What is going happen to the US space program now

[EarthlingX]

Send what up ? You get a 200t launcher then what ?

Which core did you have in mind, and what makes you think 20t is not enough ? What is wrong with 2 cores, or more, if you need them ?

Fast track would be - light Orion, Bigelow module, tank module, propulsion module - than as many launches as required to fill the tank, or fill it at the gas station.

If you need more tanks, just plug them in.

 

[rockett]

Send what up ? You get a 200t launcher then what ? Which core did you have in mind ?

The core for a 200 mw reactor, of course.

Using Hyperion as a model, with a power to weight ratio of .5 to .75 tons per MWe, you have 100 tons to 150 tons for the reactor core of a 200mw reactor. This does not include the associated plumbing and gear for power generation.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/10/power-to-overall-weight-ratio-aspect-of.html

 

[mj1]

Any fool can see what is going on here. This is NOT about what is best for manned space flight, it's about how to spend the most taxpayer money in these politician's districts.

You obviously need to study Washington a bit more, seeming a bit naive about what is business as usual there. Here's a site that might be and eye opener for you: http://www.spacepolitics.com/ That's what all politicians do, in case you haven't noticed, Obama included. It's also why we vote for them, to bring home the bacon.

We CANNOT afford to spend billions and billions more on stuff like Orion capsules and NASA developed heavy lift boosters, when private industry is bringing much cheaper solutions to the table.

Let NASA work on deep space exploration, something that it can do best. The private companies can more than handle the LEO taxi and freight delivery functions, so let them do that. I could stomach this if they had required NASA to work in tandem with private rocket companies to develop a heavy lift booster, which they are already doing anyway. It will take them at least twice as long and be 10 times as expensive as someone like SpaceX to do this development alone. They are also not fooling anyone with point number 4. I believe that was specifically put in there to slow the progress of SpaceX. These asses are so out of touch that the successful launch of the first Falcon 9 totally caught them by surprise. And to have it be such a success on the first try? They CANNOT have that. If they don't slow the progress of SpaceX, Dragon capsules will be servicing the ISS and eventually ferrying astronauts up there before they can waste more taxpayer money elsewhere. We should be doing all we can to help companies like SpaceX, not choke them to death with red tape like this plan is proposing. Sen. Hutchinson should be ashamed of herself with all of the money and jobs SpaceX is already bringing her state. I guess Elon Musk needs to start padding her pockets like the military-industrial complex already does. If this plan is approved, it will be MUCH longer and MUCH more expensive to get US manned expeditions out to deep space. At least with the Obama approach, we could see significant manned exploration of deep space exploration in our lifetimes. NASA needs to be planning trips to Mars and to the asteroid belt, not the moon (unless it's just to put a refueling depot there). With this backwards looking approach, we will be lucky to see an Apollo redux back to the moon in 20-30 years, with BILLIONS and BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars foolishly spent, at best. Instead of trying to kill the commercial space industry, they should look to partner with them. There are lessons that NASA could learn from a company like Space, like how to quickly reset a scrubbed launch and still get the rocket off the ground in the same launch window, for example. There are also things that SpaceX could learn from NASA's years of experience too. A smart politician who really cared about this would look to develop synergy between government space and private space, not just look to spend money for money's sake.

You also appear to need an education about the specifics of Obama's proposed budget, rather than the popular media spin (here it is): http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_ Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf When you look at the breakdown, it's very interesting.

Here's a couple of examples:

Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D (page 7)
(in millions)
2011 $559
2012 $594
2013 $597
2014 $598
2015 $754
Way short of serious development, at a federal level.
Even the HLV SpaceX has under development is not even in the same league with what NASA needs:
Falcon 9 Heavy: 32,000 kg to LEO
Ares V (for comparison): 160,000 kg to LEO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems

Commercial Crew and Cargo (page 10)
(in millions)
2011
Commercial Crew $500
Commercial Cargo $312
(remaining years are only for commercial crew)
2012 $1 400
2013 $1 400
2014 $1 300
2015 $1 200
That is not really serious support, just a bone tossed their way.

Orion IS primarily designed for beyond LEO operations, therefore, using your criteria, a bona fide choice for NASA. Using it as a lifeboat is a waste.

And finally, it's not about red tape, it's about human rating. Caution is important after the two shuttles we lost. Requiring commercial to take their new designs and launch cargo to work out the bugs is not the least unreasonable, nor is it "strangling" development.

Dude, I really don't care about the exact particulars of this, but thanks for the links anyway. You seem to be trying to frame this as NASA against commercial. I'm saying the opposite, NASA working WITH commercial to help us all reach deeper into space. The Constellation program should be canned precisely because it does not help reach that goal, not really. The moon? Been there, done that. I see the moon as a gas station, nothing more. Let the commercial guys deal with the moon. My vision is much bigger than Constellation and is this: Get NASA completely out of the LEO business and have them start work on a real manned deep space probe that will be built in and launched from space, like a Lagrange point, Lunar Orbit or something. Use the commercial carriers to ferry men and material back and forth, taking as much time (decades probably) as we would need to get the job done. An approach like this would get us a permanent foothold in space. Sure, this will take us 20-30 years to get there, but it is something that can be built on and left as a legacy to our children. Most of us would not live to see something like this completed, in fact, our kids or grand kids would be the crew, but I could get excited knowing that we are looking at doing something this ambitious, instead of an Apollo redux.

 

[rcsplinters]

While this is conjecture on my part, I see the moon not as fueling depot so much as a proving ground. Do we send a new craft to Mars, lagrange point or other dot on the map without operations in similar conditions closer to home? Would we attempt to dock with an asteroid on a 6 - 18 month mission or park in lunar orbit for a lengthy period first? Would we attempt to land on Mars, a mission that may be a couple of years long or would we attempt that risky business a bit closer to home first? I can't see the moon not playing a role in this. I think the "Apollo on steriods" platitude was born of the need to utilize the moon as a proving ground. Regardless of what the program is called, I would be greatly surprised if any destination doesn't follow in Apollo's footsteps to some degree. If the moon can also be a fuel can, so much the better.

Also, I think we are not looking at any legacy we leave to our kids regarding accomplishments. Unless a huge amount of money is poured into Constellation or some HLV capability immediately, that Mars flyby or landing is out of scope for us. Too much time is wasted and sorting out the administration's current debacle will take a couple of years at least before we find ourselves again with a plan of record and back on the path to returning to orbit. Our generation will, at best, provide the foundation on which the next generation can do these great things. I think we've used our time in the spotlight to bicker and stall. Now we offer a "leg up" to our kids to undertake these missions or we give up and talk about the good old times.

I think there is no option here that doesn't include a commercial involvement. However, for activities beyond LEO, they don't have anything to bring to the table as yet. Further, there's no sustainable market for that activity so I can't see the commercial folks wanting to play in that sandbox till something solidifies. For now, they are going to be focused on getting a man to LEO and scratching out some sort of sustainable business in that market. If the US is to be a part manned presence beyond LEO, it will come from NASA as the designer, systems integrator, mission planner, etc. I suspect the commercial folks will be far more interested in fabrication and not owning the overall success of operations beyond LEO. On the commercial front, we're trying to treat them as though the product they are trying to produce for the first time is already routine. Its not. Its exceedingly difficult. Trivializing their efforts in such a manner will only magnify the negative effects of any failure.

The argument here is whether we wait or whether we start work now. There is no "game changing" technology for 2015 that we don't already have for getting 100 tons to LEO. The Augustine commission, the administration, the congress and almost anyone else that is a serious player in the decision process seems to consider an HLV a presrequisite. There are those which think HLV is not required, but are they sitting at the table with a hand full of cards? Not that I can tell. So its HLV starting next year or HLV starting in 2015. What's the advantage of waiting? Congress seems to be leaning toward "start now" and I agree.

This is a difficult thing that Congress and supposedly even the administration is proposing to do. Its going to cost 100's of billions over a few decades before its over and we actually stand on Mars. If we aren't committed to that, then best just to stop now. For myself, I say start now and stay the path.

 

[rockett]

While this is conjecture on my part, I see the moon not as fueling depot so much as a proving ground. Do we send a new craft to Mars, lagrange point or other dot on the map without operations in similar conditions closer to home? Would we attempt to dock with an asteroid on a 6 - 18 month mission or park in lunar orbit for a lengthy period first? Would we attempt to land on Mars, a mission that may be a couple of years long or would we attempt that risky business a bit closer to home first? I can't see the moon not playing a role in this. I think the "Apollo on steriods" platitude was born of the need to utilize the moon as a proving ground. Regardless of what the program is called, I would be greatly surprised if any destination doesn't follow in Apollo's footsteps to some degree. If the moon can also be a fuel can, so much the better.

Also, I think we are not looking at any legacy we leave to our kids regarding accomplishments. Unless a huge amount of money is poured into Constellation or some HLV capability immediately, that Mars flyby or landing is out of scope for us. Too much time is wasted and sorting out the administration's current debacle will take a couple of years at least before we find ourselves again with a plan of record and back on the path to returning to orbit. Our generation will, at best, provide the foundation on which the next generation can do these great things. I think we've used our time in the spotlight to bicker and stall. Now we offer a "leg up" to our kids to undertake these missions or we give up and talk about the good old times.

I think there is no option here that doesn't include a commercial involvement. However, for activities beyond LEO, they don't have anything to bring to the table as yet. Further, there's no sustainable market for that activity so I can't see the commercial folks wanting to play in that sandbox till something solidifies. For now, they are going to be focused on getting a man to LEO and scratching out some sort of sustainable business in that market. If the US is to be a part manned presence beyond LEO, it will come from NASA as the designer, systems integrator, mission planner, etc. I suspect the commercial folks will be far more interested in fabrication and not owning the overall success of operations beyond LEO. On the commercial front, we're trying to treat them as though the product they are trying to produce for the first time is already routine. Its not. Its exceedingly difficult. Trivializing their efforts in such a manner will only magnify the negative effects of any failure.

The argument here is whether we wait or whether we start work now. There is no "game changing" technology for 2015 that we don't already have for getting 100 tons to LEO. The Augustine commission, the administration, the congress and almost anyone else that is a serious player in the decision process seems to consider an HLV a presrequisite. There are those which think HLV is not required, but are they sitting at the table with a hand full of cards? Not that I can tell. So its HLV starting next year or HLV starting in 2015. What's the advantage of waiting? Congress seems to be leaning toward "start now" and I agree.

This is a difficult thing that Congress and supposedly even the administration is proposing to do. Its going to cost 100's of billions over a few decades before its over and we actually stand on Mars. If we aren't committed to that, then best just to stop now. For myself, I say start now and stay the path.

Well said. I think most miss the point that the moon is a very good lab for ISRU, and extended off-world living. If we can't do it there, we have no business attempting to build Mars colonies. There is also the perception that the "commercial calvary" is right over the hill, which at this point is a myth with respect to crewed transport. As you pointed out, it's only there if the business case is, which remains to be seen. As for HLV opponents, there are simply some pieces to build an interplanetary infrastructure that require it.

 

[EarthlingX]

So nobody has a clue what to use HLV for, but development have to start now ?

As to who is closer to what :

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31221

MYTH: "Commercial Crew will take ten years to develop."
FACT:

* Developing a low Earth orbit Gemini-class capability (which is the historical human spaceflight project most similar to Commercial Crew) is a simpler, and therefore shorter, task than developing an Apollo or Orion-class capability. The first piloted Gemini flight to orbit was achieved only about 3 years and 3 months after McDonnell accepted Contract NAS 9-170 to develop Gemini. Today, the fastest way for America to regain its ability to send astronauts to the International Space Station is to develop a simple Gemini-class capability rather than waiting for a more complex Apollo-sized system.

* Because Commercial Crew funds multiple redundant capabilities, schedule delays with any one company will not delay the availability of astronaut launch capability. Commercial Crew is actually less vulnerable to schedule slips than a program such as Ares I that has only one provider. With Commercial Crew, a delay with a single competitor does not increase the "gap," because other competitors are progressing in parallel, while under the old plan, each delay with Ares I does increase the "gap."

 

[nimbus]

IIRC DIRECT could fly in 2013.

 

[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.

Looks like you may get your wish. Nelson NASA Bill is proposing HLV in 70-100 ton range. That fits the high end Delta IV pretty darn close.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/NASA Rockefeller1.pdf

 

[rcsplinters]

I have to study that document closer, but I think I saw where they talk about an ultimate expectation of 150 tons in orbit. Also, it surprised me in that it referenced continuity with the current contracts in the 2011 time frame, though I could have that wrong. Smacks of SD-HLV though something like Delta IV could handle the low end of the initial requirement. I'm just not sure how the Delta IV would slide into those contracts. SD-HLV might.

I'll say one thing, in comparison with the administration's plan, that thing had detail and recommended action. Now, the test comes with the tug of war with the house over the plan and purse strings. Pelosi will not like this unless someone can pony up 10X the money for one of her pet projects.

Frankly, they can move forward with this plan and I'll be happy. I'd have just funded Constellation but I'm guessing various parts of it will come to fruition if this becomes the plan of record.

 

[rockett]

I have to study that document closer, but I think I saw where they talk about an ultimate expectation of 150 tons in orbit. Also, it surprised me in that it referenced continuity with the current contracts in the 2011 time frame, though I could have that wrong. Smacks of SD-HLV though something like Delta IV could handle the low end of the initial requirement. I'm just not sure how the Delta IV would slide into those contracts. SD-HLV might.

I'll say one thing, in comparison with the administration's plan, that thing had detail and recommended action. Now, the test comes with the tug of war with the house over the plan and purse strings. Pelosi will not like this unless someone can pony up 10X the money for one of her pet projects.

Frankly, they can move forward with this plan and I'll be happy. I'd have just funded Constellation but I'm guessing various parts of it will come to fruition if this becomes the plan of record.

This plan actually makes sense. It specifically directs NASA to salvage what they can from previous work, rather than trashing it all and starting over. It also cuts down on contract termination expenses (which is always a huge waste, $2.5B by some accounts http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/03/15/15.xml). It also doesn't tie NASA's hands on how to go about it, other than to specify the "made in america" label. That gives them a lot of flexibility to design all new, uprate existing, or incorporate parts of the shuttle, Ares V, or commercial.

It also looks like the "MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE" is going to be a straight up revival of Orion, which I'm fine with, if we are going to have a capsule design crew vehicle (I know they are a waste, but I have had a fondness for wings since the X-15).

I am extremely happy with the "lets get on with it" tone of the bill, though a little more money and commercial support would have been nice. But, considering the recession, budgets are a necessary pain.

 

[kelvinzero]

Looks like you may get your wish. Nelson NASA Bill is proposing HLV in 70-100 ton range. That fits the high end Delta IV pretty darn close.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/NASA Rockefeller1.pdf

I don't see why we need a 70 ton HLV either. I think Orion and Altair (or similar) could be lifted with existing 25-30 ton launchers, though Altair would also have to be fueled in orbit, it is too heavy fully fueled. We can probably put together something to push them from LEO to the moon using refueled second stages.

Bill Nelson is the Senator for Florida. I suspect it is no coincidence that he wants a launcher slightly larger than what ULA say they can do.

The point is, the way I see it, constellation was holding the moon mission hostage to HLV. I think we should concentrate on Orion and Altair, and then once they are known quantities, and if actually having moon missions manages to motivate people to want to spend even more, and if fuel depots have proven their limitations, then you build your HLV. Sure it would be good to have an HLV, but there was no reason of engineering to hold our dream of going to the moon hostage to it.

 

[rockett]

I don't see why we need a 70 ton HLV either. I think Orion and Altair (or similar) could be lifted with existing 25-30 ton launchers, though Altair would also have to be fueled in orbit, it is too heavy fully fueled. We can probably put together something to push them from LEO to the moon using refueled second stages.

Bill Nelson is the Senator for Florida. I suspect it is no coincidence that he wants a launcher slightly larger than what ULA say they can do.

The point is, the way I see it, constellation was holding the moon mission hostage to HLV. I think we should concentrate on Orion and Altair, and then once they are known quantities, and if actually having moon missions manages to motivate people to want to spend even more, and if fuel depots have proven their limitations, then you build your HLV. Sure it would be good to have an HLV, but there was no reason of engineering to hold our dream of going to the moon hostage to it.

I agree with you. Aries I was rated at 25,600 kg to LEO. Orion can easily be launched using:
Atlas V Heavy (29,500 kg to LEO)
Delta V Heavy (22,950 kg to LEO)
Falcon 9 Heavy (32,000 kg to LEO)
- no new vehicle needed

Delta IV derivatives span from 50 to about 95 tons. Next gen Delta 100+ tons. That would cover the initial requirements in the Nelson Bill. ULA should be waiting on the doorstep, if it passes...

 

[kk434]

Hm... During the last months the 5 segment SRB was test fired, Orion capsule is being welded, Y2010 constellation is fully funded and they are working flat out right now on Ares 1. The whole cancelation is just an proposal, the 2011 budget that cancells constellation is not yet aprowed an may never be in its current form. I almost think that just when the money runs out NASA will roll out some kind of vehicle on the pad and ask for a supplemantary budget to be aproved that keeps them going.

 

[nimbus]

Huh? Ares is gone.

Recent Nelson & co developments sound like something like man rated EELVs or SDLV like DIRECT will be chosen and work will start asap.

 

[EarthlingX]

Final death blow to advanced tech and science at NASA, perhaps just enough to close all those old and for years underfunded laboratories - who needs them anyway, when there's HLV.

 

[sftommy]

Final death blow to advanced tech and science at NASA,

Agreed,

We're stuck right back where we were; building a mega-rocket at the expense of all other innovation.

Lord Admiral Nelson has out-maneuvered, although not out-witted, the Augustine Commission. At least the dreamers get another decade of dreaming.

 

[nimbus]

EX hasn't NIAC been restarted? I mean recently.

Best clues I could find in 2min of Google:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/457884main_OCT_ ... l_rev4.pdf
Page 22. Ref'd from Cosmic Log's July 13 entry:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... -new-feats

 

[EarthlingX]

EX hasn't NIAC been restarted? I mean recently.

Yes, but not exactly restarted, more a new program with the old acronym, but about the same thing.

There were small increases, like 5-10 % in the proposal, more inflation anticipation than increases, but now it is at about 25 % of proposal - judging on the experience, about enough to close the programs - less then it was in the old budget.

They talk about advancing science and tech and then cut funds for it. Strike another one for the politics.

If they were really so concerned about the space, budget should've been increased with money for the SDLV - if they want it.

Quick recap :

http://www.universetoday.com : Senate's New NASA Plan: Heavy Lift, Extra Shuttle Mission, Less Commericial and Tech Development

July 15th, 2010

Written by Nancy Atkinson

The U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation today unanimously approved legislation that would add a shuttle mission and jump start work on a heavy-lift rocket next year. The NASA Reauthorization Act effectively cancels the Constellation program, but directs NASA to begin work immediately on a new heavy-lift vehicle to be ready by 2016, along with a crew vehicle. The new legislation takes money away, however, from two main focuses on Obama's proposed budget: commercial space development and funding for innovation and breakthrough technologies.

They say :

It must innovate and move in a new direction.

and do

Obama had proposed $6 billion over five years for technology development whereas the new Senate bill funds advanced technologies at about $950 million over three years.

 

[rockett]

Much better than expected, overall. The Senate HAD to send a message back to the White House about who held the purse strings. Came back as only as slap on the wrist. Obama was just stepping on way too many toes, with his proposal whether you liked it or not. I think they were more than a little annoyed at the circumventions he and Bolden were using to get around bills that Congress had enacted. Frankly, I think the Senate proposal is a lot more realistic, considering it's an congressional election year.

All in all it's something we can live with:
-Ares I is gone
-A more reasonable SHLV than Ares V is getting underway without delays
-Orion, which was further along than anything else is preserved, and can be fitted on several commercial boosters that already exist, or are under development.
-More funding for commercial will be dug up somewhere, through some devious channel before it's over, in a not too public way.
-We kept the R&D

 

[EarthlingX]

Much better than expected, overall. The Senate HAD to send a message back to the White House about who held the purse strings. Came back as only as slap on the wrist. Obama was just stepping on way too many toes, with his proposal whether you liked it or not. I think they were more than a little annoyed at the circumventions he and Bolden were using to get around bills that Congress had enacted. Frankly, I think the Senate proposal is a lot more realistic, considering it's an congressional election year.

All in all it's something we can live with:
-Ares I is gone
-A more reasonable SHLV than Ares V is getting underway without delays
-Orion, which was further along than anything else is preserved, and can be fitted on several commercial boosters that already exist, or are under development.
-More funding for commercial will be dug up somewhere, through some devious channel before it's over, in a not too public way.
-We kept the R&D

- ISS to 2020, at least,
- restarting of plutonium production for deep space missions and a defined goal:

The bill would support an overall growth in science, aeronautics, and space technology and define a long-term goal for human space flight to expand a permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit.

I hope that you noticed, that for at least 4-5 years there were annual complains about R&D being underfunded. Try search for National Science Foundation, and you will probably find a couple links on this forum.

NASA is obviously intended to lead with a heavy lift, but i doubt it for several reasons :
- Russians will be sooner with Angara, which will very likely use Baikal fly-back booster;
- NASA can not HR a working rocket engine in 4 years (RS68B) and now they will build a HR heavy launcher in 6 years ..

Lovely, but not particularly realistic.

It seems to me, that the main focus of innovation will be how to get by with less money while building a big rocket. Forget about thinking big about new technologies.

ATK is probably happy too, they will be making SRBs for some more time, like they did for the last 30 years.

They will cut COTS funding and add a new layer of costly complications for non-cost-plus contractors, which tells me they don't want you or me in space, just NASA astronauts and military, which has about 4 times NASA budget for space anyway.

I just hope that other space agencies will not follow NASA lead.

 

[EarthlingX]

This might show a bit how real are those numbers :
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

If NASA budget were kept in sync with inflation, and assuming 14,2 G$ in 1998, it should be 19 G$ in 2010, due to 33,9 % inflation in the same period.
I must admit, i expected different numbers ..

 

[rockett]

- Russians will be sooner with Angara, which will very likely use Baikal fly-back booster;

Angara tops out at 40.5 mT to LEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_(rocket_family).

New NASA HLV starts at 50 mT. Only thing the Russians have that can begin to compete in capacity is Energia, and they cancelled that...

 

[nimbus]

DIRECT isn't a new rocket. The technical side of the plan (i.e. politics aside) IIRC has a J-130 ready in 2013 or so.

 

[docm]

Mentioned in the SpaceX thread, but also relevant to discussions involving commercial. From SFN-

>
The Dragon's heat shield will also be put to the test during re-entry. The capsule's blunt end is coated with phenolic impregnated carbon ablator, a resistant insulator used by NASA's Stardust mission that returned comet samples to Earth.

The ablator, called PICA-X for short, was tested inside an arc jet laboratory at NASA's Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif.

"It's actually the most powerful stuff known to man. Dragon is capable of re-entering from a lunar velocity, or even a Mars velocity with the heat shield that it has," Musk said.
>

Wonder if they'd ever attempt a lunar free return mission just to make the point?

 

[nimbus]

Huh. I do remember this possibility debated over at NSF (or here?), and the conclusion being more or less that it probably wasn't enough for Moon return. That it was so thick, or that as thick as it was, it was most likely "just" a design margin. This was something like 6 months to a year ago.