Do We Spend Enough on Space Exploration?

[qso1]

You'd be dissapointed in me, I voted for the modest increase being a realist. One reason for that is I prefer to see private industry take the reigns of low access to space, commercial spaceflight, low earth orbital activities. Let NASA do exploration of the moon, mars, and beyond. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

> I recall Venture Star being a serious effort among others aimed at what aerospace engineers see as the holy grail of spaceflight to low orbit. And that is the SSTO concept. The X-33 was never finished because NASA or maybe Lockheed capped the development at $1 billion dollars. IIRC, Lockheed had a ceiling on costs because they only had so much they could put towards development. <br /><br />VentureStar never got beyond viewgraphs and some basic requirements. The money granted for the X-33 program eventually grew to about $1.1B. Lockheed put little of their own money into X-33, while promising to spend lots bringing VS into production. <br /><br /> /> This whiz bang idea that an SSTO is some impossible dream and that we should stick with tried and true Soyuz etc. Will keep us right where we have been. Basically you can forget ever going beyond LEO if all we do is continue to rely on already existing hardware. <br /><br />The Saturn V first stage had the mass fraction for SSTO, but that doesn't make it CATS. I'm not advocating never developing other hardware - I'm advocating that NASA can't keep picking the winners. The market has already grown vastly beyond NASA. Commercial satellites and mil-space are both larger segments of the market. The Air Force has a better chance at space development than NASA - most recent launcher research in the US until CEV was AFRL supported. I know this thread is based around "space exploration", but that is a fuzzy term. If someone succeeds in building an SSTO, I'd be the happiest guy in the world, but I don't want to plan my future around a vehicle that might happen. <br /><br />Several times on these forums, I've specced out rough missions using largely pre-existing hardware as a base. Instead of focusing on what can be done with just one more miracle device, why not try something extraordinary now? I'm really impressed with Space Adventures Lunar flyby, much moreso than CEV at present, as it can be done in only 2 years. Nearterm miss <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

J05H:<br />VentureStar never got beyond viewgraphs and some basic requirements. The money granted for the X-33 program eventually grew to about $1.1B. Lockheed put little of their own money into X-33, while promising to spend lots bringing VS into production.<br /><br />Me:<br />The X-33 propellant tnk had been built but failed during testing. More at:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33<br /><br />NASA has had so much bad press and underbudgeting that IMO, its days as a human spaceflight agency are just about over. CEV will probably be axed after the 2008 elections. Private enterprise will hopefully be able to take over whatever NASA no longer does in LEO. And NASA will probably complete its ISS mission but after that, unless CEV proceeds onward, who knows. But missions to mars would probably not happen for the purpose of exploration under private industry. They will go for exploitation if that yeilds a profit.<br /><br />I have seen a tendency here from folks here at SDC to criticize NASA as overbloated, wanting only to develop new tech yet untested companies are going to do this or that when they say they will. The fact is, we won't know for certain how much of the human spaceflight work private enterprise will be willing to take over. If they see profit potential in going to the asteroids or the martian moons then it will happen. But a big chunk of getting profit potential is to get inexpensive access to LEO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[christine16]

Poll will be closed on monday, so hurry up <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[j05h]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>> The X-33 propellant tnk had been built but failed during testing. More at: <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, and the usual retort is "But, but, VentureStar was going to use metal tanks!" Even that doesn't hold water, so to speak. LockMart's plans never produced a mass-fraction that would allow VentureStar to work as SSTO or Stage-and-a-Half. By the end of their viewgraph parade, VS had a "carrier" on it's back for a second stage and payload. The X-33 wasn't underbudgetted, IMHO, it was improperly managed. Lockmart had 50x the funding that Scaled Composites had for SS1, and never flew anything for X-33. I only bring up the comparison as they were both supersonic, suborbital craft, and the Burt Rutan is a G0D.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>> But missions to mars would probably not happen for the purpose of exploration under private industry. They will go for exploitation if that yeilds a profit. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think you might confuse private industry and private enterprise? There are plenty of private (and very wealthy) citizens ponying up money to make spaceflight happen, not all are looking directly for profits. People will go places for the adventure and other reasons (solitude, no beginnings, etc) To claim that the profit-motive is the only thing driving the new Space Age is to only see a small part of the movement. <br /><br />Is there money to be made/around Mars? Someday.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>> I have seen a tendency here from folks here at SDC to criticize NASA as overbloated, wanting only to develop new tech yet untested companies are going to do this or that when they say they will. The fact is, we won't know for certain how much of the human spaceflight work private enterprise will be willing to take over. If they see profit potential in going to the asteroids or the martian moons then it wil</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

JO5H:<br />LockMart's plans never produced a mass-fraction that would allow VentureStar to work as SSTO or Stage-and-a-Half. By the end of their viewgraph parade.<br /><br />Me:<br />I recall something along the lines that the mass fraction for getting a payload to orbit had not been demonstrated in any meaningful way. That has been the main problem with SSTOs. There were a bunch of SSTO proposals from the 1960s which essentially had to remain on paper till materials advances allowed for the weight of the vehicle to go down while propellant capacity went up.<br /><br />Guess they got close to achieving that in the 1990s, just not close enough.<br /><br />JO5H:<br />Lockmart had 50x the funding that Scaled Composites had for SS1, and never flew anything for X-33.<br /><br />Me:<br />While I realize you are aware of the difference in the Rutan/X33 concepts. Lockheeds vehicle was an orbital vehicle which while it might not necessarily have to cost 50 times more than the Rutan vehicle, it would cost more in any case. When Rutan begins building orbital craft, will see what his costs are.<br /><br />JO5H:<br />I think you might confuse private industry and private enterprise? There are plenty of private (and very wealthy) citizens ponying up money to make spaceflight happen, not all are looking directly for profits. People will go places for the adventure and other reasons (solitude, no beginnings, etc) To claim that the profit-motive is the only thing driving the new Space Age is to only see a small part of the movement.<br /><br />Me:<br />Your right in that profit is not the only thing motivating some and that profits are only part of the picture. I focus on that aspect because although profit may be a small part of the picture, it is the part that has to be there to keep people in the game. Otherwise, they would run out of investment capital before achieving whatever their goals are.<br /><br />JO5H:<br />To claim that the profit-motive is the only thing driving the new Space Age is to on <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[christine16]

Sorry folks, but poll isn't closed yet, couse i am thinking on new poll, so you can still vote <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />i hope to publish new poll today

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>While I realize you are aware of the difference in the Rutan/X33 concepts. Lockheeds vehicle was an orbital vehicle <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />X33 was not meant to be orbital, VentureStar was. Dont confuse the two.<br />And X33 fell far short of ever achieving SSTO performance in every stage in its short life.<br />Well, TBH, it fell short of ever achieving a flying capability too ..

 

[qso1]

Thanks.<br /><br />I got wrapped around the axle when referring to X-33 as Venture Star. But because it fell short. That was in part because it never got to be evolved into a flight test vehicle that could reach the goals. The main reason is something I call the cost barrier. Our best and brightest government contractor teams have not been able to break this barrier. NASA tried several approaches to replacing the shuttle and except for the Delta Clipper. All were killed by Administrations that ultimately balked at the costs.<br /><br />NASP became a technology research effort once it became apparent the costs were getting to the point where those controlling the purse strings decided it was too much to bear cost wise.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_X-30<br /><br />Shuttle "C". The most promising of the SDV concepts was axed. The wiki account is probably partly correct but the reason I saw in 1994 or so was that the cost of shuttle "C" missions were no less than manned shuttle flights because the anticipated flight rate of the "C" version was projected to be low. Still, shuttle "C" assembly missions for ISS would have been less expensive because less ISS construction flights would have been possible.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-C<br /><br />Delta Clipper (MDC version of X-33) lost out to the Locheed version of the X-33 despite the fact Delta Clipper was in flight test while the Lockheed X-33 was in CGI. Might Delta Clipper have been the answer? Guess will never really know unless it reemerges from private industry under a new name which IIRC, is already underway.<br /><br />From just these three examples. I have concluded NASA/contractors are not up to solving the CATS problem economically. Its now up to private industry/enterprise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[christine16]

Poll is closed now <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Here is new Poll <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br /> Is a Manned Mission to Mars worth Risk and Cost? The Poll is here, you can Vote or only see the Results

 

[qso1]

Thanks for the links. I just voted for manned Mars. I noticed 70% for and 30% not for a manned mars mission. But if one does an interview. I noticed they start off initially by supporting space until the costs come up. Then they generally resort to the false cost argument thats been in use since Apollo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>