is essential that the United
States keeps the ability to visit, work and return from the ISS within its
national capabilities. Yet, it is surprising to see how little discussion,
much less pressure, is being applied to accelerating plans to regain an
independent capability for human spaceflight. Now seems to be the time for
Congress, NASA and the general public to all push hard, and get one or more
of these U.S. systems in space as soon as possible."
http://www.space.com/25785-american-human-spaceflight-capability-richard-garriott.html

We could have NASA flights to the ISS by 2015 with funding. Odd that SpaceX
is not pressing the issue since they plan to make their own, independent of
NASA, crewed test flights to LEO in 2015.

Both Elon Musk and Gwynne Shotwell are scheduled to appear at the 2014
International Space Development Conference (ISDC) next week:

Featured Speakers and VIPs at ISDC 2014.
http://isdc.nss.org/2014/speakers-vip.html

Wish I could go but can't make it this year. Hope the issue gets raised.

c.f.,

A contingency plan for a fast return of the U.S. to space.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-contingency-plan-for-fast-return-of.html


Bob Clark

=============================================================
"Robert Clark" wrote in message news:ljvbfk$fiq$1...@dont-email.me...

[Robert Clark]

Two more articles arguing for accelerating commercial crew:

May 14, 2014, 1:14pm EDT
Elon Musk was right: What Russia's anti-NASA plan means for C. Fla.
Richard Bilbao
Reporter-Orlando Business Journal
[quote]It means U.S.-based commercial space transport is even more important
than ever, said Frank DiBello, president and CEO of Space Florida, an agency
behind fostering the growth of Florida's space industry.
“This type of news even further magnifies the need for the U.S. to be
aggressive about enabling commercial space market expansion ASAP. As with
transport of crews to the ISS, we cannot wait much longer. Swift action must
be taken to ensure our states and commercial U.S. companies have the tools
they need — whether that be dedicated launch infrastructure or engines — to
keep our national space program intact without reliance on others,” he said.
[url]http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/blog/2014/05/elon-musk-was-right-what-russias-anti-nasa-plan.html[/url][/quote]

EXPLORING OPTIONS.
By ROGER LAUNIUS
Former Chief Historian of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), 1990-2002
[quote]To avoid reliance on good Russian–American relations, the United
States must accelerate the development of an American rocket. Bolden has
already asked for this, telling the U.S. Congress that “the choice here is
between fully funding the request to bring space launches back to American
soil or continue to send millions to the Russians.” Thus far, Congress has
not acted to accelerate the development of an American-built rocket.
[url]http://www.themarknews.com/2014/05/13/exploring-options-2/
[/url][/quote]

Bob Clark

============================================================================
"Robert Clark" wrote in message news:lkha9t$ufp$1...@dont-email.me...

[Robert Clark]

Support Grows For New U.S. Rocket Engine.
Amy Butler Frank Morring, Jr. May 26, 2014
http://m.aviationweek.com/space/support-grows-new-us-rocket-engine

Possibilities might be the engines investigated a decade ago for a possible
heavy lift booster. Unfortunately they were cancelled in 2004 after the Ares
V was decided upon. One such engine was the reusable RS-84.

In 2009 when the Obama administration was considering producing a heavy lift
kerosene engine there was talk of resurrecting the RS-84, but it was
cancelled again when the SLS was decided upon. This article from 2003 said
it would take until 2007, 4 years, to produce it:

RS-84 Engine Passes Preliminary Design Milestone.
[QUOTE]Huntsville – Jul 16, 2003
The RS-84 is one of two competing efforts now under way to develop an
alternative to conventional, hydrogen-fueled engine technologies. The RS-84
is a reusable, staged combustion rocket engine fueled by kerosene — a
relatively low-maintenance fuel with high performance and high density,
meaning it takes less fuel-tank volume to permit greater propulsive force
than other technologies.[/quote]
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-03zm.html

IF development continued for an additional year up to 2004 and IF the
development materials and designs were retained, then conceivably
development could be restarted and completed in just 3 additional years.

In any case I’d like to see a study done to see how long and how much it
would cost to complete its development.

Another possibility might be the TR-107:

NASA invests $21 million in TR107 engine development.
6 May 2003
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/nasa-invests-21-million-in-tr107-engine-development/278975.article#ixzz32b7sNvZf

Bob Clark
==========================================================
"Robert Clark" wrote in message news:llclh1$kle$1...@dont-email.me...