A thought on what is needed for future space flight.

[Valcan]

OK the MSL got me thinking.

One of the reasons we cant really send alot to mars or the moon compared to LEO is the speed nessesary to reach the destination.

That is the reason that it takes 8 years to get the little buggers there and why any manned mission to mars straight from the pads at the cape requires monster launchers.

So i think its time we invest in some key areas and work on something new.

Orbital refueling:
This would be either done by a refueler docked at its own station or by moving the cargo/spacecraft to the station (i've begun to prefer the idea of a refueler. This would save reaction mass nessesary to move the ship to the station. And this refueler culd use most of the same parts systems as a tug.) This would allow us to skip the need for super heavy launchers to get us to other planets/moons/NEO's etc.
Orbital tug:
An orbital tug to move loads from LEO to GEO or GSO. This again would remove the need for parking large stations like the ISS in LEO where the encounter alot of drag in there unstable orbit. This would also make construction of larger and far better stations possible. This would also decrease cost to and from the station over time.
Nuclear power plant and nuclear engines:
Nuclear energy atleast for the next 50 years is going to be our work horse for all but the lightest satelites and stationary objects-stations, satelites, etc. Nuclear engines can give us far greater reach and power in what we do in space.
A space freighter:
The design and construction of a space freighter for moving various rovers, satelites, and other pojects rapidly around th solar system and back without wasting rocket after rocket. Making the craft reusable after every mission for another. Eventually such craft could be scaled up to allow large manned missions to mars and to carry large amounts of material. I think that such vehicles would help bring down the nessesary cost of present in the exploration of our solar system and the future of our space program.
In addition such a vehicle would help immensly in both the eventual industrialization of space and for protecting the planet from asteroid impacts.

This is of course just my buck fifty just thought it should be said. Thanks.

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

I like how you laid it all out, very succinct. I agree too, we need orbital tugs, and most importantly, nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors are going to be the only way that we will be able to have sustainable power in space. Unfortunately people tend to freak out when you mention nukes lol.

 

[MeteorWayne]

OK the MSL got me thinking.

One of the reasons we cant really send alot to mars or the moon compared to LEO is the speed nessesary to reach the destination.

That is the reason that it takes 8 years to get the little buggers there and why any manned mission to mars straight from the pads at the cape requires monster launchers.

Huh? It takes a few months to a year, depending on the payload size, launcher power, and trajectory chosen, and what the ultimate destination is.

 

[scottb50]

So i think its time we invest in some key areas and work on something new. Orbital refueling:A space freighter:

While I wholeheartedly agree with the concepts you are using, see my posts going back more then 10 years in this forum saying exactly the same think. The problem comes in when you consider the cost of getting that stuff into LEO to begin with not doing it in LEO. 100 launches at $4,000 a pound is an awful lot just in itself.

An idea I have posed is using Modules to carry things to LEO and re-using them to build the structures needed, this could reduce the cost considerably compared to launching specific purpose payloads. Launching Modules of water and using Solar power to break it down for propellant is another idea, a lot safer if an accident happens and water can be kept indefinitely in storage in rudimentary containers as opposed to LH and LOX.

To begin with Modules could be adaptable to current launchers, Delta, Atlas, Soyus, Falcon and others used as propellant tanks for an upper stage, in time a re-usable TSTO heavy lifter could be designed drastically lowering the to orbit costs.

 

[Polishguy]

I disagree. I think the best method is to select a set of destionations (Moon, Mars, Asteroids) and develop hardware that can go to all of them ASAP. This hardware is:

Earth Return Vehicle. Supplies for a crew of four for 6 months, using the latest in life-support tech that has already been proven aboard ISS and Mir. Can use ISRU to make propellant on Mars, or be sent fully-fueled to Moon. Is not sent at all to asteroids. Weight: 25 tonnes.

Habitat Module. Supplies crew of four for 30 months, whether alone or meeting an unmanned supply cache on the surface. Flies manned to Mars, unmanned to Moon (where the ERV carries the crew), and manned to Asteroids. On asteroid flights, it is attached to a 6-tonne-maximum reentry capsule for earth return. Possibly a Soyuz or Apollo derivative. On Lunar and Martian flights, it is left on the surface as a perfectly usable habitation module, which, although empty of supplies, can be used by later crews. On asteroid flights, it burns up in the earth's atmosphere. Weight: 25 tonnes.

Super Heavy Lift Vehicle. Rocket that has payload to LEO of Saturn V or greater. Built on a mass-production line to reduce costs. Wherever possible, use the cheapest materials and crudest construction. Think of the Sea Dragon concept, only scaled-down to just 120-140 tonnes payload. Upper stage is H2/O2 powered, with RL-10 engines. If it proves economical, make the first stage reusable (as there were plans to do with the S-IC). Can launch both ERV and Habitat, manned or unmanned.

With this hardware, one can operate a Moon, Mars, and Asteroids program using only existing hardware (minus the HLV and ISRU unit for Mars). No nuclear-electric engines, no super-reactors of 200 MW (at most, 1 MW, and normally just a 5 KW TOPAZ), no Bigelow inflatables. Just brute force, and off the shelf equipment.

 

[Valcan]

is.

Oops i see what your saying. I misread and apollogise, i thought 8 years was rediculous.

My point was instead of spending all that mass on extra reaction mass to send it faster we could have a larger more robust systems say for a Second gen. MSL, and just a us a reusable freighter to move cargo to and from a location.

Over time it could be further developed into a large system capable of carrying a larger amount of people to a destination say mars etc faster than normal with a larger payload.

I just think something like that would be a good technology test bed and be very useful in many things we do in space. Whether its in earth moon system or all the way out to jupiter system.

 

[Valcan]

I disagree. I think the best method is to select a set of destionations (Moon, Mars, Asteroids) and develop hardware that can go to all of them ASAP. .

Why?

Why not use bigelow moduals?

Why not use all they new technologies that can make doing such things faster easier and maybe even cheaper?

And you would have to build a enourmous amount of Super heavy launchers for the cost of mass producing them to be effective.
Face it we arent going to the moon for another 10 years atleast. To me this budget guarrentees that. To many compromises and political favors.
Guy its not that what your saying isnt possible its just that it would take a budget bigger than the one for the apollo program to get it done. That aint happening.

 

[rockett]

An idea I have posed is using Modules to carry things to LEO and re-using them to build the structures needed, this could reduce the cost considerably compared to launching specific purpose payloads. Launching Modules of water and using Solar power to break it down for propellant is another idea, a lot safer if an accident happens and water can be kept indefinitely in storage in rudimentary containers as opposed to LH and LOX.

Well HALLELUJAH! It's good to see someone else posing that solution! The only difference is, I have suggested launching lunar ice chunks, to take advantage of the lower gravity well, and minimize leakage and outgassing...

 

[EarthlingX]

Some thoughts about what is needed for advancing human presence in space :

nasawatch.com : Getting Out of the Gravity Well on One Thin Dime

By Keith Cowing

on July 26, 2010 11:53 PM

Frank Sietzen, Jr.: Seemingly lost among the noise following last week's actions of the House Commerce and Science Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee on marking up a NASA budget is the issue of the agency's proposed new technology programs. Both the House and Senate sharply cut the Obama Administration's original request.

As of this writing no dissent has been heard from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, so the cuts might stick. It might be useful to review what the Obama Administration originally asked for - and why.

From the Administration's original FY2011 budget submission:
"The transformational technologies highlighted in this budget for development and demonstration address critical capabilities for sending crews to a variety of exciting destinations beyond low Earth orbit. By allowing for flight demonstrations, some at a flagship caliber, this ESMD budget resolves the achievement gap between lab demonstration and flight testing that might otherwise prevent NASA from implementing exciting new technologies. Prior to base lining them for crewed missions, these demonstrations will validate new technologies that are not yet fully developed, but are essential for mission success, such as automated and autonomous rendezvous and docking, in situ resource utilization, aero capture, large mass entry descent and landing, highly efficient in-space propulsion, precision landing and hazard avoidance, cryogenics storage and transfer, lightweight/inflatable modules, and others. And before sending humans on extended missions beyond low Earth orbit, accelerated biomedical research will help us to ensure crew health and safety."

 

[Polishguy]

I disagree. I think the best method is to select a set of destionations (Moon, Mars, Asteroids) and develop hardware that can go to all of them ASAP. .

Why?

Why not use bigelow moduals?

Why not use all they new technologies that can make doing such things faster easier and maybe even cheaper?

And you would have to build a enourmous amount of Super heavy launchers for the cost of mass producing them to be effective.
Face it we arent going to the moon for another 10 years atleast. To me this budget guarrentees that. To many compromises and political favors.
Guy its not that what your saying isnt possible its just that it would take a budget bigger than the one for the apollo program to get it done. That aint happening.

Because Bigelow modules are inherantly limited to vacuum-only operations. If you want to standardize your hardware for each role, they can't be used because they can't land on Mars after being inflated. And there's no sense leaving anything in orbit, where it does absolutely nothing.

And it's not going to cost more than the Apollo program. According to a 1992 Congressional estimate, Apollo cost $150 billion, including Skylab, ASTP, and all development. According to an estimate from that same year, the Mars missions alone, including development, by this plan (modified versions of Zubrin's Mars Direct) would cost $30 Billion. Since the hardware is shared between each program, they share development costs. Assuming each mission costs $3 billion, meaning $1.5 billion per launch, then we spend a total of $30 Billion for development. The remaining $120 billion, spread across each program, can fund 13 missions to each!

However, as you say, Congress isn't funding this. They want to fund some BS about 'technology development,' which, in the Long Term, will end up costing the US more than just launching now with off-the-shelf tech. A space program standing still (earth orbit only) costs as much to maintain as one that goes somewhere. Apollo, over its 15 years of life, cost $10 billion per year. This is comparable to NASA's expenditure on manned flight annually during the Shuttle era. If we stay with this nonsensical round-and-round, looking-down plan of 'technology development,' then we'll spend another 10 years spending money with no tangible gain. I'll remind you that technology development and cost-cutting were the purpose of the Shuttle. As of now, the only significant technological advance to space technology by the Shuttle/ISS program is the Urine recycler. In a sane program of expansion, technology would be developed to aid the mission. For example, space suits and lunar landers and hydrogen-oxygen rockets weren't built in independent programs of 'technology development.' They were built to support Apollo.

 

[Valcan]

.

.

.

Yes but is all you want to do go back to the moon to shoot some pictures and pick up a couple of rocks?

To build a liveable sustainable moon base would cost far more. Which is one of the only reasons to do such a thing.
Harvesting lunar ice would be pretty much a all robotics job.
Using the same moduals and suit designs for mars and the moon also isnt economical. Both differ widely in what degree of safety is needed and also in gravity etc.
Atmosphereic friction isnt a problem for a moon plan. However it is one for a mars plan.
Look to me landing people on mars should be done with the intention of staying and not "12 brave souls" type of thing send a expedition of 20 to 30 people there. to stay for a few years or settle.
Settling mars isnt a MUST have right now as industrializing space is and to do all of this better technology is needed. A super heavy would just distract us from this.
Super heavy ok but not at the expense of all the others. Which is what the current plan is DOING. :evil:

 

[sftommy]

Because Bigelow modules are inherantly limited to vacuum-only operations. If you want to standardize your hardware for each role, they can't be used because they can't land on Mars after being inflated

I find a lack reasoning to this line.

Bigelow craft are inherently adjustable to pressures in a way no other space vehicle is. I also think of the Mars landers than came down bouncing on big balloons and then continued to function. The Bigelow skin is also more resilient to damage and fatigue than other NASA metallic skins.

 

[Polishguy]

Because Bigelow modules are inherantly limited to vacuum-only operations. If you want to standardize your hardware for each role, they can't be used because they can't land on Mars after being inflated

I find a lack reasoning to this line.

Bigelow craft are inherently adjustable to pressures in a way no other space vehicle is. I also think of the Mars landers than came down bouncing on big balloons and then continued to function. The Bigelow skin is also more resilient to damage and fatigue than other NASA metallic skins.

Well, I worded it wrong. I know that Bigelow craft can survive on the surface, but they will not withstand reentry unless folded into an aeroshell. I think that if a module is built that can survive both vacuum and surface conditions, it would be better than to build a set of modules with specific purposes.

@Valcan: I believe that the Moon, Mars, and Asteroids are collectively the next step of human progress into the Universe. Mars will be a place where a colony is established, while the Moon would be a scientific base. It's easier to use ISRU on Mars, so the Moon will be the site of geology expeditions and far-side telescopes. And a structure built to survive Mars 1/3 G will be more than up to the challenge of surviving Lunar 1/6 G. And where did I say use the same suit designs? For Mars, we can use something based on the Mars Society's devices, while the Moon can use either Apollo-derived or a new design.

Where we disagree is that I believe we must move out into space ASAP, and establish self-sufficient, or at least needing only finished goods, colonies at the first opportunity for the preservation of the species. To me, this is far more important than letting Elon Musk make a profit, or letting Chang-diaz play with his ion drives. If this means that the astronauts are less comfortable on the way there from 6 months microgravity (or not, since we can spin the craft to make artificial gravity), and that the entire program costs more, so be it. But I, for one, am opposed to wasting another decade sending astronauts into LEO to do nothing but drill a hole in the sky.

 

[EarthlingX]

www.popularmechanics.com : Is NASA Being Set Up To Fail (Again)? Analysis

According to space analyst Rand Simberg, Congress is putting pork before progress by micromanaging NASA, asking them to do too much with too little, and, once again, setting America’s space agency up for failure.

One of soon-to-be-retired Space Shuttle Atlantis' three main engines. (Photo by NASA/Kim Shiflett)

July 27, 2010 3:11 PM

By Rand Simberg

In all of the furor over the president's new space policy, announced in February with the release of its planned NASA budget, and with all of the hyperbolic commentary about how commercial space isn't ready to take on the tasks of delivering astronauts to orbit, one stark fact has received far too little attention. Simply put, NASA has not successfully developed a new launch system in three decades. The last one was the Space Shuttle, and it was successful only by the minimal criteria that it eventually flew.