| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Eric Chomko
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
crushdbox
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: Re: Washington Post article on commercial spaceflight |
 |
|
this is the thing
http://s2.bitefight.ba/c.php?uid=49708
heh
"Eric Chomko" <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176435514.447708.80550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
168.html
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Findley
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: Re: Washington Post article on commercial spaceflight |
|
|
"Eric Chomko" <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176435514.447708.80550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
A few technical inaccuracies. Bigelow's inflatable station modules weren't
"initially designed by NASA". Bigelow is using the inflatable technology
pioneered by NASA for Transhab, but they're applying it to their own
inflatable module design.
Still, I think it's good for Bigelow to let everyone know that they are
using NASA technology. I would think that would help inspire confidence in
the design. As we all know here, the Transhab inflatable technology results
in a space station hull that's less susceptible to micrometeorite impacts
than the more traditional design used on the ISS modules. This isn't a
balloon that's going to pop when a paint fleck hits it at orbital
velocities, and that's a good thing. ;-)
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Craig Fink
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: MSNBC article (Re: Washington Post article on commercial spa |
|
|
Cash-strapped NASA looks to private industry
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18082415/
....The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will "help to drive the
creation of a new space industry in low Earth orbit and beyond in such a
way that NASA becomes a reliable and supportive customer for that
industry," Administrator Michael Griffin said...
The stages that the mind of a Bureaucracy goes through is interesting. NASA
has for 50 years been the main anchor on private industry in space. Ten
years ago quite opposed to Space Tourism, refusing to train the first one,
refusing to let him in NASA's "Space Station", saying he isn't properly
trained. And now this, I can see the future, NASA claiming credit for
creating a private space industry. lol, Someone add that to the list of
NASA spinoffs. Something Private Enterprise was going to do anyway, despite
NASA's resistance. Oh, what a great idea NASA had, isn't it.
Overall though, Michael Griffin's (The National Aeronautics and Space
Administrator's) words are quite encouraging. But, actions speak louder
than words. If your going to claim the creation of a private space
industry, you need to show more action. More than a few bread crumbs to a
few well liked small companies. Actions, like the "BIG" cash flow problem,
truly prime Private Enterprise's pump, instead of some "BIG" contractor's
bottom line. Cancel Ares I, NASA's next "BIG" pork launcher. Cancel the
Orion Crew Vehicle (Apollo on steroids). Cancel the Ares V, IV, III, and
II. BTW what ever happened to Ares II, III, and IV. Or, was the name chosen
to look like a sequel, Ares V sequel to Saturn V. Cancel the whole rerun of
Apollo before you put the US back another ten or twenty years. Take the pig
out of the pork barrow to and from Low Earth Orbit. Apply the some pork to
Private Enterprise who is going to develop their own launchers to and from
Orbit, their own Space Hotels (Station), their own Ascent/Entry Vehicles.
Go do the Exploration Part, from LEO to and from the Moon and Mars. Truly
help Private Enterprise take over the mundane Earth to LEO and back part,
something they are going to do anyway.
Keep up the good work Michael, but pick up the pace.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com
--
Jeff Findley wrote:
| Quote: |
"Eric Chomko" <pne.chomko@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176435514.447708.80550@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
In Thursday's Washington Post, Business section, by Marc Kaufman.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102168.html
A few technical inaccuracies. Bigelow's inflatable station modules
weren't
"initially designed by NASA". Bigelow is using the inflatable technology
pioneered by NASA for Transhab, but they're applying it to their own
inflatable module design.
|
lol, isn't that something?
| Quote: |
Still, I think it's good for Bigelow to let everyone know that they are
using NASA technology. I would think that would help inspire confidence
in
the design.
|
How does a discarded idea from NASA inspire confidence, when it's Bigelow's
design flying in Orbit, launched on a Russian booster, and seems to be
holding up quite nicely?
| Quote: |
As we all know here, the Transhab inflatable technology
results in a space station hull that's less susceptible to micrometeorite
impacts
than the more traditional design used on the ISS modules. This isn't a
balloon that's going to pop when a paint fleck hits it at orbital
velocities, and that's a good thing. ;-)
Jeff |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
OM
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: Washington Post article on commercial spaceflight |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:58:50 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
<jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
As we all know here, the Transhab inflatable technology results
in a space station hull that's less susceptible to micrometeorite impacts
than the more traditional design used on the ISS modules. This isn't a
balloon that's going to pop when a paint fleck hits it at orbital
velocities, and that's a good thing. ;-)
|
....What needs to happen is that Big-1 - which is what they should have
called it - needs to somehow be recovered so that LDEF-style analysis
can be conducted on the outside surface, just to see if the design
*is* as "pop proof" as claimed.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jeff Findley
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: Washington Post article on commercial spaceflight |
|
|
"OM" <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote in message
news:v2iv13l5mkfmi723tcuv0bi00ulfrfq9eg@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:58:50 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
As we all know here, the Transhab inflatable technology results
in a space station hull that's less susceptible to micrometeorite impacts
than the more traditional design used on the ISS modules. This isn't a
balloon that's going to pop when a paint fleck hits it at orbital
velocities, and that's a good thing. ;-)
...What needs to happen is that Big-1 - which is what they should have
called it - needs to somehow be recovered so that LDEF-style analysis
can be conducted on the outside surface, just to see if the design
*is* as "pop proof" as claimed.
|
Given all of the research NASA put into this, I'm not sure what the concern
would be.
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
222 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
