Human Exploration Framework Team slides

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rcsplinters

Guest
I haven't seen this referenced on space.com, but it seems to be a very interesting read. To give credit where its due, I found the link in a thread on http://www.nasaspaceflight.comThe link to the PDF file can be found on http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/09/human-explorati.html. There's a lot of information in that deck of slides. I hope you enjoy the read. Wayne, my apologies if I haven't properly attributed the other sites. This just seemed very relevent to the readership here.

While I haven't fully read it, let me offer some thoughts. First, this is NOT approved, funded or or actionable by NASA. This is truely a PDF fueled plan at this time. I think it does give some insight as to what NASA's planners are thinking in the current political climate and I've been eager to understand that. I think the proposal has things in it to make all of us both happy and disappointed. Some one liners I got from the first pass:

Commercial Crew - Yes, sort'a. Federal seed money dries up in 2015. NASA Orion derivation will be the BEO crew launch capsule preferably but not necessarily with commercial launch.

No NASA developed ISS crew vehicle. Reading between the lines, I bet "Orion" makes a visit at some point for testing and shake down. However, ISS transport will become the domain where commercial operations cuts its teeth. Best of luck to them in that mission and they must succeed or this plan has a huge hole.

NASA is exiting the HSF in LEO mission profile except for testing. This is a bitter pill for me to swallow but I'll get over it.

HLV is a certainty if BEO is ever to take place. HLV design starts next year. There was never any reason to wait, but we knew that already. My thought is GO! Now!

Solids will be a key part of the HLV.

In space electrically powered propulsion seems to be a very desirable component.

The deck does a good job of outlining high level logistics of BEO operations.

This program is MASSIVE, complex and profoundly expensive. Its also flexible, doesn't lock itself into a single mission profile (my favorite part) and appears to be comprehensive and logical. I think NASA leading many partners is the ONLY way something like this could ever work. No other organization on the planet could pull this off.

In summary, I personally think this plan or something like it is the only viable path to BEO crewed exploraton. There are other options to do it on the "cheap" but they are pretty much dead end missions. Something similar to this could carry us forward for decades in terms of hardware capability and logistics. Ultimately I think we as a nation must decide to do this, do something very similar or do nothing at all. For myself, I'm all in and for this and this alone, you can raise my taxes.
 
P

pathfinder_01

Guest
I read it. Mixed review here. No small intermediate goals here. System meets goal in 2031! I don’t think so. It is CxP attempting to do out do its budget.

No fan of shuttle derived heavy lift, but in the plan I don’t see how heavy lift is helping much besides eating the budget. None of the pieces mass more than 25 tons dry. This is within the range of current EELV and yet they recommend that a heavy lift be used so that they can launch it nine times between 2018 and 2031! I doubt the ISS will need a 100 ton delivery and I can’t think of any purpose besides exploration that would need it.

They seem to have over optimized for mission success rather than cost. I mean there are nine elements that need to be launched. A smaller HLV could launch them and would likely cost less and better yet KSC wouldn’t be sitting idle for years in between launches. Even if you had to launch nine times with a rocket of 98% success, you would still stand an 83% chance of mission success and better yet one launch failure would not likely be as destructive. I do see some need for heavy lift but less than what they want.

They also assume that SEP stage can’t return to LEO to pick up another cargo. I do understand the issues with radiation and solar panels but this assumption could be in error and would further reduce your need for Heavy lift. They do need to see if this is possible because this could lead to cost savings. Even if you panels are degraded they might still have enough life in them to power moving a lighter object.

They give commercial cargo/crew minimal role in this plan. They are willing to develop an Orion entry only (for whatever reason) but not one for the ISS. I would think that they would want to at least share the capsule with the ISS and put the differences between a CRV Orion and an exploration Orion in the service module or other attached modules. I also didn’t see any attempts at looking for international partners or even if commercial has something that might be useful or adaptable for the roles.

I think this plan needs MAJOR revision. It has got zero chance of getting administration backing and so far congress has only signed off on the SDHLV and somewhat Orion. They have not signed off on any goals or other craft and there is nothing much you can do with this stuff in between.
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
rcsplinters":235yslsi said:
I haven't seen this referenced on space.com, but it seems to be a very interesting read. To give credit where its due, I found the link in a thread on http://www.nasaspaceflight.comThe link to the PDF file can be found on http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/09/human-explorati.html. There's a lot of information in that deck of slides. I hope you enjoy the read. Wayne, my apologies if I haven't properly attributed the other sites. This just seemed very relevent to the readership here.

While I haven't fully read it, let me offer some thoughts. First, this is NOT approved, funded or or actionable by NASA. This is truely a PDF fueled plan at this time. I think it does give some insight as to what NASA's planners are thinking in the current political climate and I've been eager to understand that. I think the proposal has things in it to make all of us both happy and disappointed. Some one liners I got from the first pass:

Commercial Crew - Yes, sort'a. Federal seed money dries up in 2015. NASA Orion derivation will be the BEO crew launch capsule preferably but not necessarily with commercial launch.

No NASA developed ISS crew vehicle. Reading between the lines, I bet "Orion" makes a visit at some point for testing and shake down. However, ISS transport will become the domain where commercial operations cuts its teeth. Best of luck to them in that mission and they must succeed or this plan has a huge hole.

NASA is exiting the HSF in LEO mission profile except for testing. This is a bitter pill for me to swallow but I'll get over it.

HLV is a certainty if BEO is ever to take place. HLV design starts next year. There was never any reason to wait, but we knew that already. My thought is GO! Now!

Solids will be a key part of the HLV.

In space electrically powered propulsion seems to be a very desirable component.

The deck does a good job of outlining high level logistics of BEO operations.

This program is MASSIVE, complex and profoundly expensive. Its also flexible, doesn't lock itself into a single mission profile (my favorite part) and appears to be comprehensive and logical. I think NASA leading many partners is the ONLY way something like this could ever work. No other organization on the planet could pull this off.

In summary, I personally think this plan or something like it is the only viable path to BEO crewed exploraton. There are other options to do it on the "cheap" but they are pretty much dead end missions. Something similar to this could carry us forward for decades in terms of hardware capability and logistics. Ultimately I think we as a nation must decide to do this, do something very similar or do nothing at all. For myself, I'm all in and for this and this alone, you can raise my taxes.
rcsplinters - While I have disagreements with this plan it is a good one. Unfortunately it would never happen with NASA. It involves the use of powerful and ambitious new technologies like electric-propulsion. It has become painfully clear to me that NASA has abandoned all their efforts into advanced technology for manned spaceflight.

They had two programs to develop this type of technology. It was called VASIMR and HIPEP. Both were cancelled.
 
S

sftommy

Guest
It has become painfully clear to me that NASA has abandoned all their efforts into advanced technology for manned spaceflight.
Not NASA, but Congress that mandated fundamental technology development be replaced by a BIG ROCKET
House Sceince Committee seems to see tech-dev as an wasteful expense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY