SAVE CONSTELLATION

Page 6 - 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jakethesnake

Guest
I just read a great article and I think whether you are for or against the Constellation Program at least many who have posted their comments here can agree with allot of what this gentleman has to say.

The New Space Race

Form SpaceRef.com

By Paul Spudis

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

The full article can be found here:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1376

I especially like the last three paragraphs.

Why are we going to the Moon?

In one of his early speeches defending the Apollo program, President John F. Kennedy laid out the reasons that America had to go the Moon. Among the many ideas that he articulated, one stood out. He said, "whatever men shall undertake, free men must fully share." This was a classic expression of American exceptionalism, that idea that we must explore new frontiers not to establish an empire, but to ensure that our political and economic system prevails, a system that has created the most freedom and the largest amount of new wealth in the hands of the greatest number of people in the history of the world. This is a statement of both soft and hard power projection; by leading the world into space, we guarantee that space does not become the private domain of powers who view humanity as cogs in their ideological machine, rather than as individuals to be valued and protected.

The Vision was created to extend human reach beyond its current limit of low Earth orbit. It made the Moon the first destination because it has the material and energy resources needed to create a true space faring system. Recent data from the Moon show that it is even richer in resource potential than we had thought; both abundant water and near-permanent sunlight is available at selected areas near the poles. We go to the Moon to learn how to extract and use those resources to create a space transportation system that can routinely access all of cislunar space with both machines and people. Such a system is the logical next step in both space security and commerce. This goal for NASA makes the agency relevant to important national interests. A return to the Moon for resource utilization contributes to national security and economic interests as well as scientific ones.

There is indeed a new space race. It is just as important and vital to our country's future as the original one, if not as widely perceived and appreciated. It consists of a struggle with both hard and soft power. The hard power aspect is to confront the ability of other nations to deny us access to our vital satellite assets of cislunar space. The soft power aspect is a question: how shall society be organized in space? Both issues are equally important and both are addressed by lunar return. Will space be a sanctuary for science and PR stunts or will it be a true frontier with scientists and pilots, but also miners, technicians, entrepreneurs and settlers? The decisions made now will decide the fate of space for generations. The choice is clear; we cannot afford to relinquish our foothold in space and abandon the Vision for Space Exploration.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
OK… as not to be absolutely blinded with no rational whatsoever here is a good article on the benefits of the private sector and what they could offer.

Prepare for Liftoff

The future of space exploration will be driven by private markets, not government spending.

BY ESTHER DYSON | FEBRUARY 8, 2010

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... or_liftoff
 
S

SpaceForAReason

Guest
Good article Jake. While I feel bad that jobs will be lost... (an unfortunate certainty) I also believe that the potential benefits of this change warrant any discomfort we may experience in the short-term. Noone likes change. Especially when it digs them out of their comfort-zone. This will certainly not be the last change we ever have in the space program at NASA. Some in my state said that it was the end of the U.S. when Obama was elected... yet here we are still living, breathing, and, yes, still free.

One surprising thing to me is how adaptable we humans are, even in the face of difficulty! (or especially in the face of difficulty) We will adapt. We will still continue to explore space and make great advances. Change is not the end... it is merely the turn of a page.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
SpaceForAReason":2wl7ex7d said:
Good article Jake. While I feel bad that jobs will be lost... (an unfortunate certainty) I also believe that the potential benefits of this change warrant any discomfort we may experience in the short-term. Noone likes change. Especially when it digs them out of their comfort-zone. This will certainly not be the last change we ever have in the space program at NASA. Some in my state said that it was the end of the U.S. when Obama was elected... yet here we are still living, breathing, and, yes, still free.

One surprising thing to me is how adaptable we humans are, even in the face of difficulty! (or especially in the face of difficulty) We will adapt. We will still continue to explore space and make great advances. Change is not the end... it is merely the turn of a page.
At this point I am very discouraged; especially when I see the layout of the 2011 budget... to me it looks like smoke and mirrors.

I think the next couple weeks will tell all, because at this point it is still a proposal and congress has not weighed in…

But if in the end Constellation is abandoned then this post will most certainly be deleted, but not completely… I will save this post… every single word!

I have been here for awhile and as long as my health holds out I intend to call the predictions that have been thrown out including my own!
 
H

halman

Guest
Am I wrong, or did the cancellation of the shuttle program generate a fraction of the uproar over the proposed cancellation of the Constellation program? People are so afraid of the United States losing the ability to send people into space that they will support a massively flawed program which was a boondoggle from the start. Even if we were to save the Constellation program, what would we do with it? There is no money for developing any spacecraft for going to the Moon, or for equipment for exploring the Moon, nor was there money to operate the International Space Station if Constellation were continued.

So we would end up with a rocket that could barely lift a capsule carrying 3 or 4 people into Low Earth Orbit, which has to return to Earth via a splashdown in the ocean, requiring a Navy task force to recover. There would be nowhere for this capsule to go, and nothing for it to do, while at the same time the rocket would be duplicating the capabilities of several other existing rockets. That is the kind of government spending which will truly doom American space exploration, because it is poorly planned and unsustainable.

Our only hope is that the loss of American spaceflight capability will wake up the general populous enough to get adequate funding for creating a real spacecraft, one that can be used for the next 50 years or so to ferry at least 10 people at a time into Low Earth Orbit. Getting to LEO is the hardest part of space exploration, simply because the energy involved dwarfs any other mission. Step rockets launched vertically are the most primitive method there is to reach LEO, and we have the knowledge and the ability to move beyond that technology. Let the private sector build and fly those while NASA develops and perfects the next generation of launch vehicle, one which will be the workhorse of the next industrial revolution, carrying the scientists and technicians into space who will make it possible to create huge amounts of new wealth. Don't shackle NASA with building old technology to go nowhere.
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
rcsplinters":20iezk06 said:
Tried to cut out my original post so folks don't have to read through my drivel once again. Not sure if that worked.

I agree with much of what you propose. However, I think you make a point about commercial ventures which is extremely important. We have to be very attunded to their business model. Seed money should bring about a viable business sooner and remove some of the start-up risks. However, many many times, we see that the business model is about the seed money and not the resulting business. To me, its unclear which is the case with commercial manned space flight at this time. Unclear enough that I would not bet our leadership in manned space flight on an untested and fledgling industry.

I've never been a great fan of Ares Light. Were it up to me, there would be one capsule and it would be designed for the most far reaching goal, the trip to Mars. I don't know that we can afford mission specific products. A robust Orion could serve many types of missions, from LEO to lunar to Mars. The remainder of Ares Lite, at least as I understand it was essentially the ARES I booster. I still would design and build ARES I and V. Why? I like the idea of a dedicated smaller booster to LEO and most any mission is going to start from there. Do one thing and do it well for safety.

In regards to funding, I worry that manned space flight will always suffer as long as we're quibbling over a billion or few with each political transient. In my mind, its a commitment like we are committed to having a military. There, they manage weapon system life cycles. However, they never end up in a situation where we are without planes. As a country we need a vision and a legal commitment to the vision. Right now all we have had since Apollo is a political football.

Were it up to me, I'd fund Orion and Ares I and V. I'd also take sometime to do studies of manifests and missions. I'd also be taking a look at the Orion and Ares replacements (and the ISS replacement as well). In terms of commercial ventures, the heck with seed money. In those cases, you invite the potential suppliers in and as them how can WE make money. I'm all for the government providing venture funding and a knowledge base to those with sound business models and legal commitments to the manned space flight business. I frankly don't care "if" they can put a man in orbit. I do care whether or not they can make a lot of money doing it. If they can't, then in 5 or 10 years, they won't be committed and will exit the market or we'll end up with another GM because they'll be too important to fail.
I think that you have a point, however I think that you are missing one of the principle reasons for shifting HSF to the commercial side. There are several reasons for commercializing HSF.

One reason is that it is believed that the commercial sector can find ways to reduce the costs for access to space more than NASA. They can do this by reducing overhead, building manned/unmanned launchers, and finding applications in other markets.

Another reason is that the commercial sector will be able to pursue other applications for HSF. NASA being a government agency is given a mandate by congress to do exploration. They are not allowed to pursue other applications including space tourism. Commercial companies on the other hand are free to pursue these other applicaitons.

Another reason that we need commercial human space flight is to make HSF profitable and practical. Unmanned space flight has just exploded in the last 50 years because of all the profitable and useful applications for it. HSF has remained stagnant because there have been practically no applications for it.

Honestly I do not care about going to moon or Mars. As long as it costs a few billion per person we are never going to see any HSF on a significant scale. There will never be any exploitation, colonization, or anything of that sort. A far greater and more significant achievement would be to make HSF cheap enough for use in other applications. That is why I support taking Constellation's money and putting into supporting a commercial HSF sector, but also working on technologies such as propulsion, inflatable habitats, advanced life support systems, ISRU, and etc.
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
DarkenedOne":17e9vc25 said:
rcsplinters":17e9vc25 said:
Trimmed my stuff out of the quote so as not to induce coma unnecessarily.
I think that you have a point, however I think that you are missing one of the principle reasons for shifting HSF to the commercial side. There are several reasons for commercializing HSF.

One reason is that it is believed that the commercial sector can find ways to reduce the costs for access to space more than NASA. They can do this by reducing overhead, building manned/unmanned launchers, and finding applications in other markets.

Another reason is that the commercial sector will be able to pursue other applications for HSF. NASA being a government agency is given a mandate by congress to do exploration. They are not allowed to pursue other applications including space tourism. Commercial companies on the other hand are free to pursue these other applicaitons.

Another reason that we need commercial human space flight is to make HSF profitable and practical. Unmanned space flight has just exploded in the last 50 years because of all the profitable and useful applications for it. HSF has remained stagnant because there have been practically no applications for it.

Honestly I do not care about going to moon or Mars. As long as it costs a few billion per person we are never going to see any HSF on a significant scale. There will never be any exploitation, colonization, or anything of that sort. A far greater and more significant achievement would be to make HSF cheap enough for use in other applications. That is why I support taking Constellation's money and putting into supporting a commercial HSF sector, but also working on technologies such as propulsion, inflatable habitats, advanced life support systems, ISRU, and etc.
You'd find we agree more than you might think. Before I go too far, let me state one key assumption on my part and this is my opinion only. I firmly believe the USA must maintain world leadership position a human launch capability. Period. There are a lot of reasons for my belief in that, but those are outide the scope of this thread. I place very high value on that position and capability. Let me also state that I believe a robust (and I mean robust) commercial solution would satisfy that requirement.

I have absolutely no objection to commercialization of LEO and for many of the reasons you list. I think beyond low earth orbit is totally out of scope for commercial ventures for a couple of decades, at least. But, we have to be realistic as well. My concern is the viability of the business of LEO. Its simply unproven that there is sustainable profit in that market as yet. In otherwords, the business model is very risky and consequently, there is no objective rationale to presume that the commercial solution will be robust at this time. Even with prodigous sums of seed money or venture capital, start-up industries like this fail at an alarming rate. Remember my assumption and now you understand why I feel that we just can't abandon ARES I and V along with Orion. I'm all for more study on mission and manifest planning but the hardware for the trip up hill is common to almost any plan or mission.

Stated more directly, there is little debate on the technical viability of Orion and Ares. Its our "bird in hand". If we, as a nation believe we must foster a commercial venture to simulate this fetal market, this so be it. Until that industry and market develops into a sustainable entity, putting all the eggs into that basket violates my stated basic assumption. In terms of priorty, Orion and Ares are the first priority and stimulating the commercial HSF is a lesser priority due to the business risks involved. If I were spending the money, I'd do both as I believe the technology spin-offs from both would benefit us for years to come.

At least that's my opinion, right or wrong. I'd still like to read that requirement for congress to vote on any termination of Constellation. Its really tough to predict how this issue will play out on capital hill. No doubt it should be quite the debate and worth following.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
Am I wrong, or did the cancellation of the shuttle program generate a fraction of the uproar over the proposed cancellation of the Constellation program?
Of course it generated only a fraction of the uproar, 14 astronauts died on that death trap!

People are so afraid of the United States losing the ability to send people into space that they will support a massively flawed program which was a boondoggle from the start.
Show me supporting evidence that the Constellation Program was a “Massively flawed Program”, because everything I have read is absolutely to the contrary, even the Augustine Commission said that they saw no technical hurtles as far as the Ares 1 goes.

Even if we were to save the Constellation program, what would we do with it? There is no money for developing any spacecraft for going to the Moon, or for equipment for exploring the Moon, nor was there money to operate the International Space Station if Constellation were continued.
Obama’s 2011 federal budget has $4 Billion earmarked for Acorn as well as the $4 Billion that was given to them last year, so to say “There is no money” absolutely doesn’t fly!

So we would end up with a rocket that could barely lift a capsule carrying 3 or 4 people into Low Earth Orbit, which has to return to Earth via a splashdown in the ocean, requiring a Navy task force to recover.
Ya... I’m also not really all that good with splashing into the Ocean again....

There would be nowhere for this capsule to go, and nothing for it to do, while at the same time the rocket would be duplicating the capabilities of several other existing rockets.
Incorrect again... the Atlas V and the Delta IV are cargo rated ONLY!

Meaning there’re missing many needed redundant systems, as well as not being designed to handle four times the structural loads that are required for a human rated launcher.


That is the kind of government spending which will truly doom American space exploration, because it is poorly planned and unsustainable.
You are right about the inefficiency of government spending, and that is why we need to foster the commercial sector, but not at the risk of not being able to get our astronauts into LEO!

I don’t agree that it was poorly planned but without the funds that were promised, it was certainly unsustainable.


Our only hope is that the loss of American spaceflight capability will wake up the general populous enough to get adequate funding for creating a real spacecraft, one that can be used for the next 50 years or so to ferry at least 10 people at a time into Low Earth Orbit. Getting to LEO is the hardest part of space exploration, simply because the energy involved dwarfs any other mission. Step rockets launched vertically are the most primitive method there is to reach LEO, and we have the knowledge and the ability to move beyond that technology. Let the private sector build and fly those while NASA develops and perfects the next generation of launch vehicle, one which will be the workhorse of the next industrial revolution, carrying the scientists and technicians into space who will make it possible to create huge amounts of new wealth. Don't shackle NASA with building old technology to go nowhere.
I agree with you here, and sadly that is what will probably happen and I will be interesting to see how the American people react when China next launches their astronauts or Taikonauts into LEO.

Not sure if this is still the timeline, but transport capsules identified as Shenzhou 8, Shenzhou 9 and Shenzhou 10 are under development for launch in 2010-2011. The Asian nation hopes to launch the three Shenzhou capsules to form a space station.

Obama will most definitely have some splanin to do…
 
N

nimbus

Guest
Let's run with that premise.
That the people of the USA are complacent or neglectful enough of space development that they would only care about it as a one-up on Chinese efforts, tells you how genuine their interest in and passion for space is. That's why politicians can get away with slapping NASA every which way when they please. It's a token of pride, not an authentic taste for space itself. Govt is the last thing you want involved in general, and space industry as the precursor to space development is no exception. It should seed and catalyze development, but take its hands off ASAP. Whether this latest plan is the Right Stuff for that, and whether now is the right time, and whether commercial actors will hit enough of their targets to get the ball really going, all remains to be seen.
My main objection to your POV, is that things are in limbo. They're not already decided, not irrevocably heading down the drains as you repeat again and again. This could all pan out fine and really be a long overdue successful step away from govt monopoly on space activity, or it could be a complete flusterkuk from A to Z with long-lasting fallout.

Govt action's fed by popular impulse. The popular impulse for space development has been near flatline for decades now. More vegetative than conscious.

And I don't mean to be anal, but you never refuted Byeman's points. Concede or withdraw, or ignore. If you're willing to bet your credentials on a dodgy prediction, you ought to be willing to face someone who's at least as involved and informed as you are on the subject matter.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
And I don't mean to be anal, but you never refuted Byeman's points. Concede or withdraw, or ignore. If you're willing to bet your credentials on a dodgy prediction, you ought to be willing to face someone who's at least as involved and informed as you are on the subject matter.
First off… I’m not betting my credentials on anything, I was merely pointing out that certain comment were not “above” this post…

I have no problems with my credentials and I am proud of them, but you for some reason you have taken issue with them…

As far as your “dodgy” comments… I’m not dodging anything…

Aside from whatever problem or problems you have with me… for the most part I agree with your last post, and to be honest I'm not ignoring Byeman's points, I just simply forgot.

I will make sure I get to them next... hope you are good with that???

Also there are two interesting things I will be watching:

1. How Congress as a whole weighs in over the next few weeks.

2. What the public’s reaction will be the next time China puts more people into LEO knowing that NASA is now getting out of the human space program... or at least for the next decade or so...

Not really sure if the general public even cares anymore, which is kind of depressing… :cry:
 
N

nimbus

Guest
jakethesnake":1ehrkfg4 said:
I have no problems with my credentials and I am proud of them, but you for some reason you have taken issue with them…
Wrong. I don't care about your credentials. I just see someone who has to weigh down with them to give credence to his arguments.
As far as your “dodgy” comments… I’m not dodging anything…
Wrong. Open dictionary to "dodgy" and you'll find "chancy: of uncertain outcome; especially fraught with risk"
Aside from whatever problem or problems you have with me…
Wrong. No problem with you. You don't matter, only your arguments. Your personal identity etc are immaterial to the sole value of posts over the internet - arguments.
for the most part I agree with your last post, and to be honest I'm not ignoring Byeman's points, I just simply forgot.
No biggie, I'm looking fwd to your counter arguments
I will make sure I get to them next... hope you are good with that???
Useless drama :) Not gonna bite on this bait. It doesn't matter whether I'm good with that or not. Only whether my arguments hold water or not.
1. How Congress as a whole weighs in over the next few weeks.
Yep
2. What the public’s reaction will be the next time China puts more people into LEO knowing that NASA is now getting out of the human space program... or at least for the next decade or so...
That is yet to be confirmed.
Not really sure if the general public even cares anymore, which is kind of depressing…
Last thing to do is get depressed. But former is probably accurate. The public doesn't care. It's up to us space enthusiasts to come up with a realistic plan to kick-start space activity.

We must get off this planet. Which specific means doesn't matter. Only that the means we choose is the best.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
jakethesnake wrote: I have no problems with my credentials and I am proud of them, but you for some reason you have taken issue with them…

nimbus wrote: Wrong. I don't care about your credentials. I just see someone who has to weigh down with them to give credence to his argument.
Not weighing down anything I’m just willing and capable to discuss anything that has to do with standards, Testing and Safety... still sounds like an issue to me...

Jakethesnake wrote: As far as your “dodgy” comments… I’m not dodging anything…
nimbus wrote: Wrong. Open dictionary to "dodgy" and you'll find "chancy: of uncertain outcome; especially fraught with risk
Got me on that one... cool word by the way... I guess you do learn something new every day...

Jakethesnake wrote: Aside from whatever problem or problems you have with me…

nimbus wrote:Wrong. No problem with you. You don't matter, only your arguments. Your personal identity etc are immaterial to the sole value of posts over the internet - arguments.
Sound just a tad narsistic to me... i.e. “arguments” “You don’t matter”... try debates, not arguments, and try to leave out who matters, then you won’t be so obvious.

Jakethesnake wrote: for the most part I agree with your last post, and to be honest I'm not ignoring Byeman's points, I just simply forgot.

nimbus wrote: No biggie, I'm looking fwd to your counter arguments
I on the other hand would like to look forward to our next issue not our next problem.

Jakethesnake wrote: I will make sure I get to them next... hope you are good with that???

nimbus wrote: Useless drama Not gonna bite on this bait. It doesn't matter whether I'm good with that or not. Only whether my arguments hold water or not.
Again... “Useless”, “Not going to bite”, “doesn’t matter” now I think paranoia is also coming into play... ya think?

Look I have nothing against you nimbus, nor am I trying to set you up... no issues with you whatsoever!

Also I would prefer to debate you on the issues NOT argue about them!
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
rcsplinters":1oir7wm3 said:
You'd find we agree more than you might think. Before I go too far, let me state one key assumption on my part and this is my opinion only. I firmly believe the USA must maintain world leadership position a human launch capability. Period. There are a lot of reasons for my belief in that, but those are outide the scope of this thread. I place very high value on that position and capability. Let me also state that I believe a robust (and I mean robust) commercial solution would satisfy that requirement.

I have absolutely no objection to commercialization of LEO and for many of the reasons you list. I think beyond low earth orbit is totally out of scope for commercial ventures for a couple of decades, at least. But, we have to be realistic as well. My concern is the viability of the business of LEO. Its simply unproven that there is sustainable profit in that market as yet. In otherwords, the business model is very risky and consequently, there is no objective rationale to presume that the commercial solution will be robust at this time. Even with prodigous sums of seed money or venture capital, start-up industries like this fail at an alarming rate. Remember my assumption and now you understand why I feel that we just can't abandon ARES I and V along with Orion. I'm all for more study on mission and manifest planning but the hardware for the trip up hill is common to almost any plan or mission.

Stated more directly, there is little debate on the technical viability of Orion and Ares. Its our "bird in hand". If we, as a nation believe we must foster a commercial venture to simulate this fetal market, this so be it. Until that industry and market develops into a sustainable entity, putting all the eggs into that basket violates my stated basic assumption. In terms of priorty, Orion and Ares are the first priority and stimulating the commercial HSF is a lesser priority due to the business risks involved. If I were spending the money, I'd do both as I believe the technology spin-offs from both would benefit us for years to come.

At least that's my opinion, right or wrong. I'd still like to read that requirement for congress to vote on any termination of Constellation. Its really tough to predict how this issue will play out on capital hill. No doubt it should be quite the debate and worth following.
I also think you underestimate the technical and financial difficulties of Constellation. Constellation is by no means going well. Fact of the matter is that it is already way underfunded, over budget, and behind schedule. As I understand it there have been a number of technical difficulties that Ares I is experiencing. Its expected now to be almost 40% more than its projected cost. It is going to be ready after the ISS is deorbited under the current budget. Then you have to consider the high operating costs that Ares I is expected to have. The Augustine Commission estimated that it would have a incremental launch cost of $1 billion dollars. That is not even considering the Ares V.

Then you have to consider the moon base. Unfortunately our experience with the ISS was not a very positive one economically. It was originally projected to cost $31 billion and take 5 years to build. It ended up costing around $100 billion and is expected to take 13 years to build. If it was that difficult to build the ISS than building a moon base would be significantly more difficult and expensive.

Fact of the matter is that given Constellations current state and the current state of the economy I estimate there is a high probability that it will be cancelled before it is even launched or shortly after its first mission.

At the same time I believe you underestimate the chances for a successful commercial space flight industry. What they are doing is nothing new or special. They are using technology that has been around for 40 years. There is a great amount experience of what works and what does not to draw from. One could say that a bigger question is whether they will be able to make a business case for it. Clearly if NASA puts its weight behind it like Obama is proposing and purchases services from them to deliver to the ISS than it is pretty safe to say that commercially it will work out. If NASA goes ahead with Constellation and gets rid of the ISS in 2015, thus shutting commercial HSF out of the exploration business than one cannot be so sure. However Russia's experience with sending rich space tourists into space seems to indicate that such a market does exist. The massive interest that suborbital companies are getting also indicates that there is a great amount of interest in commercial HSF.

If I were to bet on whether Constellation or commercial space flight would pan out I would put my money on the commercial side.
 
N

nimbus

Guest
jakethesnake":kvdj5jub said:
still sounds like an issue to me...
Read my lips: I don't care. Insist and it's your own issue showing thru.
Got me on that one... cool word by the way... I guess you do learn something new every day...
I learned that word watching hollywood movies. I don't think it's anything high brow.
Sound just a tad narsistic to me... i.e. “arguments” “You don’t matter”... try debates, not arguments, and try to leave out who matters, then you won’t be so obvious.
Or maybe I'm saying it exactly as it is. Again narcissism, perceived or actual, is extraneous. The bottom-line argument is all that matters. I'm not gonna bite on any more baits.
I on the other hand would like to look forward to our next issue not our next problem.
Don't know what you mean. The two words are pretty much the same thing.
Again... “Useless”, “Not going to bite”, “doesn’t matter” now I think paranoia is also coming into play... ya think?

Look I have nothing against you nimbus, nor am I trying to set you up... no issues with you whatsoever!
Exactly what ive been saying. Don't read so hard between the lines.


Also I would prefer to debate you on the issues NOT argue about them!
My arguments are stated pretty clearly. I'll be glad to clarify anything less-than-clear.

Looking forward to your refutal of Byeman.
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
DarkenedOne":w9pbwmfg said:
rcsplinters":w9pbwmfg said:
You'd find we agree more than you might think. Before I go too far, let me state one key assumption on my part and this is my opinion only. I firmly believe the USA must maintain world leadership position a human launch capability. Period. There are a lot of reasons for my belief in that, but those are outide the scope of this thread. I place very high value on that position and capability. Let me also state that I believe a robust (and I mean robust) commercial solution would satisfy that requirement.

I have absolutely no objection to commercialization of LEO and for many of the reasons you list. I think beyond low earth orbit is totally out of scope for commercial ventures for a couple of decades, at least. But, we have to be realistic as well. My concern is the viability of the business of LEO. Its simply unproven that there is sustainable profit in that market as yet. In otherwords, the business model is very risky and consequently, there is no objective rationale to presume that the commercial solution will be robust at this time. Even with prodigous sums of seed money or venture capital, start-up industries like this fail at an alarming rate. Remember my assumption and now you understand why I feel that we just can't abandon ARES I and V along with Orion. I'm all for more study on mission and manifest planning but the hardware for the trip up hill is common to almost any plan or mission.

Stated more directly, there is little debate on the technical viability of Orion and Ares. Its our "bird in hand". If we, as a nation believe we must foster a commercial venture to simulate this fetal market, this so be it. Until that industry and market develops into a sustainable entity, putting all the eggs into that basket violates my stated basic assumption. In terms of priorty, Orion and Ares are the first priority and stimulating the commercial HSF is a lesser priority due to the business risks involved. If I were spending the money, I'd do both as I believe the technology spin-offs from both would benefit us for years to come.

At least that's my opinion, right or wrong. I'd still like to read that requirement for congress to vote on any termination of Constellation. Its really tough to predict how this issue will play out on capital hill. No doubt it should be quite the debate and worth following.
I also think you underestimate the technical and financial difficulties of Constellation. Constellation is by no means going well. Fact of the matter is that it is already way underfunded, over budget, and behind schedule. As I understand it there have been a number of technical difficulties that Ares I is experiencing. Its expected now to be almost 40% more than its projected cost. It is going to be ready after the ISS is deorbited under the current budget. Then you have to consider the high operating costs that Ares I is expected to have. The Augustine Commission estimated that it would have a incremental launch cost of $1 billion dollars. That is not even considering the Ares V.

Then you have to consider the moon base. Unfortunately our experience with the ISS was not a very positive one economically. It was originally projected to cost $31 billion and take 5 years to build. It ended up costing around $100 billion and is expected to take 13 years to build. If it was that difficult to build the ISS than building a moon base would be significantly more difficult and expensive.

Fact of the matter is that given Constellations current state and the current state of the economy I estimate there is a high probability that it will be cancelled before it is even launched or shortly after its first mission.

At the same time I believe you underestimate the chances for a successful commercial space flight industry. What they are doing is nothing new or special. They are using technology that has been around for 40 years. There is a great amount experience of what works and what does not to draw from. One could say that a bigger question is whether they will be able to make a business case for it. Clearly if NASA puts its weight behind it like Obama is proposing and purchases services from them to deliver to the ISS than it is pretty safe to say that commercially it will work out. If NASA goes ahead with Constellation and gets rid of the ISS in 2015, thus shutting commercial HSF out of the exploration business than one cannot be so sure. However Russia's experience with sending rich space tourists into space seems to indicate that such a market does exist. The massive interest that suborbital companies are getting also indicates that there is a great amount of interest in commercial HSF.

If I were to bet on whether Constellation or commercial space flight would pan out I would put my money on the commercial side.
Certainly, I'm not intimately involved in the programs so everything you say may be absolutely accurate. I will only make a couple of additional remarks as the conversation is interesting.

I think the commission report never doubted the technical viability of Ares and made that explicit observation more than once in the report. In doing an apples apples comparison, you have to recall that commercial enterprises are not usually inclined to publicly discuss their problems and resulting solutions. NASA on the other hand is (most times) an open book, at least to an enterprising reporter. Both options are trying to accomplish very difficult tasks and being an engineer myself in another field, I'm led to believe that both parties are faced with similar technical challenges and both with some unique challenges based on their particular hardware. As for funding and costs, I'm not so sure that's an indictment of Ares and Orion or the expression of a lack vision and continuity by our government for HSF. Given that the success of the commercial ventures seems to tightly tied to federal venture capital, I would say that those ventures could suffer the same fate with the next batch of politicians if the funding gets pulled. One point I think we would both strongly agree upon is this issue stems from lack of commitment to a consistent vision on the part of our lawmakers over many decades.

In regards to costs estimates for individual flights, again I don't doubt your data. What I am unsure about is whether either estimate is comprehensive and accounts for similar costs. Do they both include equivalent down range support during launch, similar weather tracking, planes to monitor abort conditions, etc. Maybe they are equivalent. I've just never seen a line item break down. Absent such data, I can not personally vouch for equivalence.

In regards to success of the business model, there I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I do truly hope that the commercial ventures are a smashing success. I know there is a very reasonable chance that will not be the case just based on the success rate of start up markets. The fact that commercial HSF is so dependent on federal seeding really calls the viabilty of the business model into question. For myself, I lack confidence to the point that I would spend billions not to be single sourced until we see first hand that commercial performance and over years not just a few flights. To me, HSF is that important to the nation. But that's just me and certainly folks have differing opinions.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
rcsplinters":1q0eka98 said:
Certainly, I'm not intimately involved in the programs so everything you say may be absolutely accurate. I will only make a couple of additional remarks as the conversation is interesting.

I think the commission report never doubted the technical viability of Ares and made that explicit observation more than once in the report. In doing an apples apples comparison, you have to recall that commercial enterprises are not usually inclined to publicly discuss their problems and resulting solutions. NASA on the other hand is (most times) an open book, at least to an enterprising reporter. Both options are trying to accomplish very difficult tasks and being an engineer myself in another field, I'm led to believe that both parties are faced with similar technical challenges and both with some unique challenges based on their particular hardware. As for funding and costs, I'm not so sure that's an indictment of Ares and Orion or the expression of a lack vision and continuity by our government for HSF. Given that the success of the commercial ventures seems to tightly tied to federal venture capital, I would say that those ventures could suffer the same fate with the next batch of politicians if the funding gets pulled. One point I think we would both strongly agree upon is this issue stems from lack of commitment to a consistent vision on the part of our lawmakers over many decades.

In regards to costs estimates for individual flights, again I don't doubt your data. What I am unsure about is whether either estimate is comprehensive and accounts for similar costs. Do they both include equivalent down range support during launch, similar weather tracking, planes to monitor abort conditions, etc. Maybe they are equivalent. I've just never seen a line item break down. Absent such data, I can not personally vouch for equivalence.

In regards to success of the business model, there I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I do truly hope that the commercial ventures are a smashing success. I know there is a very reasonable chance that will not be the case just based on the success rate of start up markets. The fact that commercial HSF is so dependent on federal seeding really calls the viabilty of the business model into question. For myself, I lack confidence to the point that I would spend billions not to be single sourced until we see first hand that commercial performance and over years not just a few flights. To me, HSF is that important to the nation. But that's just me and certainly folks have differing opinions.
It is also worth noting "rcsplinters" that we are not talking about just Crewed Commercial space flight, but also unmanned support missions. There are already a number of unmanned launchers most notably the EELVs that can help deliver fuel and cargo to future missions. These rockets are already developed and have good track records. As I understand it the new plan that is being put forth would involve developing things like fuel depots that would allow commercial launchers to deliver fuel for missions. It also involves more work on orbital assembly, which would allow larger space ships to be constructed from smaller parts rather than launching everything on one massive rocket. It is also mentioned as the flexible path in the Augustine report because such technology will allow for future missions to other destinations.

Unfortunately Constellation is very closed in that it does not support the development or use of any unmanned commercial services even though they are based on rockets that are already developed. Ares V will be a huge rocket whose only purpose is to go to the Moon.
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
DarkenedOne":387aj2de said:
rcsplinters":387aj2de said:
My portion removed to save space and braincells.
It is also worth noting "rcsplinters" that we are not talking about just Crewed Commercial space flight, but also unmanned support missions. There are already a number of unmanned launchers most notably the EELVs that can help deliver fuel and cargo to future missions. These rockets are already developed and have good track records. As I understand it the new plan that is being put forth would involve developing things like fuel depots that would allow commercial launchers to deliver fuel for missions. It also involves more work on orbital assembly, which would allow larger space ships to be constructed from smaller parts rather than launching everything on one massive rocket. It is also mentioned as the flexible path in the Augustine report because such technology will allow for future missions to other destinations.

Unfortunately Constellation is very closed in that it does not support the development or use of any unmanned commercial services even though they are based on rockets that are already developed. Ares V will be a huge rocket whose only purpose is to go to the Moon.
I'm not sure that there isn't some conflicting information out there. The Augustine report made it abundantly clear that there is nothing beyond LEO without some beast of a booster, such as ARES V. I've seen a report that suggested that even with ARES V, a Mars trip was going to take 5 - 7 trips to LEO. One conclusion that we can safe draw is that ARES V was not limited to moon only applications. Of course, we already know that heavy lift capabilty can be very flexible by looking back at the Saturn boosters which put man on the moon and skylab in orbit. Ares V or any other heavy lift would have the same capability. Ares V was roughly 2 times the lift capability of the EELV to LEO per the table on page 64 of the Augustine PDF. This translates to roughly twice the number of flights to LEO for a given mass of ships. No doubt EELV may be somewhat cheaper, but that savings could be quickly erased with a loss of vehicle which could be somewhat more likely with a larger number of flights. You know its that old 1 -p^n relationship for one failure where n is number of occurances and p is the probability of success. I think LEO assembly is a requirement in either case so that probably doesn't give us a argument against Ares. Further, the Augustine report did not call into question the technical viability of either the ARES booster.

All this said, I really do like the idea of commercial cargo lifting. Its a good place for that industry to cut their teeth and develop a lot of experience just dealing with the logistics and business of spaceflight. If they can demonstrate a viable long term business model, then perhaps it gives us confidence for a LEO solution business venture. Would I bet our HSF future on this? No.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
rcsplinters ":2golo0bc said:
... No doubt EELV may be somewhat cheaper ...
Hm ..
3000 $ /kg to LEO for Zenit comparing to 50 000 $ for Shuttle ? Somewhat ?
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
EarthlingX":3dd020fe said:
rcsplinters ":3dd020fe said:
... No doubt EELV may be somewhat cheaper ...
Hm ..
3000 $ /kg to LEO for Zenit comparing to 50 000 $ for Shuttle ? Somewhat ?

Earthling, just curious. Do you have reference to the line item breakdowns for those figures? I've looked and looked and never found such. I'd like to see a rigorous apples to apples comparison. Of course, the shuttle's numbers are irrelevent, but I agree they would still would be an interesting comparison if derived from an identical cost model.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
rcsplinters":3t9qham2 said:
EarthlingX":3t9qham2 said:
rcsplinters ":3t9qham2 said:
... No doubt EELV may be somewhat cheaper ...
Hm ..
3000 $ /kg to LEO for Zenit comparing to 50 000 $ for Shuttle ? Somewhat ?

Earthling, just curious. Do you have reference to the line item breakdowns for those figures? I've looked and looked and never found such. I'd like to see a rigorous apples to apples comparison. Of course, the shuttle's numbers are irrelevent, but I agree they would still would be an interesting comparison if derived from an identical cost model.
Zenit-2 : 3275,1 $/kg to LEO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenit_rocket

For the Shuttle is little trickier, but consider this bunch of numbers:
- 30 000 jobs would be lost, or are at least dependent on the program, assuming 70 000 $ per year on average (i hope they get at least that much), then assuming 5 launches, its 420 M$ just for workers per launch, and not all years have 5 launches, but have jobs too. (to this point it is 26250 $/kg, assuming 16t to LEO)
- add infrastructure costs, refurbishing costs, retrieval, ... divide by payload mass to LEO, easy .. try it, and tell me what you get on a year with 3 launches.. ;)

There is one more thing to consider when talking about the Shuttle: it brings 6 people in the orbit, and that is at the current Russian prices, which will soon change, 300 M$ ..

I did not put that in, i admit, but the point is, that human transportation requires more expensive launchers than fuel.

Almost anyone can launch fuel in the orbit, not so many can safely launch people.

You will find more launch cost numbers here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=301
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
rcsplinters":1gkm07we said:
I'm not sure that there isn't some conflicting information out there. The Augustine report made it abundantly clear that there is nothing beyond LEO without some beast of a booster, such as ARES V. I've seen a report that suggested that even with ARES V, a Mars trip was going to take 5 - 7 trips to LEO. One conclusion that we can safe draw is that ARES V was not limited to moon only applications. Of course, we already know that heavy lift capabilty can be very flexible by looking back at the Saturn boosters which put man on the moon and skylab in orbit. Ares V or any other heavy lift would have the same capability. Ares V was roughly 2 times the lift capability of the EELV to LEO per the table on page 64 of the Augustine PDF. This translates to roughly twice the number of flights to LEO for a given mass of ships. No doubt EELV may be somewhat cheaper, but that savings could be quickly erased with a loss of vehicle which could be somewhat more likely with a larger number of flights. You know its that old 1 -p^n relationship for one failure where n is number of occurances and p is the probability of success. I think LEO assembly is a requirement in either case so that probably doesn't give us a argument against Ares. Further, the Augustine report did not call into question the technical viability of either the ARES booster.
It is not the technical side of things that is the biggest problem it is the economic side of things. The administration is not trying to cancel or at least rework Constellation because they think that it will not work. It is Apollo on steroids like Mike Griffin said. Apollo worked so we know this will work. Apollo was also very expensive, which is why it got cancelled and we did not return to the moon for 30 years. Constellation is projected to be even more expensive. The political reality that had to do with beating the soviets to the moon does not exist to day, thus the political motivation to spend that type of money does not exist today. Constellation is just not a possibility. It costs significantly more than the US is willing to spend. Even if it was developed with such a high incremental launch cost it will likely leave NASA with little money for things like a moon base.

In order to get to the moon and other destinations NASA must find ways to do things better and cheaper. This realization is what I believe is driving Obama to make the decision he is making. When it comes to Ares V we know it will be a great deal like its older brother the Saturn V. The Saturn V was very expensive to maintain and got shelfed as a result. What you have to consider and what a great number of people do not understand is that a rocket like Ares V will require a huge amount of infrastructure to support it. Along with developing the rocket itself new launch pads, new integration facilities, new everything will have to be built to support it. All of these things represent fixed costs just to have the vehicle able to fly.

Fuel depots are one of the answers to finding ways to build spacecraft for moon mission cheaper. If a fuel depot can be constructed it will obviate the Ares V class rockets. Since 90% of the mass in LEO for a moon or Mars mission is fuel, which is infinitely divisible, practically all of the things needed for a moon or Mars mission can be delivered by commercial rockets. This fact is why the idea is so well supported by commercial launcher like the ULA.

Second of all you stated that you believe that EELV would be more expensive than Ares V. I find this highly unlikely considering that the EELV have already been developed and have a great reliability record. The development and infrastructure costs for the EELV are already paid for. Ares V is still just a design on paper. Considering that it smaller brother the Ares I is now costing around $50 billion to develop and is expected to have an incremental cost of $1 billion I think it is safe to assume that Ares V will be in the range of several billion per flight. You also mentioned that large launch rates are a bad thing. This assertion is simply not true. Higher launch rates decrease the risk involved. Suppose that the EELV have a reliability record similar that of its predecessor the Delta II. Since the Delta II had about 150 launches with 2 failures. That means you know that 1 in 75 launches will fail and you can anticipate this. However if you put all of your eggs in one basket by putting it all into one large unproven rocket like the Ares V you stand to lose everything in one single failure.
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
DarkenedOne":1t3jfdrn said:
rcsplinters":1t3jfdrn said:
I'm not sure that there isn't some conflicting information out there. The Augustine report made it abundantly clear that there is nothing beyond LEO without some beast of a booster, such as ARES V. I've seen a report that suggested that even with ARES V, a Mars trip was going to take 5 - 7 trips to LEO. One conclusion that we can safe draw is that ARES V was not limited to moon only applications. Of course, we already know that heavy lift capabilty can be very flexible by looking back at the Saturn boosters which put man on the moon and skylab in orbit. Ares V or any other heavy lift would have the same capability. Ares V was roughly 2 times the lift capability of the EELV to LEO per the table on page 64 of the Augustine PDF. This translates to roughly twice the number of flights to LEO for a given mass of ships. No doubt EELV may be somewhat cheaper, but that savings could be quickly erased with a loss of vehicle which could be somewhat more likely with a larger number of flights. You know its that old 1 -p^n relationship for one failure where n is number of occurances and p is the probability of success. I think LEO assembly is a requirement in either case so that probably doesn't give us a argument against Ares. Further, the Augustine report did not call into question the technical viability of either the ARES booster.
It is not the technical side of things that is the biggest problem it is the economic side of things. The administration is not trying to cancel or at least rework Constellation because they think that it will not work. It is Apollo on steroids like Mike Griffin said. Apollo worked so we know this will work. Apollo was also very expensive, which is why it got cancelled and we did not return to the moon for 30 years. Constellation is projected to be even more expensive. The political reality that had to do with beating the soviets to the moon does not exist to day, thus the political motivation to spend that type of money does not exist today. Constellation is just not a possibility. It costs significantly more than the US is willing to spend. Even if it was developed with such a high incremental launch cost it will likely leave NASA with little money for things like a moon base.

In order to get to the moon and other destinations NASA must find ways to do things better and cheaper. This realization is what I believe is driving Obama to make the decision he is making. When it comes to Ares V we know it will be a great deal like its older brother the Saturn V. The Saturn V was very expensive to maintain and got shelfed as a result. What you have to consider and what a great number of people do not understand is that a rocket like Ares V will require a huge amount of infrastructure to support it. Along with developing the rocket itself new launch pads, new integration facilities, new everything will have to be built to support it. All of these things represent fixed costs just to have the vehicle able to fly.

Fuel depots are one of the answers to finding ways to build spacecraft for moon mission cheaper. If a fuel depot can be constructed it will obviate the Ares V class rockets. Since 90% of the mass in LEO for a moon or Mars mission is fuel, which is infinitely divisible, practically all of the things needed for a moon or Mars mission can be delivered by commercial rockets. This fact is why the idea is so well supported by commercial launcher like the ULA.

Second of all you stated that you believe that EELV would be more expensive than Ares V. I find this highly unlikely considering that the EELV have already been developed and have a great reliability record. The development and infrastructure costs for the EELV are already paid for. Ares V is still just a design on paper. Considering that it smaller brother the Ares I is now costing around $50 billion to develop and is expected to have an incremental cost of $1 billion I think it is safe to assume that Ares V will be in the range of several billion per flight. You also mentioned that large launch rates are a bad thing. This assertion is simply not true. Higher launch rates decrease the risk involved. Suppose that the EELV have a reliability record similar that of its predecessor the Delta II. Since the Delta II had about 150 launches with 2 failures. That means you know that 1 in 75 launches will fail and you can anticipate this. However if you put all of your eggs in one basket by putting it all into one large unproven rocket like the Ares V you stand to lose everything in one single failure.
Let me clarify a couple of my remarks. I indicated that the costs involved with EELV must consider the cost of a lost craft in a specific orbital construction sequence. The probability of a single loss of craft grows nearer to 1 with larger numbers of launches. That's really not open to debate as its a mathematical conclusion. That's not to say that EELV would not be more reliable than ARES (though I doubt rigorous numbers are availabe on that either). However, EELV would have to be significantly better to offer the same probability of success for the completion of construction in orbit given that twice the number of launches might be required. Again, this is pretty basic probabilty and statistics so I feel I'm on firm ground here. Just go look up that old math problem regarding the chance of no heads in 8 coin flips, versus 16 flips. Now when we are constructing a new craft in orbit, loss of the launch vehicle means loss of a substantial part of the orbital assembly. Believe me that will leave a scar on the budget of that construction in orbit. Just imagine the loss of an shuttle (ok, I don't want to either) and Kibo. The impact on the ISS would be a castastrophe. The fewer launches to toss up the parts, the better risk model you have on the final assembly. Of course, this wouldn't apply so much to consumables, like fuel as the cargo is more easily replicated. What has to happen here to outsource the work from ARES V, is that NASA has to specify its statistical expectation for success. The commerical side of the house would then build more vehicles or fewer with more lift capability. Make them responsible for loss of payload and you'll see a behemoth on the pad.

In regards to a previous post with the link on Zenit, thank you for that. All these cost analysis are a little mushy for my taste. I'd prefer a good old OMB or GAO analysis and I've never really seen a cost study that rigorous. They'd factor in all the ancillary cost drivers and even consider some of this loss of vehicle stuff in the previous paragraph. By the way, there are some excellent studies from one offices on the loss of Apollo I and Challenger that I ran across in a library a few years back. They were pretty lengthy and get a little deep but I recommend the read if you get the chance.

Guys, I don't know I have a lot more to contribute on this though I've enjoyed the discussion. We all agree, I think, funding continuity is the key risk. In regards to congressional funding, I wouldn't expect then to be any more loyal to commercial efforts then they were to NASA. Soon, the big business jealously will come home to roost and NASA will get the nod once again. Frankly, I won't be surprised if that happens in the next several months, resulting in more slipped schedules and greater costs. My position remains that we take the bird in the hand (NASA and Ares/Orion) and push viable commercial ventures really hard.

I will speculate on how I expect this to play out. First, I think there is a reasonable chance that NASA is back in the saddle within 6 months but this would be a horrible embarrassment to the adminstration. Failing that, I think NASA will go huddle up for a few months and come back with a wonderful new plan that looks markedly like Ares V Lite with a man rating. We'll have all new names and different coats of paint, but when you stop and think about it, the basic underpinnings of Orion/Ares is about the only game in town. Any quantum leap forward in lift capability will require many years of research and staggering sums of money. In regards to commercial ventures, I'd say we have a 50-50 shot at seeing a viable industry after 15 - 20 years for LEO but no further. In that 15 - 20 years, there will be a lot of business start-up carnage. Enough of my prognostication for now.

By the way, I'm dying for links to any summary of the collective leanings of Congress in this debacle or any commentary from Reed or Pelosi. From what I can tell, they've been totally silent. We still have that little matter that Constellation is not dead at all until congress says so. These sorts of tidbits will be our first clues as to how this will actually play out.
 
A

aaron38

Guest
jakethesnake":c99esc6f said:
Of course it generated only a fraction of the uproar, 14 astronauts died on that death trap!
That statement is why we're not yet a spacefaring race, and why I'm losing hope we ever will be.

1950 people have died in 747 crashes due to various reasons (not counting terrorism). Then there's every other airliner make and model, light private aircraft, and all the deaths in non-combat military aircraft crashes.
Over 12,000 people have died in aviation accidents this decade alone. Why don't we give up air travel as too risky? There sure are a lot of death traps out there that we keep flying.

Did they hold even a single 747 from taking off after TWA-800 blew up for no good reason? No, they didn't. The next 747 took off full of civilians and children like nothing had happened. I'm sick of this double standard and I'm convinced that this insistance on absolute safety in space travel, when we don't have it in any other form of travel, is going to permanently chain us to this rock.

In fact, this is the number one reason why I'm pushing for the privitization of spaceflight. Because when NASA crashes something, it's a 3 year standstill, Congressional hearings and a national tragedy. When a private craft crashes, they build another one and get on with it.
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
rcsplinters":2f9dcwa8 said:
DarkenedOne":2f9dcwa8 said:
rcsplinters":2f9dcwa8 said:
Fuel depots are one of the answers to finding ways to build spacecraft for moon mission cheaper. If a fuel depot can be constructed it will obviate the Ares V class rockets. Since 90% of the mass in LEO for a moon or Mars mission is fuel, which is infinitely divisible, practically all of the things needed for a moon or Mars mission can be delivered by commercial rockets. This fact is why the idea is so well supported by commercial launcher like the ULA.
Let me clarify a couple of my remarks. I indicated that the costs involved with EELV must consider the cost of a lost craft in a specific orbital construction sequence. The probability of a single loss of craft grows nearer to 1 with larger numbers of launches. That's really not open to debate as its a mathematical conclusion.
Isnt this solved by the fuel depot argument though? Suppose you have a ten ton launcher (just for round figures), and the vehicle you need to get into orbit weighs one hundred tons (90 of which are fuel, 10 of which are dry mass).

Only one launch is critical, that which launches the ten ton unfueled vehicle. The nine fuel launches are made well in advance, so that if one or two fail, others can be launched.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts