Back to the Future

[vt_hokie]

Wings and tires serve to enable a controlled landing, instead of a parachute return, and allow the design of a shuttle-class vehicle that can actually return things from space. The "spam in a can" approach to spaceflight gives up a lot of capabilities.

 

[j05h]

>Do you really want to emulate the Russians in space? Is that how you spell success? <br /><br />Success in space is flying profitable dedicated tourist flights, both suborbital and orbital. Sustainability is something like Bigelow's Nautilus being used to create manned outposts, again for profit, throughout the inner Solar System. Space Elevators, hypersonic transports, SPS, all your dreams become possible as more space applications become possible. The technology for spreading into space is available, it is economics that have held real advancement back. Call it the Third Industrial Revolution.<br /><br />The Russian tourism flights have apparently covered the cost of the Soyuz and launch. So far, it is a dog-and-pony show, a concept demonstration. They recently announced a doubling of the Soyuz/Progress production capacity. Once that is in place, they won't just be flying them to ISS. It'll be a few years in ramping up, but those extra craft are going to pay, pay, pay. IMHO, of course. They'll announce soon that the "Enterprise"/"FGB2" will fly separate from ISS, coorbital, and just for tourists: it will sport the 2nd or 3rd Nautilus. They might even drop the price from $20m to $10m, every halving in cost opens new markets.<br /><br />It's not "capsules" or "tech" or "policy", it really is economics. <br /><br />I don't think we should emulate the Soyuz model. (i'm not arguing against configuration, it rocks, but economic) The place for American enterprise is in undeveloped, innovative space applications. We always discuss the "sweet spot" in launch costs, I argue that the sweet spot has been reached in terms of certain microsat and manned projects. Money is being made RIGHT NOW at innovation. I'm not talking about the Primes and NASA, but I'm also not just talking about Burt Rutan. There is a new aerospace market emerging in the US, and I think the future looks pretty bright. <br /><br />Josh<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

And as for LEO, you could just as well fly another tank up to shuttle in just the same way as you do for your capsule moon mission. Without that tank (which requries a second rocket), your capsule isn't going anywhere.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Arrrgh! Don't they teach physics anymore? Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to put the shuttle into a lunar insertion orbit? And you would still need to get a lander their somehow as well. "Just fly another (fuel) tank up..." reminds me of the Steve Martin bit "How to Become a Millionaire" "Step one: get a million dollars."<br /><br />The shuttle was designed for a market that never materialized. Because of the unprecedented advancement in late 20th century electronics satellite repair and/or return missions never became economically viable. The shuttle capabilities were put to use for things like LDEF, ISS construction, and the Hubble repair, but like the steamship The Great Eastern it is so far ahead of its time that most of its capabilities are wasted--meaning money is wasted. And money is valuable! No one is destroying decades of data on RLVs. It will still all be there when we are ready for it.

 

[specfiction]

Yes they teach physics. The capsule needs another rocket supplying fuel to get to the moon (I agree with you, it sounds stupid but that's how it works. The stupid thing is attaching another unnecessary engine--the whole thing's a kluge). And there are lunar insertion orbits that require less delta-vee than taking off from the surface of the moon (some of those were calculated by G K O’Neil in his mass driver scheme--and by the way, he was a famous Princeton Physicist). The only real problem would be to redesign the shuttle engine nozzles since they are designed for max power with atmospheric pressure. Also, the shuttle engines are much more efficient than the engine on the resupply rocket (more unnecessary weight). The X-33 linear array was designed to solve all those problems, and initial tests look good--but now we'll never know.<br /><br />Bottom line--I believe the capsule scenario is a non-starter. Eventually, because of all the bureaucratic and political bu*****t the whole thing will go down the tubes. It has zero inspirational value (don't underestimate this--it's the only thing that has kept manned space alive along with commitments to our partners on the ISS--which everybody now regrets) and does not advance the state-of-the-art. Our only chance for manned space flight is a Burt Ruttan, somebody like him, or another country whose values are consistent with the risk and rewards of such a venture.<br /><br />And for those that think the Russian experience is a success, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. <br />

 

[specfiction]

>It's not "capsules" or "tech" or "policy", it really is economics. <br /><br />Let's see how Ruttan does on the tourist side, that's his plan and his "sugar daddies" have a track record of making money--maybe they know something we don't? I'm not knocking that idea at all--I think it will probably work if Ruttan can keep from killing his customers.<br /><br />Also, economics depends on (bold) innovation--the US used to understand this simple rule. But now we mostly have used-car salesmen in the form of politicians and marketeers that we just keep buying lemons from--over and over again.

 

[tomnackid]

The only real problem would be to redesign the shuttle engine nozzles since they are designed for max power with atmospheric pressure. <br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Well, if you think that is the only "real" problem there really isn't much more I can say to you! Other than look up the specs for the shuttle orbiter's mass, get a good book (or software) on orbital mechanics and start calculating! I would love to see how you plan to get a full, or even partly full ET into orbit to rendezvous with the shuttle. That would either require a whole new launch vehicle or leaving an ET in orbit and many many refueling launches each one several hundred million to a billion a pop depending on how you want to calculate the budget! All to send four men to the moon with the dubious honer of doing it with wings! By the way the shuttle can't can't do a reentry from lunar distances without having to take even MORE fuel to slow down into Earth orbit. <br /><br />Using the shuttle as it was intended (as a delivery vehicle) to assemble a lunar exploration vehicle "stack" on orbit would make more sense except that the shuttle has proven too expensive and too dangerous to fly at the launch rates needed to assemble such a vehicle. Things might have been different if we had developed the "Shuttle C" back in the 80s, but then we still would not have safe(r), low(er) cost launcher just for launching crews and small payloads.<br /><br />Do the math!

 

[tomnackid]

Bottom line--I believe the capsule scenario is a non-starter. Eventually, because of all the bureaucratic and political bu*****t the whole thing will go down the tubes.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />And it will be attitudes like yours that let them get away with it! The video game besot generation that puts "cool looking" ahead of "workable" Those of us not raised by "Grand Theft Auto" have different priorities.<br /><br />Do I sound like enough of an old fogey? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[specfiction]

We've had 30 years to A) get the shuttle right, B) learn how to refuel in orbit, C) get something out of the ISS other than a drag on resources and prestige--perhaps docking landers etc. to use for lunar transport?<br />Also, you don't need anywhere near the initial fuel load for lunar insertion as for LEO. As for mass, when we decide to use the moon for something other than a PR stunt (which is stale now)--we're going to need something with real transport capability. <br /><br />As to calculating, O'Niel's already done that (1974 Physics Today) for big ore buckets weighing rougly half an Orbiter. It was all time wasted. Until there is a reasonable vision, with good leadership, and realistic goals based on real business, the whole thing's just going to be heartbreak for people like you.<br />

 

[tomnackid]

OK, maybe I missed something but what do O'Neills' mass drivers have to do with getting people TO the moon?????

 

[specfiction]

By the way, you couldn't be more wrong. I've been calculating (physics), writing software (20 years), and writing science papers (for many years)--and we are one of the only families I know who have no video games in the house. I am a firm advocate of substance over form--as are you. I'm not against you or what you want--I believe we want the same things. After getting out of the trenches and into the boardroom, however, I've learned that to have any chance of winning, you've got to inspire those who are willing to sacrifice.<br /><br />It's only my opinion of course, but I think that NASA, and it's plans (I use the term loosely) are doomed to failure—sorry.<br />

 

[specfiction]

>OK, maybe I missed something but what do O'Neills' mass drivers have to do with getting people TO the moon????? <br /><br />Obital mechanics, mass, and delta-vee... Check the High-Frontier. The mass drivers are on the moon--shooting ore bucks to LEO, where they drop their payload and return to the moon. The physics is the same, energy comes from em impulsion rather than chem fuel, but both can be reduced to jouls.

 

[tomnackid]

The mass drivers are sending their loads to catchers at the moons L1 point. When full the catchers ferry the load to the L5 construction site--at least in O'Neill's original plan. Later proposals recommend 2:1 resonance orbit between the Earth and the moon as being the most efficient place for a colony. The ore buckets never leave the mass driver. Besides, if they did how would they get back to the moon from LEO?<br /><br />I have serious doubts about knowledge of space technology and orbital mechanics.

 

[specfiction]

I’m not talking about O’Niell’s L5 space colony. <br /><br /> />The ore buckets never leave the mass driver. Besides, if they did how would they get back to the moon from LEO?<br /><br />I’m starting to wonder about your understanding of orbital mechanics. The orbit was a closed loop, figure 8 around the moon and Earth.<br /><br />There was another plan to send (not buckets), they called them "pallets," to LEO from MD's on the moon. The pallets would be caught in EO, decelerated, then dropped by parachute to tugs that would bring them in. The low delta-vee orbital transfer was actually calculated by a couple of Italian scientists—but many of their ideas were the same as O’Niell’s. They mention him in their papers. The idea was to have a business based on manufacturing exotic electronics, fibers, etc in low gravity-hi vacuum on the moon from silicon and other materials on the moon.<br /><br />Anyway, there's tons of this stuff available from NASA reports and other sources. I had a stack of it when I cared. It’s not that a lot of this stuff isn’t known, it was never seriously proposed by NASA management. And even if it had been, the people in Washington probably wouldn’t have seen the opportunity.<br />

 

[nacnud]

Yeah we get that, but how do you get your mass driver to the Moon in the first place, especialy as you don't seem to like HLLVs.

 

[specfiction]

>Yeah we get that, but how do you get your mass driver to the Moon in the first place, especialy as you don't seem to like HLLVs.<br /><br />Ha, ha, ha--What came first the chicken or the egg. Your point's well taken. But my point is that we've had 30 years to flesh that out. Getting started 20 years ago with Klugy capsules et al to get this set up is fine. It's too late now. The public will tend to gravitate to the kinds of things Ruttan is doing--tourism. And you've completely lost the scientific community--they HATE manned space. I'm one of the very few still willing to even talk about it.<br />

 

[specfiction]

Here's my advice. If you are a manned-space enthusiast and are talented and think you have some good ideas to make space work--first quit NASA. It was a great outfit--by far the best in the world, but it's been crushed by incompetent bureaucracy, as many of you correctly pointed out.<br /><br />Next, seek out some space venture firm with fat sugar daddies (Ruttan?) and make your pitch, whatever it is. If you're successful, I believe you will have a much more positive experience while advancing (not retarding) the state of the art.<br />

 

[tomnackid]

Thank you. Based on you previous posts and the ideas contained therein I'll give your advice all of the consideration it deserves.

 

[haywood]

Hey Specificatiolation! First try spelling his name correctly.<br /><br />It's Rutan not Ruttan.<br />

 

[specfiction]

Thanks Hayywod..... I'll remember that.

 

[tomnackid]

Spec: We all want the same thing--a spacefaring civilization. I think another 25 years of nothing but milk runs to the ISS (and a few more deaths along the way) would be far more disheartening to the American public than going back to the moon and on to Mars in a capsule. Lets make the moon our space station! If nothing else we can get oxygen for propellant and mass for shielding. It won't be just a research base but an actual source of raw materials. If we get nothing else out of the moon but oxygen for propellant we still way ahead of LEO where the only exploitable resource is solar power.

 

[josh_simonson]

The columbia disaster highlighted the danger that TPS presents to astronauts, and huge manned SSTO craft are simply hundreds of times more likely to suffer TPS problems that a small capsule, simply due to the smaller TPS of the capsule that is safely covered until it is needed. It is impossible to make a re-useable SSTO as safe as a capsule using comparable technology - there's physically more to go wrong.<br /><br />The aknowledgement by NASA that crew safety and cargo capability were traded-off on eachother is why they've gone with a 2 launch vehicle solution.<br /><br />The military can parachute a humvee out of a C-130 and when it touches down it can drive off immediately: parachutes aren't so bad. A parafoil could even land the CEV nicely in a catchnet with as gentle a touchdown as a winged/tired version, and the hardware stays on the ground instead of going to space and back.<br /><br />According to venturestar's official price quote, it's $1000/lb to orbit. The HLV's official number is $1500/lb for 6/year. Some folks might argue about the validity of either number (and certainly the 6/year part), but lets assume they're equally BS for an apples-apples comparison. That's not really much difference in price, and the HLV can launch payloads 5x as big - which reduces on-orbit assembly costs. Also the SDHLV will cost 10% of venturestar in development costs.

 

[barrykirk]

Maybe, were all looking at this from the wrong angle.<br /><br />Everyone is debating the various merits of the upper stage, but maybe the focus should be on the first stage.<br /><br />Make the first stage better and make that re-usable.<br /><br />I don't consider SRB's to be re-usable. They can be refurbished, but not re-used. A 747 is re-usable.<br /><br />A first stage, should be able to survive an ocean landing and then just pull it out of the drink, tow it home, refill the liquid tanks and fire it off again.<br /><br />Once We can do that cheaply and reliably, than start work on making the next stage re-usable.<br /><br />Now I know that it will never be that easy, but refurbing an SRB is expensive. We can do much better than that!<br /><br />PS. I like the idea of capsules more than RLV's because they are cheaper and the cost of refurbishing them is a lot lower than for a RLV.

 

[baktothemoon]

"A first stage, should be able to survive an ocean landing and then just pull it out of the drink, tow it home, refill the liquid tanks and fire it off again."<br /><br />That's exactly what SpaceX did with the Falcon I, it seems that it will save them a lot of money. I wonder how hard it would be to man rate just the first stage of an Atlas 5 and then add a recovery system to it. Either way we all want the CEV to fly, frankly I don't care if we use an SRB or liquid fuel. Lets just get the thing going so that the next pres. won't cut the head off of it.<br />

 

[specfiction]

Back in 98 I was working in a startup--had nothing to do with space. Got into writing business plans and meeting with venture guys. However, I always loved the idea of going back to the moon, so I toyed with writing a book about it. The only place I could find the materials were in the MIT lib. I had a lot of friends there, so I'd stop in and peruse. Actually, wrote a couple of chapters--I was really into it.<br /><br />I started talking to the CEO of the startup about it--he thought it was interesting--and what’s more I believe it ( a serious moon effort) could solve many collateral problems, if done right. The whole venture should start as a business plan with detailed Performa’s. <br /><br />I'm looking at this plan for the moon and I don't think it will fly--not because it wouldn’t "work," it's the least-common-denominator approach. The problem is it's pointless. It has the look and feel of a PR stunt. Look at how the whole thing is put forward:<br /><br />1) We go to the moon using 60's tech. No heavy transport capability, no infrastructure plan, no business plan, no...<br /><br />2) Then once we go to the moon, we go to Mars for /> 30 Billion year 2000 dollars. What about the moon? What do we get for 30 billion that motivates us to go back to Mars?<br /><br />It's not going to happen. This thing's been mismanaged.<br /><br />By the way the cost to orbit for Venture Star was $1K/lb. May have been a fantasy, I don't know, but that was the stated goal: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/1999/99_09AR.html<br />

 

[scottb50]

You could use the SSME core and add whatever nozzle you wanted to it. The only reason it has the one it has is because it launches from the ground. If you use it for a second stage it would require a bigger nozzle, but that's mainly a bolt on change. You could also throw out the turbopumps and use Nitrogen, much simpler and safer, though a little heavier. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>