Comments on: Inhofe’s not a fan of NASA’s new plan

By: Fred Cink

Fred Cink — Mon, 03 May 2010 03:00:23 +0000

Rand, thanks for the link, missed that issue of AW&ST, the ULA sight was VERY educational. Seems like it might be faster better cheaper(!?!) to adopt Apollo style EOR and just launch one or more fully fueled Centaurs (or future larger Earth Departure Stages) and dock with the separately launched payload modules/spacecraft as opposed to trying to transfer LOX/LH2 in microgravity. Just think of the commercial space market stimulation.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:50:57 +0000

refueling at depots that havenâ€™t even been rendered in an artistâ€™s drawing You must not get out much. United Launch Alliance has designs for them, ready to build and test, based on Centaur.

By: Fred Cink

Fred Cink — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:40:52 +0000

Trent, I am talking about the disconnect between the stated intentions of… manned deep space explroration while derating orion, …using ISRU while bypassing the moon, …refueling at depots that haven’t even been rendered in an artist’s drawing… all predicated on an earth departure stage… being launched by an HLV… both of which were just cancelled with constellation. (OK, he did fund ANOTHER FRICKIN’ HLV STUDY.) Announcing the start of a specific precursor mission (Osiris Rex is already being designed) or outfitting of a spare MPLM for closed loop life support studies could have instilled belief in the plan. Call me jaded but I am skeptical at best of his true support and intentions.

By: WinCleaner One-Click | Computer Repair Software

WinCleaner One-Click | Computer Repair Software — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:26:52 +0000

[…] Space Politics » Inhofe’s not a fan of NASA’s new plan […]

By: Trent Waddington

Trent Waddington — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:24:56 +0000

Fred, what are you talking about? Obviously the FY11 budget is not going to have anything in it for a mission in the mid 2020s.

By: Trent Waddington

Trent Waddington — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:23:17 +0000

Ok. it’s what I call the S&M treatment.. that’s simulation and modeling. You take a team of double-domes and give them a supercomputer or ten and tell them to model a vehicle and simulate every possible flaw or failure and then ask The Wiz if the vehicle is safe. Once you’ve gotten the answer you wanted (isn’t science great!?) you can say “let’s build it!” then put humans on the first flight and everything will be awesome.

Ares I-X was a step in that process.. it wasn’t a test flight.. the double-domes modeled the Ares I-X and simulated a flight path, then took all the data they collected from actually flying that flight path and compared it to what the computer predicted. The result of the flight was proof, 100% accurate, no more tests required, that the S&M treatment is working and now they can go back into the cubicle farm and design The Perfect Rocket, to be known as Ares I.

I clearly don’t think it was worth the cost… The whole concept is sickening. Rather than bend actual metal, fly it, let reality determine whether or not it works, and prove out the reliability with a flight test program, they want to trust The Wiz. It would be an acceptable risk for a massive cost reduction, but it doesn’t deliver a massive cost reduction.. in fact it costs more and you get less. Of course, when you bring this up they think you’re demanding they trade cost for safety, when actually you’re trying to suggest the exact opposite. The S&M treatment results in a more expensive program, with greater risk. The shuttle is the proof of that.. but apparently now we have a better Wiz.

By: Fred Cink

Fred Cink — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:15:54 +0000

Please forgive my rant and tell me where I’m wrong. Three key points of the “flexible path” are a “deep space” manned craft to accomplish the stated asteroid/mars’ moons/mars missions, propellant depots/transfers and ISRU. Orion ultra lite is a total waste to duplicate (poorly) the Soyuz. What is needed is an Orion (“Special”?) tailored to those stated missions. Any long duration deep space mission (mars/asteroids) is going to require a (at least) module similar to one on ISS mated with an Orion “special” and an EDS. None of those three requirements are funded or even mentioned. The only place for ISRU anywhere near, (delta vee and mission duration wise) is the lunar poles, which have been abandoned, (at least in the 1-2 decade “near term”). Hauling the requisite fuel to depots at LEO/GEO/L points is going to take either ALOT of EELVs launched or an HLV. Furthermore, boil off of cryogens is going to negate the advantage of Isp for those fuels. The plan sounds really good, I want to do all those things but it just doesn’t work.

By: Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:06:54 +0000

Trent Waddington wrote @ April 27th, 2010 at 12:52 am

I am pretty well versed on what their theories were…that is why I have concentrated on the cost more then anything else…but I would love to hear what you think that the main objectives were…and if you think those were worth the cost…

Robert G. Oler

By: Trent Waddington

Trent Waddington — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 04:52:17 +0000

Robert, or Ares 1-X was flown for reasons that you don’t understand. I know it’s hard to comprehend, but you don’t know all! Are you interested in why Ares 1-X was flown or do you just want to find a reason to bash it? Cause, ya know, it’s pretty well documented why they built it, what they were trying to achieve, etc.

I think they’re idiots because their reasons are overengineering nightmares with little industry experience to back them up (we’re NASA, we *invent* industry practice), but at least I know what their reasons were.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:04:38 +0000

Can we really do â€œgame changingâ€ between now and 2015 to support a decision if weâ€™ll do HLV?

Yes, there’s plenty of time to do orbital demonstrations of propellant storage and transfer. ULA and Boeing both have proposals laid out to do this.