What is going happen to the US space program now

[rockett]

We've seen some modest success from commercial enterprises in their efforts to stake out a marketplace in LEO. None of them have a manned capsule on the drawing board that can withstand the radiation or the mission duration which will be required for manned missions beyond LEO. None of them have that 100 ton to LEO booster on the table which it seems a majority of mission planners indicate will be necessary. Further, i think its a bit unfair to a fledgling commercial manned space flight industry, which I might add has NEVER suceeded in that mission, to take us to Mars, Moon or even a couple of laps around a rock. They need to be allowed to cut their teeth without that sort of pressure.

I guess I could summarize this rather rambling post simply this way. As a citizen, I believe in the goal - Mars. I believe it'll cost half a trillion or maybe even a bit more to get there, no matter who does it. I also think we have to start now and we have to stay the course. I'm perfectly fine with all of this as a US citizen. If the commercial industry can assist with ferrying astronaunts to LEO, fine. If they can help us get 1200 tons or so to LEO, fine, but we don't wait and hold our breath for them to grow up.

If one is not committed to the goal or if one expects to do it on a shoestring budget, I can see where a bill like the one floating in the senate would be troublesome. To those such as myself, I see that bill as action where the administration seems bent on sloth. There's no commercial calvary coming over that hill to do this at a 100th or 10th of the budget. Let's let them get a man in orbit several dozen times and perfect their solution, then ask them to come play.

And if we don't, there could easily be unfortunate (deadly) consequences, which could do more harm than good. A failed manned launch could easily bankrupt any of these players from the resulting hearings, investigations, delays, frozen funding, etc, etc.

I like your point "There's no commercial calvary coming over that hill" - to even think so is incredibly naive.

 

[kelvinzero]

Hi rockett,

You appear to now be defending 75 tons, when you had just implied that NASA needed 160 tons. ULA reckon they can do 70 tons by strapping together existing rockets.

But the point is we could go to the moon with Atlas and Delta 4. We could have invested all the money so far wasted on constellation just on the Orion and Altair and actually had a moon architecture well underway by now.

Most people agree that the ISS was slow because it was designed to require the Shuttle, which was expensive and suspended for years following the shuttle disasters. I forsee the exact same thing happening if we get a 75 ton HLV: Missions designed to need 75 ton, because if they only needed 70 ton the HLV would be redundant. This is a very bad way to design missions from an engineering point of view.

------------------

About the money being split evenly five ways. Five companies delivering equal services including crew? What is that assertion based on? You only need one solid candidate and one not too far behind to have competition. I would expect one delivering crew and cargo, one delivering just cargo while it builds up a reliability record.

 

[rockett]

Hi rockett,

You appear to now be defending 75 tons, when you had just implied that NASA needed 160 tons. ULA reckon they can do 70 tons by strapping together existing rockets.

But the point is we could go to the moon with Atlas and Delta 4. We could have invested all the money so far wasted on constellation just on the Orion and Altair and actually had a moon architecture well underway by now.

Most people agree that the ISS was slow because it was designed to require the Shuttle, which was expensive and suspended for years following the shuttle disasters. I forsee the exact same thing happening if we get a 75 ton HLV: Missions designed to need 75 ton, because if they only needed 70 ton the HLV would be redundant. This is a very bad way to design missions from an engineering point of view.

I wasn't defending it, just looking at the engineering required to get there. Of the ULA products the Delta IV Heavy is the most promising, but it maxes out at 50 tons to LEO in current configurations. To get to the next step would require Delta IV Derivatives, or the next gen Delta. Delta IV Derivatives can get us up to the 90 ton range Boeing thinks, but to get to the next level (100+ tons) will require the next gen development. This would be perfectly acceptable, but either of these will require more development, in the case of next gen Delta, a redesign. I really don''t care how we get there, but if we are ever going to loft large pieces to LEO to build the required infrastructure, we will never get out of LEO.

Delta Launch 310 – Delta IV Heavy Demo Media Kit - Delta Growth Options (page 51)
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/kits/d310_d4heavy_demo.pdf

Frankly, after reading the above, I would just funnel all the new HLV funds into developing the next gen Delta. We just need to get the show on the road, it really doesn't matter how. What we don't need, is to waste another 5 years just "studying the concept", which is what we will be doing with Obama's plan.

------------------

About the money being split evenly five ways. Five companies delivering equal services including crew? What is that assertion based on? You only need one solid candidate and one not too far behind to have competition. I would expect one delivering crew and cargo, one delivering just cargo while it builds up a reliability record.

Actually, I was wrong. It's six ways. Currently these are the CCDev winners, and while SpaceX isn't listed in this $50m award, everyone knows they are a player..

Blue Origin will receive $3.7 million
The Boeing Company will receive $18 million
Paragon Space Development Corporation will receive $1.4 million
Sierra Nevada Corporation will receive $20 million
United Launch Alliance will receive $6.7 million
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/CCDev_Awards.html

 

[neutrino78x]

I don't see why Orion needs heavy lift. Wasn't Orion going to go up to LEO on Ares I? That's not a heavy lift rocket.

If anything, you would launch an Earth Departure stage and aerobrake module on a non-human-rated craft, then launch Orion on a human rated craft, mate the two in orbit, and blast on to Mars. No heavy lift needed to do that.

We don't need separate NASA vehicles if all they do is duplicate what is available in the private market.

I agree with the poster who said this is just about getting money for individual districts.

I have yet to see an explanation from Rockett, et al., about what exactly they want to do with NASA that wouldn't be better done through private enterprise or robotic missions.

Hotels on the moon? Mining on the moon? Sorry, those are not NASA functions. Those are things that private enterprise would do.

Explore the moon? You can do that with robots. Science base on moon? Again, robots.

The asteroid mission is more useful because that is about protecting humanity. The moon isn't going to crash into the Earth.

The New Space idea is that NASA should mainly be the FAA of space. Sure, they can do the occasional manned mission beyond LEO, given that said mission would require humans, and is a function of NASA rather than private enterprise, but mainly, what they should be doing is accelerating and regulating the private exploitation of space.

--Brian

 

[rockett]

I don't see why Orion needs heavy lift. Wasn't Orion going to go up to LEO on Ares I? That's not a heavy lift rocket.

If anything, you would launch an Earth Departure stage and aerobrake module on a non-human-rated craft, then launch Orion on a human rated craft, mate the two in orbit, and blast on to Mars. No heavy lift needed to do that.

We don't need separate NASA vehicles if all they do is duplicate what is available in the private market.

I agree with the poster who said this is just about getting money for individual districts.

I have yet to see an explanation from Rockett, et al., about what exactly they want to do with NASA that wouldn't be better done through private enterprise or robotic missions.

Hotels on the moon? Mining on the moon? Sorry, those are not NASA functions. Those are things that private enterprise would do.

Explore the moon? You can do that with robots. Science base on moon? Again, robots.

The asteroid mission is more useful because that is about protecting humanity. The moon isn't going to crash into the Earth.

The New Space idea is that NASA should mainly be the FAA of space. Sure, they can do the occasional manned mission beyond LEO, given that said mission would require humans, and is a function of NASA rather than private enterprise, but mainly, what they should be doing is accelerating and regulating the private exploitation of space.

--Brian

Heavy Lift (actually Super Heavy) is not about Orion. Orion can hitch a ride on pretty much anything in the Heavy Lift category, 20000 kg - 30000 kg to LEO. It's about building infrastructure, such as fuel depots, reactors, and translunar/interplanetary craft, to name a few examples. I won't even discuss the rest with you Brian, as you are so fixated on your agendas that you won't look at anything else...

 

[neutrino78x]

It's about building infrastructure, such as fuel depots,

And what is the NASA mission requiring a fuel depot that you propose? Certainly not exploring the moon or putting telescopes on the moon, both of which can be done with robots. Why could you not build a fuel depot in modules small enough to fit on a commercial rocket?

I am still not convinced of the point of a fuel depot in Earth orbit if we are only launching things to LEO. Just launch the fuel modules separately and attach in orbit.

reactors, and translunar/interplanetary craft, to name a few examples.

Again, these things can be made small enough to fit on commercial rockets (or assembled from modules that small).

I won't even discuss the rest with you Brian, as you are so fixated on your agendas that you won't look at anything else...

If I didn't have an agenda, there wouldn't be much point in debating on here. You have an agenda also.

--Brian

 

[rockett]

It's about building infrastructure, such as fuel depots,

And what is the NASA mission requiring a fuel depot that you propose? Certainly not exploring the moon or putting telescopes on the moon, both of which can be done with robots. Why could you not build a fuel depot in modules small enough to fit on a commercial rocket?

I am still not convinced of the point of a fuel depot in Earth orbit if we are only launching things to LEO. Just launch the fuel modules separately and attach in orbit.

Why, to go anywhere outside of LEO, of course. I thought that would be obvious. As for launching smaller modules, in this case we are dealing with LARGE tanks, at least some of which would be cryogenic. Smaller tanks, more chance for leakage for one thing. Launching fuel in particular would benefit from economies of scale.

[

reactors, and translunar/interplanetary craft, to name a few examples.

Again, these things can be made small enough to fit on commercial rockets (or assembled from modules that small).

You can't really send a reactor core up piecemeal. Even a small 25mw one will weigh between 25 to 50 tons (using Hyperion as an example) and VASIMR propulsion f(as an example) or say, a Mars mission, would require about 100 mw to 200 mw. Add on all the safety equipment, power generation gear, and other add-ons NASA is likely to require, and you might be able to orbit a 50 to 75 mw reactor system in a Super-Heavy. So no, you can't really break it down for in-orbit assembly much. Research it yourself if you like.

Translunar/linterplanetary craft would benefit from the larger modules used. Fewer connectors, less mass, and more structural integrity under boost. They could also be assembled more quickly.

 

[rockett]

It's about building infrastructure, such as fuel depots,

And what is the NASA mission requiring a fuel depot that you propose? Certainly not exploring the moon or putting telescopes on the moon, both of which can be done with robots. Why could you not build a fuel depot in modules small enough to fit on a commercial rocket?

I am still not convinced of the point of a fuel depot in Earth orbit if we are only launching things to LEO. Just launch the fuel modules separately and attach in orbit.

Why, to go anywhere outside of LEO, of course. I thought that would be obvious. As for launching smaller modules, in this case we are dealing with LARGE tanks, at least some of which would be cryogenic. Smaller tanks, more chance for leakage for one thing. Launching fuel in particular would benefit from economies of scale.

[

reactors, and translunar/interplanetary craft, to name a few examples.

Again, these things can be made small enough to fit on commercial rockets (or assembled from modules that small).

You can't really send a reactor core up piecemeal. Even a small 25mw one will weigh between 25 to 50 tons (using Hyperion as an example) and VASIMR propulsion for say, a Mars mission, would require about 100 mw to 200 mw. Add on all the safety equipment, power generation gear, and other add-ons NASA is likely to require, and you might be able to orbit a 50 to 75 mw reactor system in a Super-Heavy. So no, you can't really break it down for in-orbit assembly much. Research it yourself if you like.

Translunar/linterplanetary craft would benefit from the larger modules used. Fewer connectors, less mass, and more structural integrity under boost. They could also be assembled more quickly.

 

[Valcan]

It's about building infrastructure, such as fuel depots,

There are already ideas on how to build a space tug and on how to build a fuel station in LEO.

The point of having one is that you can have the fuel up there to a refuel the tug in orbit and to fuel any craft that are going for a long haul into the dark.

And part of the reason we are stuck in LEO is because it cost to much in fuel to get any higher. Having the fuel there (tug could also be a refueling craft or have a refueler perpose built) saves on money and mass. Which would cut back on the requirement for a larger heavy lift vehicle. Leave spaceX and such to do what is needed.

 

[rockett]

There are already ideas on how to build a space tug and on how to build a fuel station in LEO.

The point of having one is that you can have the fuel up there to a refuel the tug in orbit and to fuel any craft that are going for a long haul into the dark.

And part of the reason we are stuck in LEO is because it cost to much in fuel to get any higher. Having the fuel there (tug could also be a refueling craft or have a refueler perpose built) saves on money and mass. Which would cut back on the requirement for a larger heavy lift vehicle. Leave spaceX and such to do what is needed.

I am more and more liking the idea of a next gen Delta as a Super Heavy lift. It verges on the lifting power of a Saturn V, and has a larger diameter faring. Will common sense prevail? Or will we be sold another bill of goods that goes nowhere.

 

[vulture4]

"Get to low-Earth orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system." - Robert A. Heinlein

We aren't stuck in LEO. We're stuck on the ground. Until we have the technology to travel to LEO for $2M or less per seat there is no point in even considering going further. Once we have low-cost access to LEO and can do useful things there, it will make sense to consider what we can do to achieve practical travel beyond LEO.

 

[rockett]

"Get to low-Earth orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system." - Robert A. Heinlein

We aren't stuck in LEO. We're stuck on the ground. Until we have the technology to travel to LEO for $2M or less per seat there is no point in even considering going further. Once we have low-cost access to LEO and can do useful things there, it will make sense to consider what we can do to achieve practical travel beyond LEO.

HEY! YOU STOLE MY TAG LINE! :lol:

Personally, I wouldn't place the threshold that low, not when we are paying Soyuz taxi fees at 10 times that. I think it can be synergistic and self feeding. The more we discover, the more reasons to go, the more things we find to defray costs.

This IS an area where commercial will eventually help, but it will be a very long time before they are able to go further.

 

[ZiraldoAerospace]

What we need to do is to establish an infrastructure and a base of operations in orbit from which to launch future missions.

Already have one. It's called the ISS.

I honestly would not call the ISS an infrastructure or a base of operations. :lol: We need a real base of operations.

 

[rockett]

What we need to do is to establish an infrastructure and a base of operations in orbit from which to launch future missions.

Already have one. It's called the ISS.

I honestly would not call the ISS an infrastructure or a base of operations. :lol: We need a real base of operations.

It's a start, and it's farther along than anything else we've got, unless you have more than a $100 B to start something new...

 

[neutrino78x]

I don't think you need to stop at the ISS to assemble things. I would design modules so they can dock together automatically, with as little human intervention as possible. You shouldn't need an astronaut to do an EVA to get them to attach.

I think NASA should be more of a systems integrator. Like if they want to go to Mars, they should hook multiple commercial capsules together and hook on an earth departure stage, not try to make a new multibillion dollar spacecraft. Eventually it will be justified to have ships that stay in orbit and say "US NAVY" on them, but not yet. That's 100 years from now.

--Brian

 

[sftommy]

If Senators Nelson & Vitter have their way we'll be starting on Constellation all over again.

No new technologies, no commercial space launches, no robotic space craft...

...just one massive project eating all NASA $$$ for another decade.

 

[rockett]

If Senators Nelson & Vitter have their way we'll be starting on Constellation all over again.

Don't think so. I think by now, everyone knows Aries I was unnecessary, and more than likely we will see a shuttle derivative for cargo, or funding something like the next gen Delta.

Orion was worthwhile, and quite a way into development, but there are other ways to use it for beyond LEO. Pretty much any of the existing HLVs in production could launch it if man rated.

I am pleased to see they aren't waiting another 5 years to start some building some real launch pad muscle.

In its current version, the bill would direct NASA to fly one more space shuttle mission in the second half of next year. The bill would also in effect restore full capabilities to the Constellation program’s Orion crew capsule by telling NASA to build a spacecraft that can undertake deep-space missions to destinations like the moon or an asteroid.

In April, President Obama said he wanted to retain the Orion crew capsule after shuttering the Constellation program, but as a stripped-down lifeboat for the International Space Station.

The authorization also directs NASA to start development of a new heavy-lift rocket immediately rather than waiting as late as 2015 in the president’s proposal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html

tune in next Thursday...

 

[Valcan]

If Senators Nelson & Vitter have their way we'll be starting on Constellation all over again.

Don't think so. I think by now, everyone knows Aries I was unnecessary, and more than likely we will see a shuttle derivative for cargo, or funding something like the next gen Delta.

Orion was worthwhile, and quite a way into development, but there are other ways to use it for beyond LEO. Pretty much any of the existing HLVs in production could launch it if man rated.

I am pleased to see they aren't waiting another 5 years to start some building some real launch pad muscle.

In its current version, the bill would direct NASA to fly one more space shuttle mission in the second half of next year. The bill would also in effect restore full capabilities to the Constellation program’s Orion crew capsule by telling NASA to build a spacecraft that can undertake deep-space missions to destinations like the moon or an asteroid.

In April, President Obama said he wanted to retain the Orion crew capsule after shuttering the Constellation program, but as a stripped-down lifeboat for the International Space Station.

The authorization also directs NASA to start development of a new heavy-lift rocket immediately rather than waiting as late as 2015 in the president’s proposal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html

tune in next Thursday...

\Yes but the problem is that Nelsons plan urts nasa as a whole and all of american atleast manned space flight just so we can have a heavy launcher. We wont have anything to do with it but we will have it!!! :roll:

 

[rockett]

Yes but the problem is that Nelsons plan urts nasa as a whole and all of american atleast manned space flight just so we can have a heavy launcher. We wont have anything to do with it but we will have it!!! :roll:

Sustainable prescence in space has to be taken in stages, one step at a time, and a Super-Heavy is key to that.

For instance, one of Obama's reseach initiative was in-orbit refueling. That's all well and good, but useless with no way to lauch it to orbit. Because of the tanks alone, by nature it would be LARGE. Another example is space tugs. Well that's great but even Altair required an Ares V under Constellation. There is talk about beaming power down from space, and even at least 1 company going to attempt to. Once again a VERY large solar array.
Here's an example for VASIMR:

A mission trajectory study estimated that a VASIMR-powered spacecraft could reach the red planet within 40 days if it had a 200 megawatt power source. That’s 1,000 times more power than what the current VASIMR prototype will use, although Ad Astra says that VASIMR can scale up to higher power sources.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/rocket-engine-mars-trip-100305.html

The point is, lofting a reactor core weighing 200 tons (scaling the Hyperion reactor core as an example). Even changing things up to a more energetic fissionable, we are still talking about a pretty hefty payload.

So, we are left with a chicken and egg scenario when it comes to a Super-Heavy lift. If we build any of these things, actually doing anything with them would have to wait on that launcher development.

 

[EarthlingX]

Yes but the problem is that Nelsons plan urts nasa as a whole and all of american atleast manned space flight just so we can have a heavy launcher. We wont have anything to do with it but we will have it!!! :roll:

Sustainable prescence in space has to be taken in stages, one step at a time, and a Super-Heavy is key to that.

:lol: And then have one spectacular launch every year or so, and employ 10 000 people for that ? That is key to what exactly ?

Why do you need to lift everything at once ? How many times are you going to lift 200t to orbit ? That is 10x 20t launch, it can technically be done now, if it had anything to lift.

What is it which can't be done with smaller launchers and automatic docking and assembly in orbit ?

 

[kelvinzero]

For instance, one of Obama's reseach initiative was in-orbit refueling. That's all well and good, but useless with no way to lauch it to orbit. Because of the tanks alone, by nature it would be LARGE.

Fuel Depots do not need to be large to start making a big difference.

Every time a two stage rocket makes it to orbit, the second stage also makes it to orbit, empty. If you could refuel this second stage in orbit, this would greatly increase the launch system's BEO capability.

So you only need a fuel depot large enough to refuel an empty second stage of your existing rockets. This also means that you fuel depot can in fact just be an empty second stage.

It is not vital, but still useful to go larger, that way if you wish to delay your BEO mission, other commercial missions would not need to delay their launches until there was room for more fuel.

So why not just stack some more empty second stages together to make a larger fuel depot? You have no other use for them. And you have already had to solve most of the problems of doing this anyway, because docking these second stages permanently together and connecting up their fuel tanks is not that different from the problem of docking to the fuel depot temporarily to refuel your BEO stage.

 

[EarthlingX]

www.spaceref.com : Commercial Spaceflight Federation Responds to Recent Misperceptions Related to U.S. Human Spaceflight

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Monday, July 12, 2010

Source: Commercial Spaceflight Federation

Washington, D.C., July 12, 2010 - As a strong supporter of a robust NASA human spaceflight program, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation is releasing the following statement to address topics related to human spaceflight, including commercial human spaceflight. Please see items below on the topics of capability, safety, and cost savings:

 

[rockett]

Yes but the problem is that Nelsons plan urts nasa as a whole and all of american atleast manned space flight just so we can have a heavy launcher. We wont have anything to do with it but we will have it!!! :roll:

Sustainable prescence in space has to be taken in stages, one step at a time, and a Super-Heavy is key to that.

:lol: And then have one spectacular launch every year or so, and employ 10 000 people for that ? That is key to what exactly ?

Why do you need to lift everything at once ? How many times are you going to lift 200t to orbit ? That is 10x 20t launch, it can technically be done now, if it had anything to lift.

What is it which can't be done with smaller launchers and automatic docking and assembly in orbit ?

Fine, we can launch 1 fissionable rod at a time, and in 20 years, we'll have them all up there, then you can go load em in the core.

 

[EarthlingX]

Why do you need to lift everything at once ? How many times are you going to lift 200t to orbit ? That is 10x 20t launch, it can technically be done now, if it had anything to lift.

What is it which can't be done with smaller launchers and automatic docking and assembly in orbit ?

Fine, we can launch 1 fissionable rod at a time, and in 20 years, we'll have them all up there, then you can go load em in the core.

One rod is 20t ? Where did you get that ? Try again.

 

[rockett]

Why do you need to lift everything at once ? How many times are you going to lift 200t to orbit ? That is 10x 20t launch, it can technically be done now, if it had anything to lift.

What is it which can't be done with smaller launchers and automatic docking and assembly in orbit ?

Fine, we can launch 1 fissionable rod at a time, and in 20 years, we'll have them all up there, then you can go load em in the core.

One rod is 20t ? Where did you get that ? Try again.

Was making humorous attempt to illustrate that reactor core should be a monolithic block. :geek:

NASA SOP would be, send it peacemeal, take forever to get pieces in orbit, and drag a 3-5 year job out to 20. Fasttrack would be, send it up in one piece, connect VASIMRs and Bigalow module fire it up and go. While other pieces could be smaller, core in particular would be tough, and give them all kinda excuses to drag it out. :roll: