New ESAS warns VSE is becoming 2-man, 7-day Lunar missions

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

starfhury

Guest
Yes. But the question is whether or not it was a sound plan or not? So basically we are going back to the plan of the 60's because then as now NASA was not given the budget to complete it's original 70's plan. Essentially that puts us 30+ years behind. And if ESAS goes forward, we will be 60 maybe 70 years behind what should have happened in the 70's. Ouch! No wonder some people in the private industry are so digusted as to take up the challenge themselves. Congress and NASA have bungled it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
If... and it's a big if at this point.<br /><br />But if "Congress and NASA have bungled it", then what this means is that NASA has created a easier target for private industry to overtake.<br /><br />NASA has already stated that if private industry provides superior solutions to what it's doing, they would start financing those private solutions.<br /><br />I think that means that if SpaceX is able to provide the equivalent launch capability of a NASA heavy lift vehicle and they can prove that it is safe and reliable, then NASA might just start buying launches from SpaceX instead of doing it itself.<br /><br />This is a win-win situation.<br /><br />NASA gets a cheaper solution.<br /><br />SpaceX gets a reliable customer.
 
J

john_316

Guest
Ok I had enough!!!!!<br /><br /><br />ESAS is just another POLITICAL ploy Just like Daddy did in the day when he said he wanted to goto Mars before 2030.<br /><br />Its all a Joke! When we can stop getting back room dealing politicians and gas company price gouging out of this administration we would have something to work with.<br /><br />I tell you all what. If I win the Powerball and get $100 million then I'll run for President. If you all vote for me then we will have a space program and BIG OIL will pay for it!!!!<br /><br />I am tired of Private little wars abroad at taxpayers expense and I am also tired of paying for people overseas to stop getting AIDS and giving billions upon billions to who? You tell me who gets this money? It sure isnt the the vaccine maker who has to make the vaccines to help those AIDS patients live another 20 years.<br /><br />Its all a farse and the sooner we get our asses out of Iraq and Bush out of the White House the better it will be. I am a Reaganite but this Administration is totally blindsiding the public and John Kerry wouldnt have done any better.<br /><br />I am beginning to think that if we would have just strategically bombed Iraq rather invade a "then civil war" would have ousted Saddam.<br /><br />This war is drain on the economy just like ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!!! I do not support the Presidente on this crap and alot of people I think feel the same way. Screw the UN and the people overseas who deem to think we owe them something.<br /><br />Drill in Alaska elect me your President in 2008! I will bring the troops home. I will nuke Iran before I invade it "wont need too" and we will start a massive enterprise to get our nation another 10-15 years ahead in technology by building solar arrays, wind farms, alternate fuels such as bio-diesel, and swag grass powerplants, a couple of new nuke plants and we bury the waste in Iraq or Iran. Better yet in Saudi Arabia......<br /><br />This ESAS was all a fasade to trip all of us up... I think Jeffery Be
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"(sorry maybe more for free space)"<br /><br />Yes. Delete it and repost it in free space. <br /><br /><br />And it's facade not fasade!
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"Hey, this is a little off topic,but what are the projected cabin dimensions of the CEV/LSAM?"<br /><br />At previously the LSAM's cylindrical-cabin external dimensions were 3 meters by 5 meters, and an internal living volume of 32 cubic meters (the Apollo LM had about 5.5). The CEV's conical Crew Module presently has an external base diameter of 5 meters, and an internal living volume of 24 cubic meters (the Apollo CM had about 6.5).
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"I've said on this and other forums that losing the LOX/Methane technology would bite them in the ass one day: big time. I have to say that while the L2 concept opens up some interesting operational possibilities and truly takes the crews into "deep space", the "Walmart" lander concept gives me the creeps,..."<br /><br />The biggest driver of the recent problems is an inexplicable change from the original 30-day loiter of the EDS stage in LEO to a 95-day loiter. WTF? The added boiloff from extended loiter of the Earth-Departure-Stage greatly cuts the TLI payload. And does the extended loiter drive the LSAM descent stage to use storable propellants in place of the original LOX/LH2? The LSAM descent stage and the original high ISP engines were key to achieving the performance goals of the lunar-architecture.
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"I wonder if the Bigelow Nautilus habitat module could be used on the lunar surface. It weighs around 25 tons."<br /><br />The orginal LSAM cargo lander was said to have the ability to land 21 tonnes of cargo (such as a hab) on the surface of the moon. The modified 'walmart lander' would only be a fraction of the original cargo.
 
E

edkyle98

Guest
ESAS was just what its title said it was - an architecture study. It laid out a general plan. Now the engineering groups are trying to make a detailed plan, a plan that they can ultimately spell out in a Request for Proposals to contract bidders. During this process, they will find issues with the original broad ESAS plan. This is not unusual or surprising. The engineering groups will then study possible solutions. The recent report at nasaspaceflight.com was a peak at just one of those option studies. <br /><br />No big deal. This is what engineers do. There will be solutions.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There will be solutions. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> Does not seem to be the case. More likely, there will be more studies upon studies of studies. Need Another Slideshow Architecture ? be our guest .. thats what we get paid for
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
It's hard to build re-useable launch vehicles, NASA's been trying for over a decade and finally gave up - mostly because congress isn't willing to fund one through to completion. <br /><br />There are other ways to build infrastructure to make space activities easier though. Fuel depots in LEO and LL2 would allow fuel to be delivered in the cheapest manner available - including solar electric propulsion to LL2. These would allow the RL-10 or J-2X to be used for every move except the lunar ascent. Once a lunar base is set up, one could be landed there to exploit ISRU and allow for LH2/LOX to be used on all legs of lunar missions. <br /><br />This route of development would be far cheaper than a RLV, yet it would also reduce launch costs by providing economies of scale for commercial launchers. The EELVs cost nearly twice what was predicted because they're running at half the intended flightrate. A strong, price sensitive demand for launch services would encourage commercial development of useful RLVs eventually, far better than an economically agnostic government program.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
By the way, Jeffry Bell has picked up on this conversation and has written an op-ed piece on it.<br /><br />http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Vision_For_Space_Exploration_Facing_Critical_Juncture.html<br /><br />What I like about the article is his summary of how every change in one place affects something else. Switch to a less expensive engine, get less ISP. With less ISP, you need more fuel. With more fuel, you need to make rockets taller or wider. You can't make the rockets taller because of the current assembly buildings. You can't make the rockets wider because of existing tooling. Etc. Etc.<br /><br />Whether you agree with his conclusions/recommendations or not, I think he does a good job of summarizing the issues.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">It's hard to build re-useable launch vehicles, NASA's been trying for over a decade and finally gave up - mostly because congress isn't willing to fund one through to completion.</font>/i><br /><br />Besides Congress's fickle nature, the other issue is that every time we turned around the cost of ISS or Shuttle operations kept blowing holes in projected budgets, so budgets for replacement systems kept getting cancelled or reduced to pay the current bills.<br /><br />This is why many of us describe STS/ISS as "eating its young".</i>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
You know you only get what you pay for in life! Even pure commercial interests can't put a simple communications satellite up into a GEO orbit for under $200 million. And you want somebody to put human beings on the moon for some $200 million per each! <br /><br />Can you please stop it with the humor here! <br /><br />It is still far too early in the development cycle to even truly nail down what this sort of thing is going to eventually cost! <br /><br />You may not be entirely wrong here however, if congress does this program the same way they did the shuttle we might just as well give up on ever going out further than LEO until pure private profit making efforts can do it! However, if this happens the time frame is going to be at least three times as long.<br /><br />The only people that even stand a chance of doing this at all are Burt Rutan and his people. Oh, I know there is spacex, but right now they had just better concentrate on getting ANY kind of a successful rocket off! <br /><br />That really only leaves Rutan as the only successes full private type in the business at this time. He has already stated that it will be 2008 before he can get a true passenger carrying rocket going to just sub-orbital space! Then what he and Virgin Galactic have to do is to not only demonstrate reliability, but almost as importantly profitability! This is going to take several years of successful flight at least. <br /><br />In the meantime the Air Force and certain other countries are investigating the realm of hypersonic flight, which is the eventual key to true lifting body types of craft to get us to and from LEO in safety and comfort (don't forget comfort, if you can't offer comfort to relatively well healed passengers, you are going to have no profitability here)!<br /><br />Under these circumstances I would have to pick a time frame of at least 2015-2020 before we have a pure private efforts that place large amounts of paying passengers into LEO. Then building space st
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
Why all the emphasis on "purely private" all the time (not picking on anyone in particular--just in general). Trucking companies operate over government funded interstate highways. Railroads were granted rights of way, airlines are subsidized. And of course any business depends on customers and employees getting to it over public roads. We are all protected by publicly funded police forces and fire departments. Even those paragons of self reliance the--the pioneers of the American West built homesteads that were protected from natives by the American government (either by clearing off the Indians beforehand by force, buying the land and moving the native populations, or just letting the homesteaders build and fighting off any natives who resisted.) Can anyone even define the term "pure private" for me? Why do we think space travel has to be either government run or "purely private" with nothing in between? Why do private companies struggle to build "purely private" rockets when we already have 70+ years of rocket development under our belts? Because that research is "tainted" with the stigma of "government project"? (That issue was my biggest problem with the whole X-prize).
 
B

bwhite

Guest
<i>There are other ways to build infrastructure to make space activities easier though. Fuel depots in LEO and LL2 would allow fuel to be delivered in the cheapest manner available - including solar electric propulsion to LL2. These would allow the RL-10 or J-2X to be used for every move except the lunar ascent. Once a lunar base is set up, one could be landed there to exploit ISRU and allow for LH2/LOX to be used on all legs of lunar missions.</i><br /><br /><br />How would a fuel depot deal with boil off issues?
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">How would a fuel depot deal with boil off issues?</font>/i><br /><br />One interesting approach is to ship water and use solar panels to generate electricity to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. I am sure there are showstoppers in the plan, but I do find it interesting.</i>
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Guys - want to let you know that I'm pulling the article off site.<br /><br />I've been talking to some high up types at NASA and the info was way too sensistive to run. Also, given it's a constantly changing study, its something that is time sensitive (thus becomes inaccurate in parts).<br /><br />So we've agreed to pull it on that basis, with some approved follow-ups to come (which I'll be happier with as they'll be quote based from the people involved).<br /><br />We're a new site, we're still learning what we can and can't run and I hope you understand that we want to work with NASA and their contractors, not against them, hense this process.<br /><br />Anyway, wanted to let you know in person why the scans have been removed, ahead of the notice I'll attach to the article soon.<br /><br />Chris.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Must remember to keep changing my sig line when launch dates slip!
 
J

josh_simonson

Guest
Electrolysis and reliquification are both requirements of a fuel depot infrastructure. A LL2 depot would probably have to receive shipments as H2O to avoid boiloff issues when using SEP to get fuel there. <br /><br />Electrolysis on the LEO one would enable fuel cells to provide large amount of continuous power and also simplify fuel shipments. Hard to beat a tank of water or ice for simplicity. <br /><br />Electrolysis and (re)liquification are absolute requirements to the use of in-situ H20 or O2.<br /><br />A fuel depot prototype would be an ideal mini-module for the ISS. Plenty of power available there to run it through it's paces, and then it could use waste water for orbital reboost with a small LH2/LOX engine like the RL-10.
 
B

bwhite

Guest
<i>Electrolysis and reliquification are both requirements of a fuel depot infrastructure. A LL2 depot would probably have to receive shipments as H2O to avoid boiloff issues when using SEP to get fuel there.</i><br /><br />Electrolysis is energy hungry, no? Lots and lots of solar panels or space nukes. Not that I oppose that, its just more mass to lift and money.<br /><br />What about shipping LiH to LL2 along with the H2O and react the LiH with the H2O to release H2? A fringe benefit would be an endless supply of LiOH to absorb CO2. Using LiOH and LiH, maintaining preferred humidity levels within the station is simplified. <br /><br />LOX? From Luna, of course. Given the much smaller gravity well making LOX on Luna and lifting to LL2 isn't quite so bad.<br /><br />The LL2 will still require liquification capability but energy hungry electrolysis might be avoided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom