Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) paid a visit to the Space Coast on Wednesday, and touched upon both NASA as well as space policy in the presidential campaign during a speech there. On the election, Nelson said Florida’s role as a swing state in the general election could continue to make space an issue in the campaign. “It is going to be up to us to educate the two candidates about space,” he said. A skeptic might argue, though, that space did little, if anything, to influence the outcome of the Republican primary there; moreover, if John McCain picks Florida governor Charlie Crist as his running mate (a name that has popped up from time to time among a number of other potential choices) it might take the state out of play entirely.
Nelson also made comments about NASA’s selection of Orbital Sciences Corporation for a funded COTS agreement. The choice itself wasn’t necessarily surprising—the choice also ensures NASA will have an alternative to the Delta 2 for medium-class payloads, and Orbital won’t have the same financial issues that hobbled previous awardee Rocketplane Kistler—but what was a bit of a surprise was Orbital’s statement that it would conduct some or all of its COTS launches from Wallops instead of the Cape. That isn’t sitting well with the folks in Florida, or with Nelson, who said he “expects” those COTS launches to take place from the Cape. “He said that NASA Administrator Mike Griffin and 45th Space Wing commander Brig. Gen. Susan Helms assured him they would work to bring the launches to the Cape,” the Florida Today article reported. That might grab the attention of Virginia’s Congressional delegation…
“That isn’t sitting well with the folks in Florida, or with Nelson, who said he ‘expects’ those COTS launches to take place from the Cape. ‘He said that NASA Administrator Mike Griffin and 45th Space Wing commander Brig. Gen. Susan Helms assured him they would work to bring the launches to the Cape,’ the Florida Today article reported.”
Two points:
1) Talk about greedy and disingenious. KSC already gets Ares I/Orion (if it ever flies) and Falcon 9/Dragon under Griffin. To claim that Griffin & Co. have not brought other NASA launches to KSC — when in fact they’ve brought all other NASA launches to the KSC — is one whopper of a self-serving lie.
2) Nelson’s greediness might be somewhat justified if he had a record of doing anything more for NASA’s budget than voting for empty authorization bills that Congress never follows through on and earmarking appropriations bills that are already stretched to the limit. (The same, of course, applies to every other Congressman representing a NASA district or state.)
On a related comment, the OSC selection for COTS is arguably a combination of the worst of all worlds for that program. The selection did not take advantage of proposals employing existing launchers — it requires the lengthy development of a clean-sheet Taurus II launcher — so it’s not going to make much contribution, if any, to shortening the gap. And neither did it take advantage of proposals for launchers that promise to reduce launch costs — Taurus II is expressly designed to replace Delta II’s throw weight at only Delta II costs ($55-75 million) and at only a limited flight rate. On top of these drawbacks, the in-space stage is foreign, and OSC has no formal plans to pursue actual human space flight using this vehicle.
The selection does have some advantages. Because Taurus II is aimed at replacing the Delta II, it could help address a launch gap for NASA’s science missions. And Elias & Co. have a proven track record of getting new launch vehicle development programs to the pad. And OSC has access to credit to fund its contribution to the system’s budget.
But unless it was due to fatal flaws in the other proposals (in which case, NASA should have just run the competition a third time), it’s not clear why NASA picked a proposal that holds little promise of shortening the gap or reducing launch costs. Now half the COTS money is going to a system that will require a lengthy launch vehicle development period to replicate existing capabilities at the same costs. It’s like a repeat of Ares I (minus all the crippling technical flaws) on a smaller scale.
Sigh… FWIW…
I would think that Constellation Services would have cause for a protest if their original proposal was rejected because it had too much foreign content…
“in-space stage is foreign” isn’t true. The logistics pressure vessel is foreign, to be built by Alenia. The “service module” is OSC provided and based on the apogee propulsion system for their comsats.
COTS I isn’t about the gap and ISS logistics.
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esmd/ccc/
“OTS is an effort by NASA to stimulate, and then take advantage of, a robust commercial market for spaceflight services. ”
Constellation Services problem was Russian content.
Another post that is like throwing fresh meat to the lions –
With so many things to comment on, of course our contributions will be short and to the point, right?
I would say “d—o” to anonymous, if that word had not already been ruined. So no point in repeating his, well thought out, words.
Hopefully, the COTS program will produce something beside PowerPoint charts, and if it does – it would be great if that had some flexibility. Let’s say they do produce a launch vehicle – launching from a higher latitude would save energy if you were going to ISS, but not much. Probably not enough to justify building additional facilities (payload processing on a larger scale than Wallops has now) when existing facilities at KSC could be used. So we are stuck with dealing with the overhead of the existing facilities there at KSC/CCAFS. Sigh. BG Helms could start to cut the paperwork of sharing AF resources there but it would be a long process. At least a Florida launch will get you to the higher inclination orbit of ISS but preserve the option to go to the Moon, asteroids, Mars, etc. So – a Wallops launch facility would save a bit of energy going to ISS but would confine the launcher to being an ISS servicing vehicle – only. Hardly worth it. Probably the direction we are going now with COTS will produce a lot of graphics and little else.
For my daily name dropping moment… I was talking to Representative Nick Lampson (D-Tx) yesterday and he was relating his communications wtih the very low low level flunkies in the Obama and Clinton camps. They apparently were saying how they would maintain the approximate funding levels for the “space program” however they were defining it but would not promise specific programs. So it sounds like they would not make space a campaign plank – more like a splinter at best. Probably they have resigned themselves to the likely inevitability that Texas is firmly in the McCain camp even with little effort. The Clinton supporters there were looking for support and the Obama supporters were fighting a defensive battle.
Charles
I actually think OSC was a wise choice (though truth in advertising forces me to state up front that I am a small stockholder in the company). NASA only has $170 million so they needed someone with the financial wherewithall to fund most of the cost. They already have one financially risky and so far technically unsuccessful rocket under development, and recent bad experience with another. I’d have preferred something that would have done more to reduce long-term costs, but given the circumstances, I believe NASA made the right call. We can worry about reducing costs once we have a successfull commercial industry.
Meanwhile, it should be possible to tweak the Taurus-II to be capable of higher launch rates, and thus reduced recurring costs. . . .
— Donald
launching from a higher latitude would save energy if you were going to ISS, but not much.
How does that work? Florida will still give you a bigger kick, even to ISS.
Anonymous wrote:
“ it’s not clear why NASA picked a proposal that holds little promise of shortening the gap or reducing launch costs.â€
It’s very clear.
The last thing Mike wants is the Delta or Atlas or SpaceX systems to be flying well before Ares-I. With that in mind Orbital is the logically choice because while it is a credible launch system development organization it can’t compete with the Ares-I.
Ares-I has a hard enough time going toe to toe with the laws of physics right now. The last thing Mike wants is to have a perfectly viable (as measured by performance, safety, budget, and time frame) replacement for the ever diminishing capabilities of the Ares-I.
Which is why if NASA wants to ‘actually’ protect/justify the STS infrastructure it needs a requirement that requires the Jupiter-120 which in turn plays to the strengths of the STS derived approach.
The Ares-I on the other hand inherits all of the problems with an STS based approach, places NASA next launch system in the company of better launch systems by every measure, while leveraging none of the Heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV) benefits of an STS derived approach.
Other than that the Ares-I is a great launch system except when compared to every other approach we could possible use. It’s the complete opposite of the best solution.
I would be hard pressed to come up with a better way of destroying our current HLV infrastructure than what is currently planned by Mike and Company.
Bill Neslon may also wish to forge bi-partisan unity amongst Florida’s delegation to the United States House of Representatives. Rather than merely focus on POTUS.
The $17.6 billion now proposed by President Bush for NASA continues to underfund ESAS after a consistent history of underfunding ESAS. An underfunded program shall not hit its targets and will be a good prospect for cancellation. If Florida desires to preserve the STS infrastructure both Democratic and Republican members of Congress will need to set aside partisan differences and jointly demand more money than President Bush has proposed.
If the Republicans fail to do this NOW they will lack credibility if they seek more money after January 2009. Especially after the Bush veto threat terminated efforts to add $2 billion last year as sought by Mikulski & Hutchinson and others. Unless Florida’s politicians set aside partisan loyalty (at least on this issue) winning a $20 billion NASA budget next year will be very hard to accomplish.
Set aside partisan loyalties now and perhaps that momentum can carry over until next year even if all we get this year are continuing resolutions and no budget deal..
Florida advocates should also contact their state legislature, county officials and local mayors to enlist support for bringing pressure to bear on the US House Representative from their district.
“Mission to Tallahassee” is a possible first step and model for action, here.
To procure Ares 1 and delay or cancel Ares V would be the worst of all scenarios, IMHO.
As I posted before it would be like buying a Cadillac Escalade to commute 4 miles between Brooklyn & Manhattan. The insanity of that would soon be obvious to all every STS-derived solution would be facing the budget axe.
NASA needs more money if the STS infrastructure is to be retained and if the STS infrastrucure is not going to be retained, then an inexpensive ISS crew taxi (Atlas V based?) would seem the most likely result.
And that takes Moon and Mars off the table.
= = =
If NASA HQ is unwilling to look at Direct 2.0 perhaps Direct 2.0 advocates need their own “Mission to Tallahassee” and to Michoud, LA etc. . .
Congress-critters respond to their constituents and therefore mayors, County Board members and state legislators could be a fruitful route to penetrate into the Beltway orbit. What is at stake is the viability of their local economies.
“‘in-space stage is foreign’ isn’t true. The logistics pressure vessel is foreign, to be built by Alenia. The ‘service module’ is OSC provided and based on the apogee propulsion system for their comsats.”
Thanks for the correction. You’re right, I should have been more specific and written “pressure vessel is foreign”.
On the service module, I’d note that the rendezvous system will be based on DART, which experienced a partial failure. Again, from a close-the-gap or cost-savings point of view, it’s not clear why NASA picked a system that will require additional development time and cost when existing alternatives are available.
“COTS I isn’t about the gap and ISS logistics.”
If that’s the case, then someone needs to tell Griffin, Gerst, Lindenmoyer, Musk, et al. and rewrite/recompete the two announcements. All these guys have made multiple references to using COTS to help address the gap, and most of the announcement documentation deals with ISS logistics requirements.
No doubt, COTS is trying to stimulate the private human space flight market, but that’s the means for NASA, not the goal. The goal for NASA is supporting NASA human space flight needs in the post-Columbia/post-Shuttle era. (Of course, if NASA is going to try to stimulate a private human space flight market, then maybe NASA should pick proposals that propose pursuing actual human space flight and that promise to actually reduce launch costs to the point that there is a commercial market.)
“I actually think OSC was a wise choice… NASA only has $170 million so they needed someone with the financial wherewithall to fund most of the cost.”
I don’t mean to dump too much on the OSC proposal. It does provide a backup to a low-cost Falcon 9 for replacing the Delta II for science missions. And it does have the advantages of a performer with proven credit and space systems development capabilities. And if that’s what drove the selection, so be it, I guess.
But if I were king for a day, and the OSC proposal was the only financially and/or technically credible proposal for the second round of COTS, I’d declare that round null and void, rethink and rewrite the announcement to get a better set of proposals, and try for a third round. The OSC proposal does so little to address NASA’s most pressing human space flight problem or to stimulate a commercial human space flight market, I would argue that it’s not worth the taxpayer dollar invested.
“I’d have preferred something that would have done more to reduce long-term costs, but given the circumstances, I believe NASA made the right call. We can worry about reducing costs once we have a successfull commercial industry.”
If we define “successful commercial industry” as a human space flight industry with commercial customers, then I’d argue that cost reductions are necessary.
If we define “successful commercial industry” as a human space flight industry that services NASA human space flight needs via commercial contracting mechanisms, then yes, you’re right, no cost reductions are necessary.
“It’s very clear.
The last thing Mike wants is the Delta or Atlas or SpaceX systems to be flying well before Ares-I. With that in mind Orbital is the logically choice because while it is a credible launch system development organization it can’t compete with the Ares-I.”
I’ve tried to steer clear of the conspiracy theories, but it really makes one wonder what is going on at NASA and with Griffin when existing EELV launch capabilities are spurned at every turn for needlessly duplicative, expensive, and lengthy new launch vehicle development projects.
“I would be hard pressed to come up with a better way of destroying our current HLV infrastructure than what is currently planned by Mike and Company.”
Seconded.
FWIW…
Really this is a smart choice.
First, NASA gets a Delta II replacement for science missions. Yes, that are launching from Wallops, but they could always move down the coast to Florida once the vehicle is operational.
Second, Senator Mikulski now has a stake in keeping the COTS program going since one winner is using her pet launch site.
Third, given Orbital’s reccord and finances it ensures that NASA gets at least one success out of COTS, critical if SpaceX fails to get the Falcon 9 operational in time to meet its COTS deadlines. Given all the large schedule slips in Falcon 1 this is not a remote possibility as many believe. Without Orbital NASA could easily have two failed COTS contenders to show for its money.
If you judge the success of COTS as “creates a new commercial LV”, then I agree that choosing Orbital will probably be a success.
However, it is unlikely that Orbital will ever be allowed to show up at ISS to deliver cargo. The ISS Program has a completely different viewpoint on risk than the COTS Program has.
Bill Gerstenmaier has publicly disclosed SOMD/ISSP criteria for being chosen as an ISS cargo services winner here
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/issresupply/
The White House budget does not provide enough money to NASA for them to pick “multiple” winners. It is pretty clear that whoever NASA picks this year for ISS cargo services “must” show up, or the $100 Billion ISS is in really big trouble.
Therefore, neither Orbital or SpaceX is likely to win the upcoming competition.
The leading candidate to win is the HTV on an EELV. Look for both Lockheed and Boeing to bid exactly this, and to try to beat the other based on cost. (Both Progress and ATV use Russian technology, and invoke ISNA.)
– Anon
The OSC proposal does so little to address NASA’s most pressing human space flight problem or to stimulate a commercial human space flight market, I would argue that it’s not worth the taxpayer dollar invested.
In what way does that distinguish it from any other NASA expenditure on human space flight?
“The $17.6 billion now proposed by President Bush for NASA continues to underfund ESAS after a consistent history of underfunding ESAS.”
It’s true that both the White House and Congress have not met their commitments to the VSE. But the main reason that ESAS is underfunded is because the ESAS plan never fit within the VSE budget to begin with. Griffin had to terminate billions in ISS research, space nuclear power and propulsion development, and other human exploration technology development that was funded in the VSE budget just to get Ares I and Orion started. And on top of that, Ares I and Orion were still only funded at the 65% confidence level, meaning that they still had a 1-in-3 chance of a major budget overrun or schedule slip, when the industry standard is to estimate costs and fund budgets at the 80% confidence level (1-in-5 chance of a major budget overrun or schedule slip).
Griffin did not have to choose a set of requirements and technical path for only meeting ISS needs that was so budgetarily compromised and fragile. Had he chosen differently, whether EELV or actual STS-derived launchers, we would not be facing a five-year gap, we could have completed boilerplate launch tests for a CEV by now, and we could have some actual human space exploration hardware development started.
“To procure Ares 1 and delay or cancel Ares V would be the worst of all scenarios, IMHO.”
Agreed, but that’s exactly what Griffin and ESAS have set Constellation up for. Instead of pursuing a relatively inexpensive and rapidly fielded set of requirements and technical solution for ISS transport so that actual human exploration hardware development could get underway while a friendly Bush II Administration was in office, Griffin, ESAS, and Ares I/Orion costs has pushed decisions on whether to start Ares V/EDS/Altair development well into the next Administration (FY 2011), where those projects are likely to get deferred and/or terminated.
“As I posted before it would be like buying a Cadillac Escalade to commute 4 miles between Brooklyn & Manhattan.””
Actually, Orion is like buying a Cadillac to commute within New York City. A single-stick Atlas V can deliver six crew to the ISS with a reasonable set of requirements and a smaller, rationally designed crew capsule. Orion does not need to be as big, heavy, and elaborate as it is.
“NASA needs more money if the STS infrastructure is to be retained and if the STS infrastrucure is not going to be retained, then an inexpensive ISS crew taxi (Atlas V based?) would seem the most likely result.
And that takes Moon and Mars off the table”
It doesn’t have to. A reasonable set of requirements can allow EELVs to deliver cargo and crew capsules to ISS for relatively little money (and even that should probably be a backup to the even more inexpensive COTS), freeing up a lot of funds to preserve and modify that STS infrastructure for what it does best, heavy lift, which would preserve lunar and Mars exploration options.
The point being in all of this is that NASA management didn’t have to (and still doesn’t have to) go back to the politicians, voters, and taxpayers for more funding to pursue the human space exploration elements of the VSE. NASA management just has to manage and constrain the costs of the human ETO/ISS infrastructure so they have budget left over to pursue the human space exploration elements. After another President has delivered to NASA a golden opportunity to get actual human space exploration underway, it makes no programmatic or political sense to subject those human space exploration elements to yet another set of budget decisions and votes under the next White House and Congress, especially for the sake of needlessly duplicative, expensive, time-consuming, underperforming, and technically crippled launch vehicle development (Ares I) and a needlessly oversized, over-spec’d, expensive, and time-consuming human capsule development (Orion).
FWIW…
It doesn’t have to. A reasonable set of requirements can allow EELVs to deliver cargo and crew capsules to ISS for relatively little money (and even that should probably be a backup to the even more inexpensive COTS), freeing up a lot of funds to preserve and modify that STS infrastructure for what it does best, heavy lift, which would preserve lunar and Mars exploration options.
A very DIRECT way of doing things . . .
Completely offtopic, but GLXP is now at 10 challengers. Some of them obvious clowns but some very serious entries.
While NASA keeps doing their best to spread their billions around and keep people employed, a relative pocket change is going a long way to make space a relevant topic.
Anyone asked any policymakers, what concrete actions are they taking to support efforts like GLXP ?
If this is true:
It’s true that both the White House and Congress have not met their commitments to the VSE. But the main reason that ESAS is underfunded is because the ESAS plan never fit within the VSE budget to begin with. Griffin had to terminate billions in ISS research, space nuclear power and propulsion development, and other human exploration technology development that was funded in the VSE budget just to get Ares I and Orion started. And on top of that, Ares I and Orion were still only funded at the 65% confidence level, meaning that they still had a 1-in-3 chance of a major budget overrun or schedule slip, when the industry standard is to estimate costs and fund budgets at the 80% confidence level (1-in-5 chance of a major budget overrun or schedule slip).
Then, saving ESAS may require more than a few billion dollars more each year AND a whole lot of chickens will come home to roost between 2009 and 2012.
In that context, candidate Obama appears wise when he says that we need to take a deep breath and a close look at everything.
And while I agree with this:
After another President has delivered to NASA a golden opportunity to get actual human space exploration underway, it makes no programmatic or political sense to subject those human space exploration elements to yet another set of budget decisions and votes under the next White House and Congress,
if ESAS is significantly underfunded at current NASA budget levels, such a comprehensive review by the next President and Congress appears unavoidable.
Abandoning My Rules Here –
Normally I have some rules: don’t explain orbital mechanics by text messages only. Don’t follow up any posts on this site after number ten.
And don’t argue with Rand!
Plunging ahead, since this does get close to the original intent of the Foust article.
Rand said (partly quoting me): launching from a higher latitude would save energy if you were going to ISS, but not much.
How does that work? Florida will still give you a bigger kick, even to ISS.
Launching directly east from KSC, you enter an orbit with an inclination of about 22 degrees. The ISS orbits at an inclination of 56 degrees (to make it cheaper for the Russians, launching from their launch site near Tyuratam). This means that you must do a plane change of approximately 34 degrees to get from the most economical orbit (from KSC) to ISS. You could do the launch+plane change in the same launch but by conservation of energy you can see that the energy required would be pretty close to the same – you can just use the main engines to change rather than trying to use the OMS. That is why the Shuttle launches to ISS and burns straight up the eastern seaboard of the US. Very costly as it reduces available mass to orbit.
Launching from Wallops, at a latitude of about 40 degrees, you only need to change your plane sixteen degrees.
Referring to my treasured copy of Bate, Mueller, and White, page 169 – they explain the energy required to do out-of-plane orbit changes. The example they use is reducing your orbital inclination – and say “Large plane changes are prohibitively expensive in terms of the velocity change required.” But increasing your inclination costs the same amount of energy as decreasing inclination.
OSC certainly prefers to launch to ISS from a higher latitude site such as Wallops since it allows them to get to 56 degree inclination orbits by using a lot less energy.
Any interplanetary, or even Lunar, transfer orbit needs the most efficient launch possible to save fuel for the transfer orbit, etc. I have not found, or done myself, calculations about Lunar transfer orbits from higher inclination launch sites – certainly the Russians have used that type of orbit many times. If you did not mind a transfer orbit that had an inclination (wrt the Earth’s equator) it might not make a big deal if you were going to the Moon.
Now you do get more initial velocity due to the speed of the Earth’s surface as well, the speed is about 1500 feet per second at the Equator and falls off as you increase latitude. I have seen, but can’t lay my hands on right now, calculations that tell you that the energy used to change inclination is greater than that gained from launching further south.
So if you are going to ISS, a higher latitude launch site is preferred.
And a launch from Wallops to ISS is cheaper but that does nothing for you if you are going to the Moon.
Hmmmm. I need to go do a calculation or two.
Charles
Some corrections:
Launching directly east from KSC, you enter an orbit with an inclination of about 28 degrees.
The ISS orbits at an inclination of 51. 6 degrees
“This means that you must do a plane change of approximately 34 degrees to get from the most economical orbit (from KSC) to ISS…..
Calculations that tell you that the energy used to change inclination is greater than that gained from launching further south.”
Incorrect. No plane changes are made. The shuttle launches at an azimuth that puts it directly in a 51.6 degree orbit. Since it not a plane change, the energy from a more southern launch is more advantages as the “east” velocity component of the final orbit is greater than the component provided by the earth’s rotation at the launch site.
Anon4: Second, Senator Mikulski now has a stake in keeping the COTS program going since one winner is using her pet launch site.
Interesting point, since one thing Dr. Griffin has been vary consistent on is trying to assage Congressional interests at every turn. It’s too bad he’s so bad at it.
The leading candidate to win is the HTV on an EELV. Look for both Lockheed and Boeing to bid exactly this, and to try to beat the other based on cost.
I’m not sure that this is such a bad outcome. The EELVs need much larger markets than they have, and a successful commercial industry using EELVs might be able to take on the Ariane-V and lead to better second-generation vehicles. The goal, as I see it, is a viable commercial transport system to serve markets in LEO, whether those markets are the ISS or Biglow or trans-lunar injection stages. I’d prefer that SpaceX succeed, but if they fail and we end up with a commercial EELV industry, I think that can still lead to our ultimate goals, albeit more slowly. . . .
Charles in Houston And a launch from Wallops to ISS is cheaper but that does nothing for you if you are going to the Moon. and “me”:
Is that true? Orbital mechanics is certainly not my field, but I thought that if you were headed to the lunar pole, starting from a high-inclination Terrestrial orbit could work. Am I wrong?
— Donald
Orbital mechanics is certainly not my field, but I thought that if you were headed to the lunar pole, starting from a high-inclination Terrestrial orbit could work. Am I wrong?
Yes, you’re wrong, or rather, you’re not even wrong.
You can get to any lunar inclination from any earth inclination with essentially no penalty, other than time. But this has nothing to do with the topic at hand…
The Taurus II is promising to reduce costs. Once the GPS IIR satellites are up, the USAF is no longer going to foot the bill for Delta II. So if NASA wants to fly two-ish 10klb payloads a year, their options are either pay all the costs to keep the Delta II program running or buy Medium EELVs.
One of the biggest curses of spaceflight has always been designing for overoptimistic flight rates. It drove Titan IV costs through the roof, drove EELV costs through the roof, and is going to drive Ares costs through the roof. Seeing someone actually design for realistic flight rates is a huge breath of fresh air.
It’s also somewhat refreshing that they didn’t propose manned spaceflight, as I think the odds of NASA actually buying manned spaceflight services are effectively zero unless there are massive organizational changes.
reader: “Completely offtopic, but GLXP is now at 10 challengers. Some of them obvious clowns but some very serious entries.”
Actually it’s not completely offtopic because of this part of the press release (also described in the space.com link reader gave):
“The X PRIZE Foundation has also announced that Space Florida will be a new preferred partner and the first preferred launch site for the $30 million Google Lunar X PRIZE competition. Each preferred partner offers additional prizes or strategic services at a discounted rate to all competition teams. As the first preferred launch site, Space Florida will award an additional prize of $2 million to the Grand Prize winner of the Google Lunar X PRIZE competition, provided the winner launched the winning flight from the State of Florida and upon confirmation that the winner has complied with all competition rules. Space Florida was created by the Florida Legislature to sustain Florida’s position as the global leader in space exploration and commerce, and is the principal organization charged with promoting and developing Florida’s aerospace industry.”
(from http://www.xprize.org/lunar/press-release/the-x-prize-foundation-announces-official-contenders-in-private-moon-race)
More off-topic corrections and/or clarifications requested:
Me stated: “Since it not a plane change, the energy from a more southern launch is more advantages as the “east†velocity component of the final orbit is greater than the component provided by the earth’s rotation at the launch site.”
It’s not so simple an advantage:
A launch vehicle suffers a penalty of sorts for launching closer to the equator than up at the highest latitude of high-inclination orbits because the launch vehicle must fly an westward out-of-plane yaw to kill off any rotational velocity imparted by the spinning earth in order to achieve the desired orbit plane.
Rand, you stated: “You can get to any lunar inclination from any earth inclination with essentially no penalty, other than time.”
Can you explain how to achieve a polar lunar orbit from an equatorial earth orbit without inducing any delta V penalty for the plane change. OR, did you mean Earth’s surface to lunar surface (“inclination” = latitude)?
Please continue the orbital mechanics discussion after this interruption ^_^
anonymous.space:
that’s an interesting take on it and I’m glad to have read it. I might be wrong in my interpretations but I have some issues with the COTS part of it that I’d like to emphasize/expand upon.
On the COTS decision as noted NASA might have focused on solid finance and Orbital and the Taurus II/Cygnus certainly has that. Not such a bad decision if that is the case. Yes Orbital aims to “duplicate” the Delta II price but look beyond solely the price itself at the rate of launches they’re calculating that price from: an average of two or three launches a year according to the Antonio Elias interview thread over at nasaspaceflight. So that’s a very conservative estimate (by memory they aim to “keep their shirts on” at two launches a year and profit at three).
Also before COTS “1.5” Orbital was already planning and deciding on building the Taurus II/Cygnus on their own (going back to at least June 2007 when they released what I think was their first public sketch –I didn’t feel like digging for the first public mentioning of the project but I think it might be noted in that interview thread) as they were looking for a Delta II replacement for their own uses (shades of Pegasus there). I have the impression they had met their “2-3 a year” target on cost last autumn/early winter before the COTS application but I could be reading too much between the lines on that one. But if that’s true NASA isn’t even the anchor tenant since Orbital itself is (and I bet NASA would love that on assessing the viability of their COTS entry).
However the flight rate is not limited to “2-3 a year” and the COTS deal talks about a potential of 8 launches yearly if I remember correctly (and that’s only ISS). If demand requires it I don’t see why it couldn’t be increased fairly fast including an earlier start on (re-)producing the NK-33/AJ-26 (they’ll have sufficient funds by the time they need it).
Charles:
I like your style (and your Swahili ^_^) but I’ve got some issues with what you write as well. Once again I might very well be wrong.
Flexibility; the Taurus II/Cygnus as it will be built to the best of my knowledge has a liquid first stage and sort of a split second stage with a solid part that gets ditched after use and a liquid part. Antonio pointed out in the aforementioned interview thread that the first stage sort of screams out for a pure liquid second stage and such a stage would likely improve the overall capability by quite a bit (but Orbital including Antonio found it somewhat unnecessary for their own needs). However this can be implemented later on. Then of course there’s all sort of booster options too. Considering this the potential flexibility of the Taurus II/Cygnus should be much larger than the Delta II.
Can you explain how to achieve a polar lunar orbit from an equatorial earth orbit without inducing any delta V penalty for the plane change.
Yes, easily. By weaseling.
I didn’t say there was no penalty, just that it wasn’t significant. A plane change out at the distance of the moon doesn’t cost much. I think (though I could be missing something) that it gets lost in the noise of the injection into lunar orbit (or descent). The real constraint is time. Also, I was wrong when I said “any lunar inclination.” I was thinking landing sites, not inclinations, but even for that there are some constraints that can drive delta V. And clearly, if you’re coming in from a high-inclination earth orbit, it’s going to be hard to get into a low-inclination lunar orbit.
Maybe I’ll just quit digging…it’s a complicated subject.
Rand: it’s a complicated subject.
. . . and I’m thoroughly unenlightened!
Habitat Hermit, I think it is worth noting in this discussion that the Delta-II is a very complex and expensive booster, and it’s price should not be all that hard to beat. I still think having one technologically and financially conservative choice (OSC, cargo only) to complement the more risky SpaceX proposal is a reasonable decision.
— Donald
Donald: yes I agree about the decision.