Maybe we are not ready for beyond LEO

[DarkenedOne]

Alright everyone is thinking it but no one want to say it. Perhaps we are not ready to go beyond LEO. Our country is still in the mist of the most significant depression since 1930. Our government is being forced to cut budgets across the board. Right now does not appear to be the best time to be launching a large ambitious, yet total underfunded human spaceflight program beyond LEO. At the moment exploration beyond LEO is really just not in the cards. There is just not enough money to continue with the Constellation or any Constellation like architecture.

At the same time regardless of what some people have said we are not by any means done all there is to do in LEO. There are a few several things that we can do in LEO that would greatly advance exploration. Here are a few.

1. Gravity Space Station - A small spinning space station could be used to simulate gravity at various values. The scientific community has long awaited such a station. Such a station would provide invaluable data on long duration human spaceflight, as well as the effects of low gravity such as that of Mars on the human body.

2. Agricultural module - The ISS has made great contributions in our understanding of how plants grow in space. Using this information it would be great to take the next step and build a module for the space station dedicated to plant cultivation. Advancing this field and perfecting this technology would be invaluable to future human spaceflight.

3. Orbital Construction Yard - Personally I believe that orbital construction has great potential, but has been largely neglected. It holds the potential to allow us to build bigger space stations, space ships, and telescopes than could be launched on a rocket.

At the same time we should continue to work on new technologies such as VASIMR and closed-loop life support to provide us with cheaper and better access to deep space.

 

[pathfinder_01]

Alright everyone is thinking it but no one want to say it. Perhaps we are not ready to go beyond LEO. Our country is still in the mist of the most significant depression since 1930. Our government is being forced to cut budgets across the board. Right now does not appear to be the best time to be launching a large ambitious, yet total underfunded human spaceflight program beyond LEO. At the moment exploration beyond LEO is really just not in the cards. There is just not enough money to continue with the Constellation or any Constellation like architecture.

At the same time regardless of what some people have said we are not by any means done all there is to do in LEO. There are a few several things that we can do in LEO that would greatly advance exploration. Here are a few.

1. Gravity Space Station - A small spinning space station could be used to simulate gravity at various values. The scientific community has long awaited such a station. Such a station would provide invaluable data on long duration human spaceflight, as well as the effects of low gravity such as that of Mars on the human body.

2. Agricultural module - The ISS has made great contributions in our understanding of how plants grow in space. Using this information it would be great to take the next step and build a module for the space station dedicated to plant cultivation. Advancing this field and perfecting this technology would be invaluable to future human spaceflight.

3. Orbital Construction Yard - Personally I believe that orbital construction has great potential, but has been largely neglected. It holds the potential to allow us to build bigger space stations, space ships, and telescopes than could be launched on a rocket.

At the same time we should continue to work on new technologies such as VASIMR and closed-loop life support to provide us with cheaper and better access to deep space.

1. If bigloew and\or commercial crew succeed this becomes somewhat more possible. NASA could buy or modify components for the space station as needed instead of having to totally build and design the thing from scratch.

2. Growing plants in space I am mild about. Basically with current technology you could have preserved food for years. Plants are tricky; they die easy and are labor intensive. I think people will grow food in space but in the short term it will be for snacks rather than for main meals. They are too much hassle and distract from whatever mission the craft has. Now if you mean for colonization then I can see plants as being useful, but until there is an economic driver there will not colonization.


3. This I would agree with, but I think it may be a bit too soon for it. Once we have dozens of BEO mission or even just a half dozen reusable BEO craft then I can see the need. I think tugs equipped with robot arms and perhaps manned with airlock could suffice before then.

 

[zigi_24]

My idea is that NASA should become a private corporation, and other private companies like SpaceX, Bigelow, Virgin Galactic and other should merge into one big company for exp. Galaxy Corporation. I know it is not perfect analogy, but if we had NASA on one side and Galaxy on the other, it would be competition like Intel and AMD in computer world. I think this situation would be good for space exploration.

 

[rockett]

1. Gravity Space Station - A small spinning space station could be used to simulate gravity at various values. The scientific community has long awaited such a station. Such a station would provide invaluable data on long duration human spaceflight, as well as the effects of low gravity such as that of Mars on the human body.

It wouldn't have to be overly comlicated either (at least to start with). While the wheels and such are great grand ideas, they are prhibitively expensive in terms of upmass. Think simple, like Bigalow modules attached to a hub and spun up.

2. Agricultural module - The ISS has made great contributions in our understanding of how plants grow in space. Using this information it would be great to take the next step and build a module for the space station dedicated to plant cultivation. Advancing this field and perfecting this technology would be invaluable to future human spaceflight.

Great idea! Would we use natural sunlight or artificial? I could see a clear inflatable with water sandwitched between layers for radiation shielding.

3. Orbital Construction Yard - Personally I believe that orbital construction has great potential, but has been largely neglected. It holds the potential to allow us to build bigger space stations, space ships, and telescopes than could be launched on a rocket.

This AND orbital refueling depots are absolute necessities if we are ever going beyond LEO on a regular basis. We need go back to the original plans of people like Von Braun, taking things a step at a time. We have the ISS to start from, we had the shuttle. Those were 2 of the 3 steps along the way to beyond LEO exploration. Why are we stopping there? Have we simply forgotton? Or given up? Are we simply going to quit there before we are finished? It looks like it.

Lunar and interplanetary exploration is simply way too expensive to do in "one giant leap"...

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

We should always have a clear goal ahead of us to direct our space program, and it should be outside of LEO. No manned missions beyond LEO are coming up any time soon because we don't have the money. They plan things 10, 15, 20 years ahead of time and hope that the economic situation is better by then. The problem is that politicians can't seem to figure out what they want to do outside of LEO so instead of making tangible progress we are stagnating in the ISS. I agree we have a lot more to do in LEO but we shouldn't constrict ourselves to one thing at a time.

 

[rcsplinters]

Not ready? Of course we are, ready to start that is.

Lacking courage? Yeah, I think so. Lacking discipline in leadership? Absolutely. In fact, there is a total vacuum in leadership.

If you compare our readiness to the early 60's when Kennedy put us on the path to the moon, we are massively more ready that they were. They succeeded. We are planning for failure. Why? Lack of courage, lack of commitment, lack of leadership.

Commercial HSF pandering is a good example of that. Heck, that's nothing more than another business. If commercial space flight has a valid business model, it can survive on its own. But being saddled with starting a such a business is a HUGE distraction to NASA which is totally unnecessary and irresponsible. Spreading NASA film thin shows lack of commitment. They are forced to support every little special interest that comes along, like commercial space flight. Lack of leadership is clearly evident as no direction is demonstrated by the executive or NASA administration. Had these conditions existed in the 60's, Disney World would have been trying to get to orbit by duct taping multiple redstones together. Today it appears that our leadership's key mission will be boosting the SpaceX IPO past Mars while the nation remains on the ground. I guess that's heavy lift. Plus we must remember, SpaceX is just an example. NASA's budget looks like a toddlers Christmas list, long and incoherent.

There are clearly missions beyond LEO that we are FULLY capable of doing and advancing our tactical and operational readiness in both LEO and BEO at the sametime. You allocate the money for 2 - 3 decades in such a manner that the next grandstanding politician can't remake it in his own image. You design the booster (HLV) so folks know what their payload parameters must be (theres a reason all those box cars will run on the same track). You set your missions and time lines and you get to work. This is going to be hard. This is going to be massively expensive. This is going to be dangerous. Most importantly, this will make us a better nation.

Not ready? When did Americans start whining and wanting to quit. We're smarter and tougher than that.

Or so I thought.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Excellent post rc. Commercial spaceflight is a good idea I think, but that should not be NASA's top priority in manned spaceflight. Why are we relying on independent, private companies who worry only about the bottom line? I know their executives are inspired to get civilians into space but NASA should be the best spaceflight program in the world. You can moan about the shuttle all you want but the fact is that was the best LEO vehicle there has ever been. Now we are RETIRING this very useful vehicle with no clear alternatives! And when alternatives do come about it will be at least 5 or 6 years before we can start using them. NASA employs the smartest people from around the world, they shouldn't be forced to pander to private companies. They should be taking care of themselves. If you want Ares then fine, do Ares. But it should have been done where it would immediately replace the shuttle. Whose bright idea was it to force the shuttles into retirement YEARS before we have even made a sound decision on the next vehicle?

NASA's budget looks like a mess right now. The political situation looks confused and unorganized. I just hope when the dust settles we will be on track with a good "space taxi" and a mission that plans to take us BEO. If only we had a leader like JFK who was willing to make bold decisions and sacrifices.

 

[vulture4]

Whose bright idea was it to force the shuttles into retirement YEARS before we have even made a sound decision on the next vehicle?

That would be Republicans George W. Bush and Mike Griffin, who were bored with LEO and and wanted to play golf on Mars while cutting taxes. As a result of their lack of vision we now can't even get to LEO and the thousands of people that know how to maintain and safely fly reusable spacecraft (non of them NASA employees, by the way) is about to be fired, eliminating all that priceless experience and forcing us to start over from nothing. Don't forget that Bush and Griffin also tried to bring down the ISS in 2010, as soon as it was finished. Griffin shut down so much of the Shuttle infrastructure that it was impossible to save, although Obama at least saved the ISS from being trashed.

If only we had a leader like JFK who was willing to make bold decisions and sacrifices.

Apollo wasn't intended for exploration, it was a nonviolent substitute for nuclear war. Don't any of you remember we were were having air raid drills in New York? Kennedy was very clear on the goal of Apollo. "To send a man to the Moon and return him safely to the Earth." Period. End of story. NASA didn't listen and couldn't understand why public support collapsed after Apollo 11. Nixon cancelled Apollo in 1974 for a very simple reason. Sending people tot he Moon on throw-away rockets was much too expensive to be practical. It still is.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Not ready? Of course we are, ready to start that is.

Lacking courage? Yeah, I think so. Lacking discipline in leadership? Absolutely. In fact, there is a total vacuum in leadership.

If you compare our readiness to the early 60's when Kennedy put us on the path to the moon, we are massively more ready that they were. They succeeded. We are planning for failure. Why? Lack of courage, lack of commitment, lack of leadership.

Commercial HSF pandering is a good example of that. Heck, that's nothing more than another business. If commercial space flight has a valid business model, it can survive on its own. But being saddled with starting a such a business is a HUGE distraction to NASA which is totally unnecessary and irresponsible. Spreading NASA film thin shows lack of commitment. They are forced to support every little special interest that comes along, like commercial space flight. Lack of leadership is clearly evident as no direction is demonstrated by the executive or NASA administration. Had these conditions existed in the 60's, Disney World would have been trying to get to orbit by duct taping multiple redstones together. Today it appears that our leadership's key mission will be boosting the SpaceX IPO past Mars while the nation remains on the ground. I guess that's heavy lift. Plus we must remember, SpaceX is just an example. NASA's budget looks like a toddlers Christmas list, long and incoherent.

There are clearly missions beyond LEO that we are FULLY capable of doing and advancing our tactical and operational readiness in both LEO and BEO at the sametime. You allocate the money for 2 - 3 decades in such a manner that the next grandstanding politician can't remake it in his own image. You design the booster (HLV) so folks know what their payload parameters must be (theres a reason all those box cars will run on the same track). You set your missions and time lines and you get to work. This is going to be hard. This is going to be massively expensive. This is going to be dangerous. Most importantly, this will make us a better nation.

Not ready? When did Americans start whining and wanting to quit. We're smarter and tougher than that.

Or so I thought.

It is clear to me that I am not going to change your mind about commercial human space flight, so I am not going to try. It would be nice though if you could recognize that I as well as practically everyone else who supports the commercial crew program are doing so not because they are on SpaceX's payrole, but because we truly believe it is in the best interests of humans spaceflight. That includes all the volunteer space organizations including the Planetary Society and the National Space Society. It includes the Nobel Prize Laureates who protest the House bill. It includes former astronauts like Buzz Adrin. If you are interested in exactly why we believe it is best for human spaceflight you can find a good explanation here.
http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=23222

That being said there are clearly a number of special interests that are ruining humans spaceflight. The biggest of these at the moment are the senators and congressmen who believe NASA exists to provide their district with jobs and revenue. These people are forcing NASA to develop vehicles that have no use. The Orion is such a vehicle. Without the Ares I, Orion no longer has any purpose, thus there is no logical reason to keep developing it. Yet it seems that these people have gotten Obama to concede to developing it even though no one knows what to do with it. It seems that the Orion is destined to be just a $10 billion dollar paper weight without a ride into space.

Secondly your comparison to 50 years ago is flawed. NASA back then had 5% of the federal budget. Today it has about .5% of the federal budget. At the same time NASA has other costly commitments like the space shuttle and the space station that it did not have back then.

 

[emudude]

This is a topic which has frustrated me as well as perplexed me for many years. I can make this very simple for you: until we master nuclear fusion, there will not be access to space for the masses.

Thought experiment: let's say that the earth is flat in some other dimension; all you have to do to get into space is walk off the edge of the earth. There is no tremendous cost to venture out into the void, aside from one's life if one is not prepared for the vastly different physics existing in this place. All the technology of this world is precisely equivalent in sophistication to our own. This planar world is getting very crowded, however, so humanity has had to rethink the value of this infinite expanse, however hostile it is.

We transport massive amounts of materials in an increasingly integrated global economy every day. Were this scenario real, the colonization of space would be extremely simple, as almost no energy is required to get there, and we have the availability of our combined industrial might. We have created structures which tower over our world, and structures which delve to its depths, regardless of whether they be under water or under earth. Expanding into space with all of this material at our disposal would be incredibly simple: all the hypothetical space structures we have dreamed about suddenly become reality within a few years. All of these things would run off of conventional, inefficient electricity production technologies, such as coal burning.

While we struggle to power our civilization in a world where survival is as simple as taking one's next breath while enjoying a calm breeze, a future of exploration into the unknown reaches of space remains tantalizingly close with each technological advancement...yet the reality is harsh: launching a few thousand metric tons into space costs more than you will likely make in a lifetime.

Watch companies such as general fusion, and the ITER experiment: you can accurately measure the time until your flight into a new and incredible age takes off from your local starport.




:idea: I'm glad I'm only 23 years old...I plan on being up there with you all, gazing onto the pale blue dot one day.

 

[rcsplinters]

It is clear to me that I am not going to change your mind about commercial human space flight, so I am not going to try. It would be nice though if you could recognize that I as well as practically everyone else who supports the commercial crew program are doing so not because they are on SpaceX's payrole, but because we truly believe it is in the best interests of humans spaceflight. That includes all the volunteer space organizations including the Planetary Society and the National Space Society. It includes the Nobel Prize Laureates who protest the House bill. It includes former astronauts like Buzz Adrin. If you are interested in exactly why we believe it is best for human spaceflight you can find a good explanation here.
http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=23222

That being said there are clearly a number of special interests that are ruining humans spaceflight. The biggest of these at the moment are the senators and congressmen who believe NASA exists to provide their district with jobs and revenue. These people are forcing NASA to develop vehicles that have no use. The Orion is such a vehicle. Without the Ares I, Orion no longer has any purpose, thus there is no logical reason to keep developing it. Yet it seems that these people have gotten Obama to concede to developing it even though no one knows what to do with it. It seems that the Orion is destined to be just a $10 billion dollar paper weight without a ride into space.

Secondly your comparison to 50 years ago is flawed. NASA back then had 5% of the federal budget. Today it has about .5% of the federal budget. At the same time NASA has other costly commitments like the space shuttle and the space station that it did not have back then.

Dark, please. Convince me? I don’t think we’re here to convert people to space commercialism. This is merely a discussion and a place to express opinions regarding the space program. For myself, I’m trying to understand how events related to NASA will unfold after the chaos introduced this year.

There is always a reason not to do something difficult. Plenty of excuses and difficult problems. Heck, we never should have landed on the moon. That was really tough and scary too. Somebody could have died or there could have been an explosion on the way to the moon. Computers might have overloaded. We should’a stayed home where it was safe and we could have saved money too. Perfectly logical.

Thanks for making my point regarding commitment during the moon program. Yes, the nation was more financially committed some decades ago. It takes commitment to do the difficult thing which was my point. We lack commitment both financially and we are not focused. Things like creating an artificial business climate for start-ups distract NASA, diverting the funds they have to lesser tasks which are unworthy of their talent pool and totally out of scope. Again, this is a key ingredient for failure and defeat before you get started. Just spread your resources too thin. Works every single time.

And yes, commercial space flight has its advocates and its detractors. Both sides carry heavy credentials. But I don’t think you are advocating that decisions be made on star power. We’ll overlook that Mr Aldrin, a fine American hero, has considerable business interest in commercial options for humans in LEO. We overlook that because the other side of the coin has its own business interests. What we won’t overlook is the fact that Ms. Garver’s seed money represents a huge revenue stream which doesn’t require a product.

Let me finish by correcting you on a final point. I am a fan of commercial options for humans to LEO, actually. I wish it were available today. What I am against is the above seed money (Garver’s characterization by they way). NASA is spread far too thin and they don’t have nearly enough budget to accomplish their primary goals much less all the trivia on their plate. Commercial space flight is merely a business venture and has nearly nothing to do with space exploration. Apparently the business model is too weak to support the venture and the players are too risk averse to enter the market, hence the contrived need for seed money. So be it. Let the government help them, but from other budgets which are more appropriate. Better to have given money to SpaceX than GM, in my opinion and there are many, many more pots from which to pull the gold. NASA’s has too many hands reaching for theirs.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

My idea is that NASA should become a private corporation, and other private companies like SpaceX, Bigelow, Virgin Galactic and other should merge into one big company for exp. Galaxy Corporation. I know it is not perfect analogy, but if we had NASA on one side and Galaxy on the other, it would be competition like Intel and AMD in computer world. I think this situation would be good for space exploration.

This is a terrible idea. Let's get rid of the national space program and turn it into a big private company that is only seeking to make money and can flop at any time??? Are you serious??? I like the idea of commercial spaceflight as much as the next guy but there won't be any real space exploration unless we have NASA. The private companies are interested in LEO because we've been going there for decades with only a few problems. They will not take the risk of going to deep space unless a government organization with many resources under its belt can accomplish it first.

 

[SteveCNC]

I see handing LEO to private venture as helping NASA in the long run and so what they are doing is investing in their future by helping commercial now . What better way to develope new and better ways to do something than handing it to commercial , with all the red tape involved in the way NASA has to do business now it's a wonder anything new can come out of there . Commercial has far less red tape in what it does , there are no mandates included in their budget to spend certain amounts of money at certain places , all of their money is devoted to accomplishing it's goals unlike NASA .

 

[raptorborealis]

It's not a poll but my answer is 'none of the above'.

I don't work in the space sciences but i doubt if many of my colleagues in geology give a hoot about your options. Tens of billions spent on the glamour of puting a pair of boots in space.

In contrast, there is usually quite a bit of interest in probes, space telescopes, etc.

bottom line...don't confuse space science and science. the vast majoriy of sceintists would prefer that a thousandth of the money spent on manned flight would be put into their own field of study.

A warning: I lived during the Apollo landings. There was 'zip' interest by the public after Apollo 12.... zip. It was nothing to do with Nixon, Vietnam, politicians or other excuses...it was zip interest. Probably 98% of Americans could not name a post-Apollo astronaut.

There is a fantasy among manned space buffs that a 'great leader' will come along and stir the emotions of the American people to back a mission to Mars, etc. Hint. it isn't going to happen. in a democracy leaders live in the real world, with real problems, and are accountable to real people. If you want to put boots in space....then latch on to the cheapest, simplest, shortest range goal. Everything else is just talk and spinning wheels.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Dark, please. Convince me? I don’t think we’re here to convert people to space commercialism. This is merely a discussion and a place to express opinions regarding the space program. For myself, I’m trying to understand how events related to NASA will unfold after the chaos introduced this year.

There is always a reason not to do something difficult. Plenty of excuses and difficult problems. Heck, we never should have landed on the moon. That was really tough and scary too. Somebody could have died or there could have been an explosion on the way to the moon. Computers might have overloaded. We should’a stayed home where it was safe and we could have saved money too. Perfectly logical.

Thanks for making my point regarding commitment during the moon program. Yes, the nation was more financially committed some decades ago. It takes commitment to do the difficult thing which was my point. We lack commitment both financially and we are not focused. Things like creating an artificial business climate for start-ups distract NASA, diverting the funds they have to lesser tasks which are unworthy of their talent pool and totally out of scope. Again, this is a key ingredient for failure and defeat before you get started. Just spread your resources too thin. Works every single time.

And yes, commercial space flight has its advocates and its detractors. Both sides carry heavy credentials. But I don’t think you are advocating that decisions be made on star power. We’ll overlook that Mr Aldrin, a fine American hero, has considerable business interest in commercial options for humans in LEO. We overlook that because the other side of the coin has its own business interests. What we won’t overlook is the fact that Ms. Garver’s seed money represents a huge revenue stream which doesn’t require a product.

Let me finish by correcting you on a final point. I am a fan of commercial options for humans to LEO, actually. I wish it were available today. What I am against is the above seed money (Garver’s characterization by they way). NASA is spread far too thin and they don’t have nearly enough budget to accomplish their primary goals much less all the trivia on their plate. Commercial space flight is merely a business venture and has nearly nothing to do with space exploration. Apparently the business model is too weak to support the venture and the players are too risk averse to enter the market, hence the contrived need for seed money. So be it. Let the government help them, but from other budgets which are more appropriate. Better to have given money to SpaceX than GM, in my opinion and there are many, many more pots from which to pull the gold. NASA’s has too many hands reaching for theirs.

"NASA is spread far too thin and they don’t have nearly enough budget to accomplish their primary goals much less all the trivia on their plate."

That is what Commercial crew is all about. Commercial Crew is expected to cost $6 billion for multiple human launch systems to LEO based off existing and reliable commercial rockets. Ares I is expected to cost $40 billion according to the latest estimate. Commercial Crew is meant to replace the Ares I. That is $34 billion dollars saved.

This fear of approaching thing in a different way is exactly what is holding NASA back. Everyone who has looked at the Constellation program is has come to the same conclusion. NASA does not the money period.

All these initiatives including commercial crew, "game-changing" technologies, the robotic precusor mission they are all aimed at doing things cheaper.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Excellent post rc. Commercial spaceflight is a good idea I think, but that should not be NASA's top priority in manned spaceflight. Why are we relying on independent, private companies who worry only about the bottom line? I know their executives are inspired to get civilians into space but NASA should be the best spaceflight program in the world. You can moan about the shuttle all you want but the fact is that was the best LEO vehicle there has ever been. Now we are RETIRING this very useful vehicle with no clear alternatives! And when alternatives do come about it will be at least 5 or 6 years before we can start using them. NASA employs the smartest people from around the world, they shouldn't be forced to pander to private companies. They should be taking care of themselves. If you want Ares then fine, do Ares. But it should have been done where it would immediately replace the shuttle. Whose bright idea was it to force the shuttles into retirement YEARS before we have even made a sound decision on the next vehicle?

NASA's budget looks like a mess right now. The political situation looks confused and unorganized. I just hope when the dust settles we will be on track with a good "space taxi" and a mission that plans to take us BEO. If only we had a leader like JFK who was willing to make bold decisions and sacrifices.

The Shuttle has not been the best LEO vehicle. I will admit that it was the most capable vehicle. However it costs way to much, it was not nearly safe enough, and it was no where near reliable enough.

That is why we are retiring the Shuttle, and not building another one.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

NASA has always been about cutting edge technology. Even if this technology is not cost effective from an operational standpoint. Shuttle design is an example of what can go wrong from this approach when trying to produce low cost space transportation system. The exact opposite engineering principles were used in the design of the Soyuz. It was designed for robustness, low cost and high reliability. It has been around for 50 years and will probably be around for 20 more. The Shuttle has packed it in after 30 years because it is just too expensive to operate any more. It has always been too expensive to operate, but only now since it is not critical to the ISS it is no longer a must use. Otherwise it would have been retired 15 years ago.

The NLS in the 1990's was to replace it but just like Constellation it was cancelled by Washington who could not get past the question of "Why do we need a new launch vehicle?"

 

[vulture4]

Soyuz and Shuttle have each had 2 LOC incidents. Shuttle has had more flights, 132 vs 102 I think.Shuttle carries more than twice the crew and at least 20 times the payload of the Soyuz.

 

[MeteorWayne]

From ESA:

With a curriculum vitae that includes over 1700 manned and unmanned launches, the Soyuz rocket is the most frequently used launch vehicle in the world.

http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Delta_Mission/ ... ESD_0.html

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The Shuttle LOC incidents can be divided like this - 1 attributed to the launch vehicle (SRB)and 1 attribable to the crew vehicle (Orbiter). The Soyuz LOC incidents were both due to the crew vehicle not the launch vehicle, one a parachute failure and the other a stuck open valve that evacuated the crew space's air during return. The Soyuz launch vehicle not crew vehicle is considered to be the most reliable booster in use today. The Soyuz crew vehicle in use today is not the versions that experienced the failures. Since 1971 Soyuz 11 no loss has occured thats 90+ flights with no losses since.

 

[neutrino78x]

There is always a reason not to do something difficult. Plenty of excuses and difficult problems. Heck, we never should have landed on the moon. That was really tough and scary too. Somebody could have died or there could have been an explosion on the way to the moon. Computers might have overloaded. We should’a stayed home where it was safe and we could have saved money too. Perfectly logical.

The thing is, though, we had a national security interest in going to the moon in 1969. That interest does not exist in 2010.

Thanks for making my point regarding commitment during the moon program. Yes, the nation was more financially committed some decades ago. It takes commitment to do the difficult thing which was my point.

We were committed to defending ourselves against the Soviet Union. No similar threat exists today which would be mitigated by human missions BEO by NASA astronauts.

Commercial space flight is merely a business venture and has nearly nothing to do with space exploration.

It is a way to replace the Space Shuttle without relying on foreign nations. If you want NASA to focus their limited budget on BEO, it follows that NASA should not own the means to get into LEO.

--Brian

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

An interesting article on reliability: http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2001/03.html

It also states that US design philosophy of max performance minimum weight is the root of low reliability. Low cost robustness should be the design philosophy. There are exceptions in US history. Atlas was a mixture of design philosophies. The engines were of the max performance type but the structure was of the low cost robustness type. The Atlas structure was a stainless steel .023 to .032 inch thick stainless steel sheets that came in a large roll. A 31 foot piece would be cut off and electro spot welded into a loop. The loops would be welded to make the growing length of the tank structucture. The tank structure would be held in stretch to maintain shape since it wasn't able to hold preasure until finished. I saw the actual welding equipment made for making Atlas structures. It could have been completely automated so that a complete structure could have been manufactured in less than a day. The simi automated method still let them create an Atlas in less than a week with only ten people. It was a design aimed at mass production.

The structure was very robust. Stronger than all other US launch vehicles but actully weighing less. The Atlas tank weighed 3000 lbs. A little heilium tank went with the vehicle every where the tank went to keep it under preasuure to maintain shape. Without the preasure the tank would collapse like a ballon, hense its structure name balloon tank.

Another exception is the F-1 engine. There were several other Appolo engines designed for robustness to get high reliability. The F-1 engine was designed and under test by the USAF before the Apollo program even started.

 

[vulture4]

>>It also states that US design philosophy of max performance minimum weight is the root of low reliability.<<
This is one of the most important published papers in the field of launch vehicle design, and everyone who is interested int he field should read it carefully. but I-Shih Chang's seminal study "Launch Vehicle Reliability" doesn't say that design for low weight and maximum performance is the root of low reliability. The relevant sentence is "Launch vehicles should be designed for low cost in manufacturing, operations, materials, and processes rather than for maximum performance or minimum weight.". In this particular section he is actually discussing minimizing operational cost.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

>>It also states that US design philosophy of max performance minimum weight is the root of low reliability.<<
This is one of the most important published papers in the field of launch vehicle design, and everyone who is interested int he field should read it carefully. but I-Shih Chang's seminal study "Launch Vehicle Reliability" doesn't say that design for low weight and maximum performance is the root of low reliability. The relevant sentence is "Launch vehicles should be designed for low cost in manufacturing, operations, materials, and processes rather than for maximum performance or minimum weight.". In this particular section he is actually discussing minimizing operational cost.

Actually it is in the section "Enhancing Launch Reliability".

 

[rockett]

It is a way to replace the Space Shuttle without relying on foreign nations. If you want NASA to focus their limited budget on BEO, it follows that NASA should not own the means to get into LEO.

Why they should be mutually exclusive escapes me. :?