Orbital depots + space tugs make HSF safer + cheaper

[DarkenedOne]

I was just watching the movie Apollo 13 when it came to me that the biggest factor that makes space much more dangerous than the other harsh environments (air and sea) that humans operate in is our lack of operational capability in space compared to these other mediums.

The biggest factor that makes space so different and dangerous compared to the other harsh environments the human race has traveled in is that we currently lack the ability to refuel, resupply, rescue, or repair spacecraft. Take a navy ship for example. Suppose the ships engine breaks, or some other vital piece of equipment gives out. For the navy neither the ship nor the vehicle is lost it is a simple matter of sending out a tug boat to pull the boat in. Even in a much more catastrophic situation where the ship does sink the crew can simply get into life boats and wait for rescue which is sure to come soon. Our problem in space is that we do not have that capacity for rescue and retrieval. This lack of capability is what made Apollo 13 so disastrous. The problem with the service module was not immediately life threatening, but disabled the astronauts ability to make it back to earth with the service module as planned.

This lack of capability has many effects on the space industry as a whole both manned and unmanned, government and commercial. First of all the entire industry is built around the concept of getting everything right the first time. As a result more redundancy and more testing is necessary. This reality drives up costs. The second effect is that it largely stifles new technologies as spacecraft developers and mission planners are unwilling to work with new technologies that do not have a long history of successful operation. The unwillingness to risk the safety of their missions has long been used to explain the slow adoption of newer less proven technologies such as ion thrusters. The third effect is that it makes space travel inherently unsafe. Getting it right the first time every single time is impossible. Even in the modern era after having conducted marine operation for as far as recorded history goes ships still occasionally go down. This simply illustrates that there are real practical limits in how safe you can make a vehicle that will only operate for a relatively few times.

So far from all of the articles I have read the debate on an orbital depot and space tug infrastructure has centered on the potential for cost reduction and commercial participation. Many reject the idea stating that there would be not commercial need for such a technology. My question is that has anybody thought about the potential that a space tug and orbital depot infrastructure would have in making space travel a much safer enterprise. In addition to being able to rescue and refuel satellites when they are inserted into the wrong orbit, and bring cargo back and forth from the moon a space tug could be employed to provide a rescue service for broken manned space vehicles. What is apparent to me after watching Apollo 13 and reading up on the constellation architecture is NASA would be no more capable of dealing with a similar problem with one of their space vehicles than it was during Apollo. With some space tug infrastructure unmanned space tugs can be deployed to rescue spacecraft on demand. Thus mission planners and space craft developers can feel comfortable taking more risks with cheaper and new technologies and more ambitious missions knowing that help is waiting if something goes wrong. That does not just apply to NASA, but to the entire space industry especially business who trying to figure out how to make space safe enough for things like space tourism.

 

[neuvik]

.... Take a navy ship for example. Suppose the ships engine breaks, or some other vital piece of equipment gives out. For the navy neither the ship nor the vehicle is lost it is a simple matter of sending out a tug boat to pull the boat in. Even in a much more catastrophic situation where the ship does sink the crew can simply get into life boats and wait for rescue which is sure to come soon. .......

Navy and Merchant ships have a lot redundant systems, the tools, and almost all the parts to anything onboard. The parts that they don't have fall under that 1 and 1 million chance of going wrong.

....
This lack of capability has many effects on the space industry as a whole both manned and unmanned, government and commercial. First of all the entire industry is built around the concept of getting everything right the first time. As a result more redundancy and more testing is necessary. This reality drives up costs. .......

Why would you want to embark on a ship hastily built with little testing to its credit (unless the earth was threatened of something scifi-y)? We don’t do that in this age and things still go awry sometimes for ocean going vessels. Nobody will get away building a craft based on the premise that “getting everything right the first time,” is a bad idea. In this age it is just a cost of doing business, its industry excepted, and it just plain makes sense given all the difficulties that would be endured just to have space craft now.

....

So far from all of the articles I have read the debate on an orbital depot and space tug infrastructure has centered on the potential for cost reduction and commercial participation. Many reject the idea stating that there would be not commercial need for such a technology. My question is that has anybody thought about the potential that a space tug and orbital depot infrastructure would have in making space travel a much safer enterprise. In addition to being able to rescue and refuel satellites when they are inserted into the wrong orbit, and bring cargo back and forth from the moon a space tug could be employed to provide a rescue service for broken manned space vehicles. …..

Well, there is no economic base to warrant the infrastructure which in turn would need space tugs. Corporations and companies can’t justify the cost for building orbital platforms, or ships that can travel deep in our solar system; which in turn might need tugs. Everything is currently cheaper here on Earth. The space tugs, orbital depots, what not will come when their is an economic insentive to do so....not before. There were no tug boats before their were big boats.

The people at this current point in time demand a “Now That’s What I Call Music XXX.” So naturally the only commercial basis in space we have had is to launch artificial satellites in to our orbit to transmit said junk.

Here is hoping for the days when we send flotillas of vessels to haul back the bounty of titanium or precious ores from mining facilities in our solar system. But thats a long way off.

 

[DarkenedOne]

.... Take a navy ship for example. Suppose the ships engine breaks, or some other vital piece of equipment gives out. For the navy neither the ship nor the vehicle is lost it is a simple matter of sending out a tug boat to pull the boat in. Even in a much more catastrophic situation where the ship does sink the crew can simply get into life boats and wait for rescue which is sure to come soon. .......

Navy and Merchant ships have a lot redundant systems, the tools, and almost all the parts to anything onboard. The parts that they don't have fall under that 1 and 1 million chance of going wrong.

Not from what I have seen from my experience in shipping and watching things like deadliest catch that many systems are not redundant. People in ships rely on their ability to be rescued when something goes wrong. I know because it has happened to me a few times before especially in things like sailing where I had to be rescued by someone else.

That is the difference between space and the sea. At sea especially if you are near the cost it is reasonable to assume that you will get rescued if something goes wrong. In space if you lose your propulsion mechanism your screwed.

....
This lack of capability has many effects on the space industry as a whole both manned and unmanned, government and commercial. First of all the entire industry is built around the concept of getting everything right the first time. As a result more redundancy and more testing is necessary. This reality drives up costs. .......

Why would you want to embark on a ship hastily built with little testing to its credit (unless the earth was threatened of something scifi-y)? We don’t do that in this age and things still go awry sometimes for ocean going vessels. Nobody will get away building a craft based on the premise that “getting everything right the first time,” is a bad idea. In this age it is just a cost of doing business, its industry excepted, and it just plain makes sense given all the difficulties that would be endured just to have space craft now.

We can test everything we can here on earth, but the true test has to be in space. Unlike aircraft for example which undergo extensive in-flight testing before being adopted, spacecraft are tested in space for a relatively short amount of time. Especially for a vehicle like Orion which costs hundreds of millions for a single flight in space extensive testing to the same degree that ships and aircraft are tested is unpractical. This fact contributes to the cost and creates more risk that turn both government and commercial entities off from HSF. If a space tug and depot infrastructure it can provide a rescue service that greatly mitigate these risks.

....

So far from all of the articles I have read the debate on an orbital depot and space tug infrastructure has centered on the potential for cost reduction and commercial participation. Many reject the idea stating that there would be not commercial need for such a technology. My question is that has anybody thought about the potential that a space tug and orbital depot infrastructure would have in making space travel a much safer enterprise. In addition to being able to rescue and refuel satellites when they are inserted into the wrong orbit, and bring cargo back and forth from the moon a space tug could be employed to provide a rescue service for broken manned space vehicles. …..

Well, there is no economic base to warrant the infrastructure which in turn would need space tugs. Corporations and companies can’t justify the cost for building orbital platforms, or ships that can travel deep in our solar system; which in turn might need tugs. Everything is currently cheaper here on Earth. The space tugs, orbital depots, what not will come when their is an economic insentive to do so....not before. There were no tug boats before their were big boats.

The people at this current point in time demand a “Now That’s What I Call Music XXX.” So naturally the only commercial basis in space we have had is to launch artificial satellites in to our orbit to transmit said junk.

Here is hoping for the days when we send flotillas of vessels to haul back the bounty of titanium or precious ores from mining facilities in our solar system. But thats a long way off.

Yes of course there is no market for a technology that does not exist yet. There was no economic base for communication satellites and space imagery before rockets and satellites were developed. The reason why satellites and rocketry were developed was because of the vast potential people saw in the technology and capability. Similar potential is seen in an orbital depot and space tug infrastructure. Why do you think that it has been such a large idea that has been explored many times, yet never developed? Companies like Boeing have greatly endorsed the concept even coming up with designs of their own because they see that it would have the immediate effect of extending the range, lift capabilities, and performance of all existing launch vehicles at a much lower cost then the Ares V.

What I am saying is that there is an economic case for NASA and others who are involved in human space flight. The case is made by the fact that such an infrastructure will like make their operations cheaper and safer. As far as private industry many have stated that they would like to develop it and they know it has great potential, but they simply do not have the money to spend on an unproven technology.

In comparison we know from our experience with Apollo that the constellation infrastructure is going to be unsustainable. There is no interest in any of the infrastructure that Nasa is developing for constellation. No interest in any of the technology. As a result it is likely that it will be very expensive and some future administration will simply cancel it leaving us in the same position we were after Apollo.

 

[neuvik]

Not from what I have seen from my experience in shipping and watching things like deadliest catch that many systems are not redundant. People in ships rely on their ability to be rescued when something goes wrong. I know because it has happened to me a few times before especially in things like sailing where I had to be rescued by someone else.

That is the difference between space and the sea. At sea especially if you are near the cost it is reasonable to assume that you will get rescued if something goes wrong. In space if you lose your propulsion mechanism your screwed.

I’m in merchant marine, although I don’t do little coastal boats, I know quite a bit of what they do. What you seen in Deadliest Catch is not what happens in industry....its an entertainment show. They exaggerate every little thing. Large trans-ocean vessels, off shore tugs, all carry an impressive array of equipment for repairs. If your calling for a tug every time something breaks and you lose power, your going to get fired... Tugs are expensive, and certainly not a crutch. Sometimes a port authority will assign you a tug to follow your ship up the coast. I don’t know how they decide those, as far as I’m concerned its a racket. Docking in port is just a cost of doing business, the deckies swear they can do it, and I’ve seen em dock perfectly fine without tugs...just one of those things.

Picking up some weekend dandy who doesn’t know how to tack his marconi rigged sloop is not a good measurement for what happens in the big leagues. It can take weeks to get out to a disabled ship. Even close to shore the momentum of the ship can take us miles, or the current can drag us upon reefs and rocks. We carry almost everything so if something does go wrong, we can fix it enough to limp in to port.

We can test everything we can here on earth, but the true test has to be in space. Unlike aircraft for example which undergo extensive in-flight testing before being adopted, spacecraft are tested in space for a relatively short amount of time. Especially for a vehicle like Orion which costs hundreds of millions for a single flight in space extensive testing to the same degree that ships and aircraft are tested is unpractical. This fact contributes to the cost and creates more risk that turn both government and commercial entities off from HSF. If a space tug and depot infrastructure it can provide a rescue service that greatly mitigate these risks.

Its true the real test comes when you actually use the thing in its environment. But that’s precisely why you spend the extra time and money working everything out before hand. I don’t fathom why you think that is a problem slowing the progress of space flight.

Please don’t be offended when I point this out, but you seem to be rising statistic in these day of people who think a rescuer can just get to you no matter what. You don’t depend on rescue, a rescue is a last ditch effort that attempts to remove you from harm by putting the rescuers in harm. You plan everything out, pack accordingly, and make every effort to ensure little things that go wrong are repaired. Goes for shipping, goes for space exploration, goes for hiking, heck goes for driving to the next state over.

.....What I am saying is that there is an economic case for NASA and others who are involved in human space flight. The case is made by the fact that such an infrastructure will like make their operations cheaper and safer. As far as private industry many have stated that they would like to develop it and they know it has great potential, but they simply do not have the money to spend on an unproven technology.

.....

If there was an economic viability for NASA or a private space firm to have a tug, it would be in design or built already. I’m sure we will see something close, but in the form of an ROV just to pull space junk for sale. At the moment it is cheaper for manned space travel to think everything out, test, test some more, and then execute. Otherwise the ISS would have a tug or two.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I’m in merchant marine, although I don’t do little coastal boats, I know quite a bit of what they do. What you seen in Deadliest Catch is not what happens in industry....its an entertainment show. They exaggerate every little thing. Large trans-ocean vessels, off shore tugs, all carry an impressive array of equipment for repairs. If your calling for a tug every time something breaks and you lose power, your going to get fired... Tugs are expensive, and certainly not a crutch. Sometimes a port authority will assign you a tug to follow your ship up the coast. I don’t know how they decide those, as far as I’m concerned its a racket. Docking in port is just a cost of doing business, the deckies swear they can do it, and I’ve seen em dock perfectly fine without tugs...just one of those things.

Picking up some weekend dandy who doesn’t know how to tack his marconi rigged sloop is not a good measurement for what happens in the big leagues. It can take weeks to get out to a disabled ship. Even close to shore the momentum of the ship can take us miles, or the current can drag us upon reefs and rocks. We carry almost everything so if something does go wrong, we can fix it enough to limp in to port.

First of all while carrying everything with you is a reasonable option for ships, but not for spacecraft. The cost of carrying all those supplies on ships is negligible in comparison. Its costs you $10000 for every kilogram of mass on a space ship.

Second of all while you have an argument that rescue for major ships is rarely needed that does not mean that the capability is worthless. The capability is obviously worth something because it exists, but also because items like lifeboats are mandated on all large ships. Therefore the capability is clearly worth something. Even for an industry as old as shipping.

Thirdly you are also not considering the inherent risks of current space travel. As I said before ships are far more rigorously tested than spacecraft simply because access to the medium is far cheaper. The shipping industry also has a large amount of experience regarding what works and what does not work. This also gives you much more knowledge regarding what can potentially go wrong. These factors make human space flight significantly riskier than ships. Therefore the chance that something will go wrong like Apollo 13 is significantly high thus making rescue capability significantly more valuable.

Its true the real test comes when you actually use the thing in its environment. But that’s precisely why you spend the extra time and money working everything out before hand. I don’t fathom why you think that is a problem slowing the progress of space flight.

Please don’t be offended when I point this out, but you seem to be rising statistic in these day of people who think a rescuer can just get to you no matter what. You don’t depend on rescue, a rescue is a last ditch effort that attempts to remove you from harm by putting the rescuers in harm. You plan everything out, pack accordingly, and make every effort to ensure little things that go wrong are repaired. Goes for shipping, goes for space exploration, goes for hiking, heck goes for driving to the next state over.

First of all like I said before there is only so much testing one can do. NASA does not put a vehicle into space that they believe has a reasonable chance of breaking no more than Boeing flies a plane that they think has a reasonable chance of breaking.

However accidents happen for all times a reasons, including human error as well as equipment malfunction. That is what happened to Apollo 13 and twice with the space shuttle. It proves that there are things that are unpredictable. As a result I can tell you with 100% certainty that Nasa will experience equipment failure in the future that will require rescue just as I can tell assure you with 100% certainty that a ship will in the future will need rescue services.

It is not a question of if it will happen in the future it is a question of whether or not the astronauts will have rescue services available or not. While shipping has become a relatively safe industry I can tell you with 100% certainty that rescue services including tow services are going to be needed in the near future. I can also tell you with 100% certainty that rescue services for stranded astronauts in space are going to be need in the future if humanity is going to continue to explore space.

If there was an economic viability for NASA or a private space firm to have a tug, it would be in design or built already. I’m sure we will see something close, but in the form of an ROV just to pull space junk for sale. At the moment it is cheaper for manned space travel to think everything out, test, test some more, and then execute. Otherwise the ISS would have a tug or two.

First of all the ISS does not have the infrastructure need to refuel a space tug therefore the ISS has no use for one.

Secondly for NASA it is more about political viability than economic. Those at NASA think it is a good idea and have no technical or economic objections against it. The director of NASA said that NASA would probably buy services if it were made privately available. It is that the ISS has been a bad experience for NASA with regards to space infrastructure. The ISS and the shuttle were far less than expected when it comes to both cost and capability. They consumed the vast majority of NASA funding for the last 2 decades and as a result HSF beyond earth orbit has been put on hold. Thus NASA is currently very wary of any more projects that require space infrastructure.

 

[SpaceForAReason]

Proper Planning Promotes Peak Performance

I agree with both viewpoints in certain aspects.

One of the biggest differences is a space ship does not reach its medium until it gets to space. That is a vast departure from what ships experience which stay in their medium the whole time. You can float a heck of alot of stuff in an ocean vessel if you don't have to drag the silly thing in the dirt first. Launching to space is like dragging the craft in the dirt first before getting to the ocean where it can operate normally and efficiently :idea: .

Launch complexes are far away from the ocean of space. That is why we need port stations at the edge of space.

Cargo, tools, and equipment do not get on a ship or boat first without something else getting it to the port where the boat is located first. We commonly use trucks. They are the best tool for that job. They carry relatively small loads compared to the ship. It takes many deliveries before the ship is loaded and ready to sail. Even a fishing vessel takes many deliveries before sailing.

Space will be no different. The vehicles from earth to space must be small and carry small loads. Mission vehicles must be large and carry a large supply of equipment, food, and people and remain in space. We must think in terms of the right tool for the right job. Unfortunately it will require staging in orbit to do this properly. We cannot think in terms of Apollo anymore. Super-massive vehicles from the ground are not the answer.

The infrastructure must be developed for sustained operations in space. Without it we are like Lewis and Clark taking only what we carry on our backs every time we fly. It is OK to start that way, which we did in 1969. Not smart to stay that way 40 years later.

The plan we set in motion must account for continuity of purpose and scale. Orion provides continuity for only one mission at a time. That is not enough. We must have continuity across all missions and make re-use of equipment a priority. Throwing away the fishing boat each time we return is not economically feasable for any business much less for a government that should be treating our taxes as a sacred trust. The boats of fishermen are the pride of those that own them and captain them. The same should be true of our new fleet for space missions. Keep all mission vehicles where they are to be used. Use small transport vehicles to launch from earth. Use and keep infrastructure in space.