Jeffrey Bell Questions

[radarredux]

Jeffrey Bell's latest op-ed piece makes a couple of claims that I was wondering if someone could confirm:<br /><br />http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/oped-06a.html<br /><br />Claims (specific or implied):<br /><br />(1) ISS's Control Moment Gyros (CMG) are too large to be delivered by anything other than the Shuttle (apparently including any planned future delivery vehicles).<br /><br />(2) Because CMGs cannot be delivered post shuttle retirement (and the fact that CMGs fail), the ISS's lifetime will be limited following retirement of the shuttle.<br /><br />(3) The modified CEV size (e.g., diameter from 5.5m to 5.0m) allows it to be launched on a wider rangle of launch vehicles, including EELVs.<br /><br />Any comments on the veracity of these claims?

 

[shoogerbrugge]

points 1 and 2 have been known for some time. But I've seen no proper sollution to them, other then to stock them before retirement of the shuttle. <br /><br />Only lessons for the future can be learned. When designing in orbit or other space vehicles, better makes sure there is a single universal docking system and that all parts that can break down in and outside the vehicle can fit through the docking compartment.<br /><br />I've got another question, which engines in Russia used Methane. From the top of my head I can't think of any....

 

[CalliArcale]

As to the first one, the CMGs wouldn't fit through a Soyuz hatch, but they would probably fit through an ATV's hatch, since those are supposed to dock to the same place as the MPLMs, if I'm not mistaken. Getting it outside the station would be challenging, though. You might have to turn a Node into a huge airlock to do it, and that might not be possible without powering down a segment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

I read the piece last nite, I can't believe it, but I actually agree with most of Bell's conclusions. He's normally a flaming nutjob (imagine Rick Tumlinson on no sleep and to much coffee), but he is spot-on with that article.<br /><br /><br /> /> (1) ISS's Control Moment Gyros (CMG) are too large to be delivered by anything other than the Shuttle (apparently including any planned future delivery vehicles).<br /><br />Yes, AFAIK. I think they also need to be mounted externally (not sure). If so, the delivery vehicle needs to be of a "pallette" instead of tube. <br /><br /> /> (2) Because CMGs cannot be delivered post shuttle retirement (and the fact that CMGs fail), the ISS's lifetime will be limited following retirement of the shuttle.<br /><br />Bell makes a decent case that Mike Griffin is maneuvering to ditch STS and ISS in one swoop. CMGs are actually failing faster than expected, and there is no current way to fly them. <br /><br /> /> (3) The modified CEV size (e.g., diameter from 5.5m to 5.0m) allows it to be launched on a wider rangle of launch vehicles, including EELVs. <br /><br />Yes, which should have been the plan all along. Delta IV is heavily under-utilized currently.<br /><br />Anyone that reads this, I want to apologize for pushing Thiokol's VSE on the forum. I thought it was the only way to get a commitment for Mars. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[shoogerbrugge]

Calli<br /><br />Not too sure about the place where the ATV would dock, but I believe ESA uses Russian technology for docking and I seem to remember that the ATV will dock at Pirs and not PMA's used by the shuttle.

 

[j05h]

> ... but they would probably fit through an ATV's hatch, since those are supposed to dock to the same place as the MPLMs, if I'm not mistaken.<br /><br />They changed ATV to use APAS some years ago, maybe to simplify using Russian docking electronics? HTV (japan) would have CBM docking mechanisms, if it ever flies.<br /><br />Numbers: CMG is 48 inches diameter and via a JAXA page it looks like the CBM is 1.3 meters/50.6 inches. Not sure if that's diagonal or across, but it'd be a REALLY tight fit through that hatch, if at all possible.<br /><br />Josh<br /><br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

ATV won't dock at the CMG? Darn. That doesn't just bode ill for large external components. Right now, the MPLMs are the only way to haul up the big experiment racks for Destiny. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

I don't agree that much with Bell, but he's right on the money. It appears that Griffin has become wise to the plans of Thiokol (of course, they make money on the EELV strap-ons, too). "DITCH THE STICK"!!!!!!

 

[yurkin]

3<br />I doubt changing the fairing size has anything to do with launching the CEV on an EELV. For one thing that was always an option to begin with and if they were to go with that they would have gone and done it last year. I suspect it has more to do with increasing the overall capabilities of the CEV.<br /><br />1&2<br />Wasn’t there some iteration of ISS that had a thruster module. The thruster module would have had the gyros on it. In any case I’m sure its possible to design a CMG that can be delivered through the Soyuz or CEV.<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

The Russians aren't about to let their space-station de-orbit just because NASA drops the ball. The Russians are already discussing taking over ISS operations should NASA bail out.<br /><br />The announced reduction of the diameter of the CEV's crew module from 5.5 to 5 meters has more to do with fitting the expected mass of the CEV (which absent resizing would grow because of the abandonment of methane fuel) within the payload limits of 'the shaft' CLV than with fitting the CEV within the payload limits of a heavy EELV. I'm sure NASA will take care to keep the CEV too heavy for the EELV since that was the main justification for using 'the shaft' instead of the EELV in the first place.

 

[erioladastra]

HTV has an external payload option that will support CMGs. The bigger problem is that right now there are now spares.

 

[erioladastra]

"The Russians aren't about to let their space-station de-orbit just because NASA drops the ball. The Russians are already discussing taking over ISS operations should NASA bail out."<br /><br />The Russians talk a lot but the reality is that it not really possible. Russia could not afford to pay the US to run it and you can't just hand it over to Russia with a manual and say here you go.

 

[mlorrey]

Bull, they are already doing everything half the time anyways. They've proven they are the low price bidder on modules (several "US" modules were built by the Russians), so turning ISS development over to Russia might not be a bad idea. We'd see a lot more tourism there, the Russians are getting more free market oriented than NASA is. I hear the Russians complain how overly bureaucratic NASA is, that is like the British describing another culture as 'very polite': you know they know what they are talking about.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The Russians talk a lot but the reality is that it not really possible. Russia could not afford to pay the US to run it and you can't just hand it over to Russia with a manual and say here you go. "<br /><br />The ISS is more Russian than American. And as for 'talk' it is the Russians that keep the ISS from de-orbiting today and not NASA. NASA has only flown two shuttle flights in the last three years. In the same time Russia has sent a dozen flights to the ISS.

 

[john_316]

I have said all along that NASA should look at the Delta HLV and the Atlas HLV as co-operative launch vehicles for the CEV.<br /><br />The Stick (CLV) could become the Cargo Transport Vehicle (CTV) with a pressurized and unpressurised rocket like Progress with more internal weight and volume.<br /><br />They could always build and supply a modified CEV with a larger SM and a robot arm to help piece the ISS together or use it for anything else constructive.<br /><br />The 5 meter fairing for both the CEV should be also looked at if they desided to launch a new module to the ISS. They could always built a 5m module and lauch on a MLV or HLV.<br /><br />I think it is wise to start looking at man-rating Delta and Atlas HLV's for CEV/CTV<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I hate to admit that Jeffery bell may be right in this case in order to get the funding going for the VSE...<br /><br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

>>NASA has only flown two shuttle flights in the last three years. In the same time Russia has sent a dozen flights to the ISS<<<br /><br />Which is why Nasa should get back to capsules (CEV) A.S.A.P. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Mr Bell, as he's usually done before, is taking the worst-case scenario viewpoint of what's going to happen. But once you bare that in mind, I don't find a lot of fault in what he's said. I've always believed that a 3-core Atlas V Heavy would be a decent alternative for a CEV launcher. And going with a 5-segment SRB with J-2S powered upper stage should have been the design all along, so as to ensure commonality with the Heavy Lifter (Hercules?).<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

>ATV won't dock at the CMG? Darn. That doesn't just bode ill for large external components. Right now, the MPLMs are the only way to haul up the big experiment racks for Destiny.<br /><br />ATV can't use the Common Berthing Mechanism, no. I agree that it is a stupid oversight- they could at least have planned for CBM dockings eventually. Lacking delivery of CMGs is a real problem, IMHO. Russia can't afford 2+ extra progress flights (xtra fuel) right now, CMGs keep failing. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

D'oh! I meant "CBM" and said "CMG". I guess I was thinking too much about those gyros. I'm glad you were able to figure out what the heck I was blithering about anyway. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

I have two questions concerning the whole EELV controversy.<br /><br />First, why WOULDN'T the U.S. want to develop a new launch vehicle? NASA isn't trying to take any business away from Boeing and Lock-Mart. They aren' trying to nationalize satelite launches like in the early shuttle era. The Atlas and Delta aren't going to go away. Yes, Boeing or Lock-Mart won't be able to corner the market. So what, they haven't exactly wowed me with their space tech expertise over the past few years. And a new class of launch vehicle will spur competition and technical innovation, not to mention having much better future growth potential. <br /><br />Second, the whole "We already manufacture them for satellite launching so it will be much cheaper." argument. This assumes that if NASA went with say the Atlas launch vehicle for the CEV it will be cheaper for NASA and will bring down the launch costs for other customers since Lock-Mart will be churning out more of them. The problem with this is that old bugaboo of "man-rating". Man-rating isn't just a rubber stamp like getting a building permit. You actually have to install sensors and software to detect problems and initiate aborts. Increase reliability. Modify flight profiles, etc, etc. By the time Lock-Mart does all of this won't it just end up INCREASING the cost of an Atlas launch for all customers?<br /><br />I was not a big fan of the "Stick" concept when it was first proposed, in fact I thought it was pretty ludicrous! But after studying the evolving proposals for more than a year now I think it really has the potential to be safest, most flexible launch system yet developed. Modern solid boosters are in many ways much more sophisticated than liquids. All US ICBMs are now solid fueled and there is some precedent for the Stick in the Titan IV which launched with solid boosters only. The liquid fuel core didn't ignite until the solids were almost burnt out.<br /><br />Also the SDLV family seems to be the only practical path to a HLLV

 

[ragnorak]

<br />Europe's ATV has always been planned to use the Russian docking system and dock at the Russian ports not the US ones. No APAS in sight. <br /><br />As for EELV launching CEV. Its not as simple as just diameters and this is where Bell is wrong. The launch trajectory for unmanned spacecraft is far harsher in terms of g loads experienced than a manned launch. The trajectory also has to be different to ensure that g loads, in the event of an aborted launched, don't kill the occupants. There would have to be a huge amount of changes to EELVs as well just for man rating needs, let alone trajectory flexibility.<br /><br />The lunar CEV is a 35t vehicle as well and I don't think today's EELVs can do that and they would have to have more powerful engines. More fun for man rating.

 

[kdavis007]

Ah Jeffery Bell... The king of girly man who supports robots in space only...

 

[mattblack]

Robots have had most of the glory and fun for the last 30 years. Since Apollo, probes have flown to the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, one's on the way to Pluto, there's been probes to asteroids and comets, there's been several "flavours" of space telescope..... Show me where unmanned spaceflight has had it so bad these last three decades?!!<br /><br />What's manned spaceflight had? Soyuz, Shuttle and years-behind space stations; ALL in low Earth orbit.<br /><br />It's manned spaceflight's turn! Bring on the Big Dumb Boosters, CEVs and lunar landers. It's party time!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[john_316]

What major changes does an EELV Heavy need to have to accomadate human crews? I dont think the Atlas is any better than Delta (I think other way around) but thats an opinion.<br /><br />There are already 5m fairing derived so thats one for the things going and the mating adapter wouldn't cost a billion to change or alter as they have various designs from several launch vehicles to look at.<br /><br />So whats stopping them from actually going and placing all these sensors and an inert CEV capsule design in a EELV Heavy configuration with a LES and flying a launch or two to verify the systems. if the g loads are satifactory then the vehicle should be man rated. I dont believe that it will cost much more than to recertify the stick which they will have to do as well. Am I correct here?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[toymaker]

The costs of robotic missions are tiny compared to manned spaceflight. <br />And they bring results and progress.<br /><br />"It's manned spaceflight's turn! Bring on the Big Dumb Boosters, CEVs and lunar landers. It's party time!!!"<br />Good description. Such endevour's are as worthy as a party, with hangover as a consequence.<br />And of course the question : what was it for ? <br />Nothing besides fun of course.