航空航天港

 找回密码
 注册会员

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

返回列表
楼主: hkhtg090201
收起左侧

[任务跟踪] 美国太空发射系统SLS:SRB全部地面测试完成

[复制链接]
zjl625 发表于 2010-12-15 21:45 | 显示全部楼层
回复 35# SaturnV

拿着航天飞机的部件搭积木啊
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-1-5 10:15 | 显示全部楼层
有人说:
我们需要一个政府(主导)建造的重型火箭吗?
Do We Need a Government-Build HLV?
Postedby Doug Messieron January 4, 2011, at 4:46

Florida Today’s John Kelly asks an interesting question about NASA’s HLV rocket:

Why in the world is NASA developing its own supersized rocket when no fewer than three private companies already have one on the drawing board?

Decades of experience shows a big-ticket space project developed wholly by the government will:

Take years longer than estimated to complete.
Cost taxpayers billions more dollars than advertised.
Fly with less capability than originally envisioned.
Unless, of course, the government changes the way it deals with contractors on those kinds of projects.The difference that is being pushed under the new “commercial” space approach is not that NASA is using different companies. It’s that NASA is employing a different way of paying those companies.

The basic answer is: jobs. Long-term projects that pump billions of dollars into individual districts and states are good for employment — of constituents and members of Congress. Development expenses, operating costs and system capability are strictly secondary considerations. (Well, that’s not strictly true; Congress is insisting that NASA build a HLV capable of lofting 130 tons into orbit. Of course, that’s because they think it will force NASA into using shuttle- and Constellation-derived hardware that will keep money flowing and lots of people employed for a long time.)
cmj9808 发表于 2011-1-5 13:44 | 显示全部楼层
从NSF的发言看,随着F9的成功和联邦预算日益紧张,持有上述观点的人越来越多。甚至包括NASA的很多雇员都认为NASA应该向USAF学习,专注于高技术含量的载荷而将技术含量相对较低的发射业务外包给商业公司,减少不必要的雇员可以大幅降低NASA的运行费用。

持该观点的人的证据如下:
1,NASA已有超过30年没有设计过新火箭,而商业公司ULA/SpaceX/OSC正在设计、测试和制造火箭;
2,政府机构适合高技术含量的专一性任务(载荷),商业公司适合低技术含量的批量化任务(火箭)
3,NASA正在使用商业公司ULA的火箭发射高价值的载荷(如价值数十亿美元的深空探测器),即将使用商业公司SpaceX/OSC的火箭批量发射低价值的载荷(如ISS的货运任务),未来会将ISS的客运任务也交给商业公司,所有这些任务中使用的火箭没有一种是NASA设计、测试和制造的,在这种情况下NASA为何要执着于自己设计重型火箭?
delta4heavy 发表于 2011-1-8 00:04 | 显示全部楼层
我也越来越觉得没必要,从保就业角度考虑,离开了NASA又不就等于失业,私营航天的发展可以为有志于航天的人提供更多的机会。其实像分段式SRB,SSME等从航天飞机上继承下来的技术一样可以让私营企业接手继续发展
usually 发表于 2011-1-8 00:28 | 显示全部楼层
是翻译的问题,Jupiter应该译为“朱庇特”,是罗马神话的主神。
NASA的传统是用罗马的神诋为火箭起名, ...
cmj9808 发表于 2010-12-15 19:23



    朱庇特就是宙斯。一个人在不同宗教系统里的不同名字而已。
就像唯一的神,在犹太教和基督教里是耶和华,在YSL教里就叫真主一样,耶和华和真主是同一个神。
bebop 发表于 2011-1-8 01:17 | 显示全部楼层
NASA will pursue a $3.1 billion new heavy lift research and development program, focusing on propulsion technologies, over the next five years.
重载研究、开发5年31亿,重点:推进技术研究。。。
cmj9808 发表于 2011-1-8 18:02 | 显示全部楼层
朱庇特就是宙斯。一个人在不同宗教系统里的不同名字而已。
就像唯一的神,在犹太教和基督教里是 ...
usually 发表于 2011-1-8 00:28


是的,我是回答37#网友针对35#“把火箭命名为丘比特”的疑问,NASA的传统是用罗马神话里的神诋给火箭命名,而丘比特是希腊神话中的小爱神。
cmj9808 发表于 2011-1-8 18:06 | 显示全部楼层
回复 48# SaturnV

这里提到的很多是各大公司位于亨茨维尔的分公司,ATK、波音、洛马和诺格的总部都不在亨茨维尔
zhang 发表于 2011-1-9 15:19 | 显示全部楼层
关于 SD-HLV, Direct, Jupiter, NLS, Shuttle-C, 等等的贴太多了,能不能合并一下,看着整齐点。
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-1-9 19:02 | 显示全部楼层
好象都零散地分布在其他主题中,摘出来也不容易啊.
mir-2 发表于 2011-1-10 23:56 | 显示全部楼层
总部代表不了什么,航空航天工业巨头的研发中心和试验设施大都在亨茨维尔,亨茨维尔在美国航天领域的地位 ...
SaturnV 发表于 2011-1-10 12:53


土星,好资料呀,慢慢研究中
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-1-12 15:09 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 hkhtg090201 于 2011-1-12 15:33 编辑

NASA向国会递交重型火箭建议书
http://www.space.cetin.net.cn/index.asp?modelname=new%5Fspace%2Fnews%5Fnr&FractionNo=&titleno=XWEN0000&recno=73415
新闻发布时间:2011-01-12
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-1-12 15:28 | 显示全部楼层
NASA向国会递交重型火箭建议书

新闻发布时间:2011-01-12

  [据美国航天新闻网2011年1月11日报道 ...
hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-1-12 15:09


...但是,不管是火箭还是乘员飞行器都将超出国会2010年晚期提出的成本和进度要求。 ..

-------------
    尽量利用现有软硬件的目的,想必就是要使 HLV尽快飞起来,而NASA却又泼了凉水,眼看中国步步近逼,元老们是否暗地里骂NASA饭桶?
suxiaolang 发表于 2011-1-12 22:17 | 显示全部楼层
...但是,不管是火箭还是乘员飞行器都将超出国会2010年晚期提出的成本和进度要求。 ..

------------ ...
hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-1-12 15:28

步步逼近?中国连类似DELTA-4H的火箭都没有。何来步步逼近?
suxiaolang 发表于 2011-1-12 22:19 | 显示全部楼层
说到底就是现在的化学推进火箭技术已经到了瓶颈了,玩不出什么新花样了
suxiaolang 发表于 2011-1-12 22:24 | 显示全部楼层
与其如此,还不如花钱在可变比冲磁等离子火箭以及核动力推进上
zhang 发表于 2011-1-12 23:06 | 显示全部楼层
说到底就是现在的化学推进火箭技术已经到了瓶颈了,玩不出什么新花样了
suxiaolang 发表于 2011-1-12 22:19



    其实还有很多没玩:Space Tug, Propellant Depot, GEO 上维修卫星, 到 Sun-Earth L2 转一圈。也不一定需要 HLV.
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-1-13 22:12 | 显示全部楼层
...但是,不管是火箭还是乘员飞行器都将超出国会2010年晚期提出的成本和进度要求。 ..

------------ ...
hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-1-12 15:28



国会拒绝NASA的重型火箭计划
  Congress Rejects NASA's HLV Plans
By Keith Cowing on January 12, 2011 6:26 PM  14 Comments


Preliminary Report Regarding NASA's Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Pursuant to Section 309 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267)
"To date, trade studies performed by the Agency have yet to identify heavy-lift and capsule architectures that would both meet all SLS requirements and these goals. For example, a 2016 first flight of the SLS does not appear to be possible within projected FY 2011 and out year funding levels. ... However, to be clear, neither Reference Vehicle Design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor the schedule goals outlined in the Authorization Act. .... none of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal conditions, based upon existing cost models, historical data, and traditional acquisition approaches. ..."
Senate Commerce Committee Members Respond to NASA Report
"We appreciate NASA's report and look forward to the additional material that was required but not submitted. In the meantime, the production of a heavy-lift rocket and capsule is not optional. It's the law. NASA must use its decades of space know-how and billions of dollars in previous investments to come up with a concept that works. We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently - and, it must be a priority."

PS:我的直觉还不错:元老确实不满意。
zhang 发表于 2011-1-16 21:33 | 显示全部楼层


http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1495

最省钱,最早实现飞行能力的仍然是 Sidemount HLV
东方红 发表于 2011-1-16 21:39 | 显示全部楼层
最省钱,最早实现飞行能力的仍然是 Sidemount HLV
zhang 发表于 2011-1-16 21:33

这种类似Shuttle-C的构型最省事,可以沿用航天飞机主发动机、外贮箱与固体助推器和发射台,但LEO运载能力只有大约80吨,达不到130吨的标准。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册会员

本版积分规则

QQ|申请友链|旗下论坛|小黑屋|手机版|航空航天港 ( 豫ICP备12024513号 )

GMT+8, 2018-1-20 03:28 , Processed in 0.328346 second(s), 18 queries , Gzip On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表