The same day that SpaceX was launching its first Falcon 9 from Cape Canaveral, the Presidential Task Force on Space Industry Work Force and Economic Development held a public session a short distance to the west, in Orlando, with the task force’s co-chairs, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, in attendance. Little news was made at the forum beyond a statement from Bolden that $30 million of the $40 million promised to the region by President Obama in an April speech would go “to spur regional economic growth”. The other $10 million will be used for job training activities. The task force is scheduled to complete their report for the president by August 15.
Two local members of Congress, Reps. Alan Grayson and Suzanne Kosmas, both Democrats, spoke at the event. In contrast to their often harsh assessment of the president’s plan for NASA in congressional hearings, the two were low key at the meeting: Grayson talked about the importance of America remaining the leader in human spaceflight, while Kosmas made a pitch for giving KSC one of the shuttle orbiters once retired. Not present at the meeting was Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), who claims he was uninvited from the event (which was open to the public). “I’m disappointed that the Administration chose to inject partisanship into what really should be a serious and non-partisan effort to help address the needs of Florida’s aerospace workforce,” he said in a statement.
While there’s been limited, and at best lukewarm, congressional reaction to Friday’s successful Falcon 9 launch, one candidate praised the launch. Scott Spencer, running for the Democratic nomination for the US Senate race in Delaware, told WDEL-AM that he “sees a lot of potential” in Falcon 9 and commercial space. Spencer, as you may recall, wrote a letter to President Obama in late April, also signed by former NASA JSC director Chris Kraft, asking for the shuttle program to be extended and that a plan be developed to begin human lunar missions by 2020. That letter made little reference to commercial vehicles.
Meanwhile, in Huntsville, advocates of Constellation are making plans to “turn up the noise” on Capitol Hill about the program. “The next 90 days is going to be pretty important for us,” Huntsville mayor Tommy Battle said at a meeting Friday of Second to None, a local group fighting to keep Constellation alive, the Huntsville Times reports. “There seems to be no support, or extremely little support, for the president’s proposed plan,” said Bud Cramer, the former congressman who is leading the Second to None initiative, based on meetings the group had in a recent Washington visit. “We believe we’ve got tremendous support on the Hill for Constellation, for human space exploration, but we need those members to define that support; we need them to react to that support,” he said, hence the need for the additional noise, which the article said will be accompanied by a social media initiative.
Just another death rattle from the Constellation huggers.
Yeah, Stephen, looks like Cx is dead, it’s a shame that it’s going to be a rather drawn out process, though. It’s breaking my heart to see the hangers-on continue to bleat about Cx. :/ (And I mean that sincerely as I have good comrades who are still supportive of Cx and will likely be until the day the new budget is passed and it is officially canceled.)
There is a huge budget debacle coming up, and NASA is going to be the low hanging fruit if they don’t come up with a plan with both vision and utility. Servicing satellites ain’t going to do it, manned space flight beyond LEO might, but there has to be an end product that can be sold to the average voter. Spacex can stave off some of the attacks from the nay-sayers if they keep the cost of getting every kilo to orbit as low as possible. Between satellites and COTS, Spacex will be able to build its economies of scale as they build Merlins by the score, but what is their ultimate destination?
Asteroids won’t do it, it has to be either the Moon or Mars, or possibly, space based solar arrays. But I don’t think America has the courage or the vision to go to Mars yet. So about all it can be is a program to go back to the moon and do something that is perceived as being more useful this time. Perhaps the plan will be to build an observatory on the far side of the moon or maybe it will be mining HE3 to power orbital fusion reactors to alleviate the coming clean energy crunch. But it would be the step that would get us back into space, this time to stay.
Another choice would be to begin building a series of test bed space based solar power sats, first with material lifted from Earth and later with much of the building material being mined on the moon.
But without the majority of the people that advocate continued manned space flight finding common ground, the flat-earthers that oppose manned space flight will probably prevail. We need to find a program that most of us can support, or there won’t be any manned program at all.
Let the counterattack begin! For 6 years Constellation enjoys bipartisan congressional support on a march to a bright space future. There is no reason to pitch the project just because the executive branch has been briefly seized by radicals. Press to MECO America!
Let the counterattack begin!
Bring it on. In a battle between American re_t_a_rds and rational thinking backed up by sound scientific and engineering reasoning, who will win?
It looks like the Obamaspace supporters are pretty clueless where it comes to politics. There is a way to come to a bargain in which we ca have commercial space and a space exploration program as well. Instead of sneering at members of Congress, Elon Musk should be talking to them, figuring out a way to make a deal, maybe lobbying himself for a revival of Constellation with a heavier involvement for commercial space. Unfortunately Musk and others are engaged in dissing the very people for which they are dependent on for money to go forward. One would never, if one was as smart a businessman as Musk, bad mouth investment bankers and venture capitalists. But that is what the United States Congress is, now that SpaceX is on the government dime.
Very astute comment. As I observed on this forum yesterday Musk is indeed ham handed in dealing with congress. His close ties with Obama will be self defeating as Obama’s political influence continues to recede. He has made a lot of enemies for SpaceX unnecessarily. This guy shouldn’t be a CEO.
From Australia…
Some two centuries ago my namesake wrote “Common Sense.” From my perspective there is little of that being applied by anyone, including your President and his advisers, in determining the future of the U.S. manned space flight program.
It is obvious that NASA is underfunded. The fact that the military space budget is bigger than the budget for NASA is quite frankly absurd unless the goal is actually for the militarization of space. (God help us all.)
It is equally obvious that your President’s claim of being a great supporter of the manned space program is, in frank Australian speak, political crap. His front man at NASA will pay the price for the debackle that will result, which it is obvious will include throwing very large sums of money at private companies in a vain attempt to qualify an absurd policy.
Why is it absurd? You do not need me to tell you why. Use some good old fashioned logic please.
Now where are the visionaries in all of this?
Mark R. Whittington, what reason does Musk have to grovel to congress? His company is the largest provider of logistics to the ISS after STS retires. The United States needs SpaceX.
Musk lobbying for Cx would be lobbying against his own interests, and the interests of the American public at large (lower costs to the taxpayer, expediated BEO activities). I’m not trying to be insulting here, but your way of thinking is very bizarre to me. Musk is someone who has been arguing for the new direction since day one. He’s been lobbying for COTS-D for years now. He’s finally going to get it and it would be shocking for him to do anything but continue lobbying for the new direction.
amightywind, still in denial stage, it appears. Just over 6 months to go until the 2011 budget is signed in to law and much of the Cx assets are liquidated. Orion was Obama’s concession to the Cx’ers, it get much more than that.
It is obvious that NASA is underfunded.
Yes, let’s throw good money after bad, so that we can have more debacles like Constellation. How’s your Australian space program coming along?
Josh Cryer:
It is pretty obvious that a congress teetering on the brink of political oblivion will fund the government with a continuing resolution, preserving Constellation until the next (GOP) congress. The illegal effort to deconstruction by Garver and Bolden has been forcibly stopped. No denial here. Just a forcible defense.
Good to see that our Aussie friends understand the situation clearly. I do have respect for Aussie aerospace efforts. I am sure we will see more.
“Obamaspace” supporters are not the clueless ones, believe me. And, they have never suggested foregoing exploration to solely pursue commercial activities.
What supporters of a Commercial Space Industry *now* recognize, is that there is a group of the public (some with considerable vested interests) that wish to compromise the Space Industry’s sustainability and viability to simply joy-ride around “in the name of science”, and instead of allowing future generations to enjoy THEIR Apollo moment these unbelievably selfish individuals wish to “have it all” and leave the bill for all of that to their grand-kids!
These disgraceful people should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
The Space Industry needs to earn a living first. The exciting scientific vacations come when you’ve paid the bills!
There’s no free ride to Space.
I do have respect for Aussie aerospace efforts. I am sure we will see more.
Could you point these substantial Australian aerospace efforts out to me, because I must have missed them. All I see is some Australian guy whining on the internet that Americans aren’t raising funding for a failed program.
amightywind, what legislation are you talking about? Space coast individuals are “fighting” for the “jobs” and will vote against the authorization act, but in the end they are a handful of voters in congress. Obama’s NASA budget will very likely pass. The only thing stopping it would be an overwhelming majority of GOP seats being attained this election cycle. This is very unlikely.
“For 6 years Constellation enjoys bipartisan congressional support”
No, it didn’t. Congress failed to fully fund NASA at the levels set by the VSE for five of those six years.
“Press to MECO America!”
There is no MECO on a solid rocket like Ares I, only main engine burnout. A solid rocket can’t be cut off.
Don’t make stpuid statements out of ignorance.
Josh, there is no groveling suggested. Just a bargain between two parties each of whom have something the other wants.
“Instead of sneering at members of Congress, Elon Musk…”
When, specifically, did Musk “sneer” at members of Congress?
Where’s the quote?
Don’t make things up.
“As I observed on this forum yesterday Musk is indeed ham handed in dealing with congress.”
Reminding Senator Hutchison that she has constituents on the SpaceX payroll is not being “ham handed”.
It’s reminding the Senator, who should have known better, where her votes come from and who she works for.
Duh…
ziv wrote:
“but what is their ultimate destination? Asteroids won’t do it,”
Personally I believe that an asteroid mission would be the easy one to sell. Just predicat it with:
“It is not a question of IF the earth will be hit by an asteroid, the only question is when and America needs to learn about these potential planet killers.”
I very rarely every play the fear card in debate, i.e. I don’t hollar about the threat from China taking the moon over et cetera. In this case though the fear card would be a very effective tool to promote a, beyond earth orbit, Federal space program. It is also a less expensive program as it does not involve expensive landing and base operations which would soon become a money pit again taking money away from other important areas that NASA is responsable for.
Mark R. Whittington, Musk would have to grovel to keep COTS-D/CCDev (which under the new budget he already has), assuming he threw support behind Cx. What bargain could Musk get by ceding to Cx? He already has COTS-A-C, and CRS. The new budget gives him COTS-D/CCDev. What more is there to get?
Empty parochial posturing by a few members of congress aside, here’s what’s really happening on Constellation:
“Orion Becomes a Liability as Lockheed Martin Pulls 600 Engineers Off the Contract”
“NASA managers have effectively given up on any faint hope of implementing the long-term strategy that was centered around the marriage between Ares and Orion.”
nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/orion-liability-lockheed-pull-600-engineers-off-contract/
FWIW…
Major Tom wrote:
“Reminding Senator Hutchison that she has constituents on the SpaceX payroll is not being “ham handedâ€.
It’s reminding the Senator, who should have known better, where her votes come from and who she works for.”
Mark my words. In a couple years, once the shuttle and Constellation are a political memory and SpaceX is considered for heavy lift, Kay Bailey Hutchinson will be arguing for the importance of SpaceX and blah blah blah.
Press to MECO America!
More like “Challenger, go at throttle up…”
NASA is NOT underfunded, sorry.
Largest Space Agency by a Factor of 5.
Largest non defence non human services federal agency.
I hope it doesn’t get a cut, but to say it’s underfunded is to not comparable it to other comparable federal agencies.
“A short distance to the east?” I’m pretty sure that Orlando is to the west of the Cape…
Aussie aerospace efforts: While one can argue over the meaning of the word ‘substantial’, recall that it was an Australian research program that first achieved scramjet combustion in flight a few years ago. That certainly caught MY notice.
“Groveling before congress” : It’s one thing to grovel, yet another to show respect to those who ultimately hold one’s purse strings. Musk’s business success, at least for the forseeable future, depends on US govt contracts. History has demonstrated just how fickle such arrangements can be.
While I don’t disagree with the content of Musk’s response to KBH’s poorly worded statement (respect needs to go both ways), his general tone could be a bit less antagonistic and thus might engender better relations all around. Honey vs vinegar and all that…
“Orion was a concession for the Cx’ers” : Actually, Orion was more a concession to the Merchant 7 because they whispered into the ears of the folks in the Administration who drafted this policy, after it had been announced via the Feb budget proposal (hence the months-later addition of the Orion lifeboat component), that while they (the Merchant 7) would be able to produce days-long-duration ferry capsules for the costs they claimed, they would NOT be able to produce any human-carrying spacecraft that could survive/hibernate in orbit for six months (an obvious requirement if one wants to replace Soyuz, which has been doing just that for more than 20 years) for the same business-viable price. The number of jobs preserved by “the Orion concession” is so small compared to the larger program that suggesting it was any sort of concession to Constellation supporters is patently ridiculous; they aren’t that gullible.
In fact (and I’m certainly no Cx hugger), nothing demonstrates the kludginess of the new policy more than the Orion lifeboat component (unless it were the 5-year HLLV decision delay, of course): if NASA has to develop a manned capsule anyway, why have the commercial companies compete at all? But if we have faith that the commercial companies can produce safe, robust human-carrying spacecraft upon which we can trust the entire future of human spaceflight, why would NASA have to keep developing one alongside them ‘the old way’ at such considerable expense? Such a policy only makes sense with a pretzel logic so twisted that only Steely Dan might buy it.
The one thing above all that the new policy seems focused on accomplishing is to do away with that which was, permanently, “corporate knowledge & assets” be damned. Some consider this a wise move, while others disagree. Whether or not it will actually accomplish this objective remains to be seen.
My apologies, Mr. Mahoney. The directional error has been corrected.
Whining Aussie! Please, we simply say it as we see it, to friends in particular. That is the way we are.
Just one further point from afar that you may not be aware of. NASA has been one of your greatest asset in that it has defined what is great
about the USA in the eyes of many of the people in this world. Try putting a price on that!
P.S. Australian assets, however limited, have been made available to NASA from day one and there were times when it was quite a ride.(1969, I remember it well.)
So the constellation haters were whining that it was a retro apollo program and they were going to have to watch a space capsule splashing down in the ocean again. So what are we going to get from Space X? A retro Mercury program and a space capsule landing Soyuz style on land.
UNT2007 – those of us who actually have problems with Constellation – it has NOTHING to do with the return mechanism they are planning. The cost is the problem
Spacexula, US military space gets nearly twice what NASA gets (from OMB). Cx was not funded at the ESAS baseline. It slipped a year every year. Certainly, though, the new direction allows NASA to function through private companies much better than it would if it stuck to the old cost-plus approach. NASA could always use more money.
Bob Mahoney, Musk has been nothing but a gentleman, contrast this with the dozens of congress people who have lamblasted his company’s ability to meet milestones and goals. The ongoing meme being that “commercial space (SpaceX, the furthest along of any of them) isn’t safe.”
Now SpaceX supporters? We’ve been uncivilized at times, I can attest to that personally, but generally we’re nothing like that of citizens who don’t want private space to lead our rocket program.
As far as Orion being a concession, it most certainly was to the major Cx players, including Orbital, ATK, ULA, among others. Mentioning the Merchant 7, of whom I think they are a part, doesn’t change the fact. The number of jobs preserved is admittedly small, but that’s one reason why it’s a concession. Obama isn’t ceding to the calls for continuing NASA as a jobs program provider.
I’m fine with Orion as a lifeboat, since it will allow us to test it for long duration missions. If we cannot make Orion last 6 months in LEO, then how on Earth are we to propose a mission BEO that will take weeks if not months?
When you say, “why would NASA have to keep developing one alongside them ‘the old way’ at such considerable expense?” you illustrate the perfect example as to why it’s a concession. Ideally NASA would simply put out a COTS-style bid for an Orion-style module, saving itself potentially billions of dollars! Instead they are keeping Orion and the cost-plus contracts that go along with it, and justifying it (albeit logically) with the lifeboat excuse.
Brian Paine, I wish they found those original Apollo 11 recordings an Aussie made. :/
Rand–LOL.
Constellation = The Moon, At Any Cost
Going back to the Moon. While romantic as it may seem, and laden with political puffery as it is, that does not mean that Constellation was a good use of my U.S. tax dollars.
If Congress really liked Constellation, then they should have been fully funded it from the beginning. Bush didn’t care that it was underfunded, so the whining and crying going on now with the Republicans is pure politics. Same with the Shuttle – the time to rescue the Shuttle program was two years ago when they were shutting down the parts supply lines. Where were the congressional Shuttle lovers then??
If the Constellation supporters really believed in the goal (human exploration of the Moon), then they should convince NASA to bid it out to private enterprise on a fixed-price basis, just like the COTS program.
I’ve have always advocated for going back to the Moon, just not as NASA’s next goal. I think that developing the technology & techniques to leave Earth’s system merits the attention of our best and brightest (i.e. NASA and it’s supporting companies & schools), so I think NEO’s are are a good goal.
However, if it turned out that the public really wanted us to go to the Moon next, then why not open it up to the best and brightest in our space industry, and let NASA manage it like it is doing on COTS. Boeing and Lockheed Martin are certainly the pre-eminent aerospace companies in the world, and there are lots of small companies that are building great niche systems (Armadillo, Masten Space, SpaceDev, SpaceX, etc.). NASA does not need to do it all by themselves anymore.
UNT2007 wrote:
“So what are we going to get from Space X? A retro Mercury program and a space capsule landing Soyuz style on land.”
Do you sit and watch commercial taxis? Do you sit and watch commercial ferry boats? How about airplanes, do you invite all your friends and family to come watch an airplane land?
No one will be watching SpaceX, once they are in high gear, delivering cargo and crew to the ISS and other LEO orbital facilities like Bigelow Aerospace. It will be as exciting as watching paint dry to the vast majority of Americans.
What the majority of people watch, as it relates to human spaceflight, is firsts. This has been shown in many polls of Americans. The only time space is exciting is when an American astronaut is making a first in some aspect of space and of course when there is a disaster. Like people that goto car races for the crash.
Apollo, after a few landings, soon became old hat to 10 minute attention spans of America. The Shuttle, same thing, except for the disasters. How many people, who are not space junkies, can even name a current astronaut?
So the idea that people are going to suddenly be excited about a space taxi service is silly. What they will be excited about is space reality shows, the first texas holdem in space, space sports, etc etc .. What the commercial sector starts doing in space will be what is watched, not watching the taxi bringing the space celebs to work.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 11:40 am
“It looks like the Obamaspace supporters are pretty clueless where it comes to politics. There is a way to come to a bargain in which we ca have commercial space and a space exploration program as well.”
there are a few problems with your statement.
First there is no “exploration” and commercial space with Constellation surviving. Constellation is like a killing machine absorbing dollar after dollar as it ploughs on with its bloated workforce and inefficient methodology.
Actually there is no anything AND Constellation. NASA could not even fly the space shuttle as Hutchinson wants and continue Constellation. It is going to take that much money…and there is not going to be any more money.
Second there is no need for the Administration to compromise…you compromise only if you are losing AND/OR the compromise brings one something you want.
The administration (nor any true space advocate really) wants Constellation to continue. We are back to the inefficient structure and absorbing all the money. The Mark Whittington who railed against government waste in the late 90’s (remember that TWS piece) would be aghast at the notion of a bureacracy like Constellation continuing.
And the Administration is winning…they were winning before last Friday and last Friday drove the nail in the coffin of the opposition.
Tell you what I am surprised at. The Constellation folks have not come up with a “compromise” or a “rethink” of the program to try and salavage it. It is clear now working some sources here in Houston (a trip to Clear Lake does a lot!) that what Hanley was trying to save was not so much Constellation; but his program office. The rethink he had was really just make work projects for the office to do…ie spend money to keep the group together.
I am surprised that some person outside of NASA has not come up with a plan to “rethink the vision” or some ridiculous slogan to try and morph “exploration” into something that fits into the available dollars.
A problem here is that the only reason most of the politicans want Constellation is the jobs, without cutting the jobs there are no savings and yet cutting the jobs is the only thing that can get one hardware.
And Musk has demonstrated that flying hardware can be had for “less”.
How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history
LOL
Robert G. Oler
Brian Paine wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
This forum is not unlike rugby with words.
A little international perspective is refreshing. It’s just unfortunate that “amightywind” agrees with you, since that stigmatizes any good points you might have been making…
Sorry but we already have delta and atlas rockets that can do the same job as falcon 9. It is going to take years for space x to develop their capsule to take people into orbit, and the supposedly lower costs of space x has been greatly exaggerated.
UNT2007, SpaceX’s lower costs are exaggerated? Why then did Frank Culbertson from Orbital say that they cannot beat the Russians cost-wise (crew carry)? (When SpaceX can guarantee it.) Why is it that Orbital, ESA, JAXA, all cost as much as 5 times SpaceX for CRS?
ULA or Boeing/Lockheed will indeed likely bid on their Delta and Atlas rockets, but Orion or even Orion lite won’t be ready for years. SpaceX will be ready before anyone else will. Indeed, they’re the only COTS provider who has an option to do crew development (it only need be initiated by NASA, which it very likely will by the start of the next budget cycle).
I’d bet good money that SpaceX is asked to fly Orion to the ISS once it’s complete. On their F9H. For likely half the cost of a Delta or Atlas.
“Just another death rattle from the Constellation huggers.”
Another death rattle for human space flight.
So we have to waste taxpayer money by shutting down a space program that was going to take us out of LEO and to the moon and mars to pump money into a rocket that is only going to the ISS? Especially when we have the rockets that can do that already, where is the cost savings in that?
1 “NASA is going to be the low hanging fruit if they don’t come up with a plan-
manned space flight beyond LEO might, but there has to be an end product that can be sold to the average voter.”
2 “-economies of scale as they build Merlins by the score.”
3 “the flat-earthers that oppose manned space flight will probably prevail. We need to find a program that most of us can support, or there won’t be any manned program at all.”
Excellent post, thank you.
My responses;
1. No products that can be sold. There is no profit in space (unless tourism counts as HSF and I do not consider it as such.) Only reason to go into space is to respond to the threats to civilization; just like one trillion dollars in defense spending is ultimately a response to 911. Before that successful suicide mission the threat was ignored; sealing off the cockpits with strong doors was one of those “it costs too much” items.
2. Merlins are not a good example of economy of scale. A single F-1 engine would be a scaled up example of the principle of economy applied to engineering.
3. I put space tourism advocates in the same category as flat earthers in that I believe this “business” is one of the causes of the possible end to human space flight. If the only reason to go is tourism, we will not keep going. I do not believe there are enough tourists to sustain a market.
“What supporters of a Commercial Space Industry *now* recognize, is that there is a group of the public (some with considerable vested interests) that wish to compromise the Space Industry’s sustainability and viability to simply joy-ride around “in the name of science.”
I strongly disagree,
I do not believe HSF is sustainable based on tourism- and tourism is as close to joy riding as it gets.
UNT2007 wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
“It is going to take years for space x to develop their capsule to take people into orbit…”
Isn’t it going to take years for anybody to develop manned crew systems? I don’t get your point.
For SpaceX, it’s quite apparent why they are the closest to being able to launch crew to LEO. While Atlas & Delta are proven launchers, ULA does not have a working capsule yet. Orion is $4.5B away, and who knows how many years, and Boeing has not finalized a capsule design.
The SpaceX Dragon capsule is human-rated (from an ISS standpoint), and will launch this year, and dock next year. The environmental systems are included already, so all that is needed are seats, internal controls, and an LAS. Considering the amount that they have already spent to develop two launchers and one capsule, the LAS will not cost that much, nor the pad upgrades.
Elon Musk has quoted three years to start delivering humans to LEO, and I see no technical reasons why they could not do that. ULA is further behind, but they have quoted 4.5 years to man-rate a Delta IV and launch an Orion, or 4 years to man-rate Atlas V and launch commercial flights. Three good choices.
“…and the supposedly lower costs of space x has been greatly exaggerated.”
How can published prices be an exaggeration? Who cares what it costs them to do the job, they have published the prices for everyone to see. You need to put 23,050 lbs of cargo into LEO? $51.5M is their price, fairing included. No exaggeration there.
For crew, Elon Musk has already quoted $20M/seat, so he’s on record for a price (can be changed, but that’s bad for business). Doing some simple math, and using a few assumptions, I had long ago estimated that they could offer rides to LEO for $20M, and then Musk quoted that number (even SWAG’s can be right sometimes). I assumed five passengers paying $20M each, which gives them $48.5M to cover the reusable capsule, overhead and profit. The capsule will be the ones from the COTS program, since they will have twelve once-used capsules at the end (NASA stipulates new capsules for each delivery), which gives them a huge cost advantage to start.
ULA has quoted $300M to launch the Orion on Delta IV, which gives us $50M/seat, or about what Soyuz charges in 2015. That’s targeted for the government. For Atlas V, they are quoting $150M for commercial crew services to LEO, which could be $25M/seat – very aggressive pricing for ULA.
Considering that SpaceX does not have the overhead of ULA, and that their launcher is using the newest technologies and latest lean-manufacturing techniques, it’s not surprising that SpaceX is offering lower prices. Coming from a manufacturing background, I look at the cost drivers of the quoted prices, and SpaceX is inline with what the industry is doing, and what their older competition isn’t.
1st Major Tom Troll post:
“There is no MECO on a solid rocket like Ares I, only main engine burnout. A solid rocket can’t be cut off.
Don’t make stpuid statements out of ignorance.”
Main engine cut off, MECO, is when the second stage is cut-off, and solid rocket boosters are usually the first stage. Your statement was ignorant, not his.
1st Major Tom Troll post:
“There is no MECO on a solid rocket like Ares I, only main engine burnout. A solid rocket can’t be cut off.
Don’t make stpuid statements out of ignorance.â€
Main engine cut off, MECO, is when the second stage is cut-off, and solid rocket boosters are usually the first stage. Your statement was ignorant, not his.
2nd Major Tom Troll post:
When, specifically, did Musk “sneer†at members of Congress?
Where’s the quote?
Don’t make things up.
He was not making anything up, he was expressing his opinion of someone else perceived agenda. You made something up by rejecting the opinion (troll) and demanding a quote.
Coastal Ron, interesting numbers on Atlas, got a citation for that? I’ll be looking for that number, quite nice if true. I assume that would be on an Orion Lite. Good stuff. And I think SpaceX can get it done in 3 years, 4 years tops (it appears that they tend to slip their dates by 6 months to a year, heheh).
Also, NASA might want new Dragons for crew delivery, I would hope not, just so costs could get sunk, but if so it may be a bit more than $20 million a seat.
‘NASA is NOT underfunded, sorry.
Largest Space Agency by a Factor of 5.
Largest non defence non human services federal agency.”
I disagree, projected defense spending fiscal year 2010: over 1 trillion.
NASA- will not see 20 billion.
Space flight is inherently expensive. There is no cheap. IMHO
“Now SpaceX supporters? We’ve been uncivilized at times, I can attest to that personally, but generally we’re nothing like that of citizens who don’t want private space to lead our rocket program.”
We will see how this thread turns out. I am no longer responding to abuse with abuse, I will just identify it from now on and state my opinion. Arguing with people who just lie and insult is a losing battle. Telling the truth is all I should have been doing from the beginning.
“And Musk has demonstrated that flying hardware can be had for “lessâ€.
I think it is going to get more expensive Mr. Oler. Things like escape systems cost and as I said, there are only so many people rich enough to support tourism. As for going anywhere besides LEO, either a much larger first stage or multiple launches and orbital assembly will be the first thing required, and the second requirement will be high energy propellants for the earth departure stage. If you don’t use hydrogen the first thing required becomes a bigger problem.
UNT2007 wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
A couple of interesting questions you’ve posed.
“So we have to waste taxpayer money by shutting down a space program that was going to take us out of LEO and to the moon and mars to pump money into a rocket that is only going to the ISS?”
– Constellation was not going to Mars, only the Moon for exploration
– The new NASA plan focuses us on going beyond the Moon (been there quote) so we can start learning what it takes to eventually get to Mars.
– Bush/Griffith created the COTS program that SpaceX is using to deliver supplies to the ISS. That’s all they are getting paid for. No crew.
– In order to afford Constellation, Bush/Griffith had to de-fund the ISS after 2015. Whether it was dumped in the ocean, or sold to our partners was TBD, but we would not have had a destination in space for at least 10 years. Was that a good idea?
“Especially when we have the rockets that can do that already, where is the cost savings in that?”
– Ares I duplicated the ability of existing launchers (Atlas V & Delta IV). Why didn’t NASA use existing launchers? Because Griffith wanted Ares V, and it cost so much to develop that he needed Ares I to absorb enough of the development costs so Ares V wouldn’t look like such a huge money pit. Existing launchers already existed, they were proven, they were cheaper – there was no other reason for Ares I to exist.
– Without Ares I, Ares V now becomes massively expensive, and the costs/lb were going to be far higher than any other alternative.
– I don’t think the U.S. taxpayer would say “Go back to the Moon at any cost!”. No, they would want us to open the challenge to our industry and institutions, and see what the best and brightest can do. Griffith did not do that, he dictated a design he had come up with, and ignored the ideas that established aerospace companies could have contributed.
The new NASA plan kind of restarts the industry part, and is incrementally adding the capabilities to go anywhere in space, not just the Moon. This will make going back to the Moon cheaper because we will already have the initial transportation systems in place, and NASA will only have to develop those parts that don’t exist.
Constellation was building the entire transportation system, and operating it, and NASA does not know how to do that cost effectively. In these tough economic times, that has to be a major consideration.
“I’d bet good money that SpaceX is asked to fly Orion to the ISS once it’s complete. On their F9H. For likely half the cost of a Delta or Atlas.”
I am skeptical of the Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines. Delta and Atlas use far fewer engines burning high energy propellants or have solid rockets in the first stage. Atlas has not flown their heavy yet. I would predict Delta IV would get the Orion. But of course, it not really what is the best choice that gets selected- it is all about politics. Space politics.
“The new NASA plan kind of restarts the industry part, and is incrementally adding the capabilities to go anywhere in space, not just the Moon. This will make going back to the Moon cheaper because we will already have the initial transportation systems in place, and NASA will only have to develop those parts that don’t exist.”
I disagree it will be cheaper because we are throwing away those “parts that don’t exist.” Namely the 3 million pound thrust SRB and the shuttle external tank. While the RS-68 can stand in for the SSME, those “other parts”, the first stage and 2nd stage components, will have to be developed from scratch. The Side Mount was probably what would have cost the least over the long run but it looks like that option is dead. The proposed 1 million pound thrust kerosene engine is just a better F1 and like the F1, it will cost a pretty penny to make operational.
“Moon Cheaper” is not a valid possibility IMHO. It is why those little three man capsules parachuted into the ocean after starting out the size of a light cruiser. There is no cheap.
Gary Church, quality control at SpaceX is unparalleled, “testing and inspecting” the engines happens as they’re built, and it is built in to the process. They just need an order for the thing. Fact remains that even if ULA/Boeing/Lockheed make a bid on Jan 1st 2011 (when budget goes into effect), they will still be behind SpaceX.
NASA is finally, after the Ares I debacle, picking the right path for the United States.
It seems that Gary Church doesn’t understand the “lego concept”.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1638/1
quality control at SpaceX is unparalleled, “testing and inspecting†the engines happens as they’re built,”
I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.
“It seems that Gary Church doesn’t understand the “lego conceptâ€.
I would answer that with it seems you don’t understand the “wet workshop concept” that uses HLV’s to put up far larger complete sections than is possible with smaller vehicles. That is why the ISS cost so much.
I see the “regulars” are shunning me. Please let it continue. This is how it should be.
You didn’t even bother to read the article did you, Gary Church?
Gary Church said:
Bigelow’s modules are also modular like the ISS, yet they cost a fraction of the price of the ISS modules. The ISS modules cost so much for the same reason the Ares 1 Corndog costs so much, huge standing armies of bureaucrats and workers building handbuilt specialized parts. Go read the article.
“You didn’t even bother to read the article did you, Gary Church?’
‘Bigelow’s modules are also modular like the ISS, yet they cost a fraction of the price of the ISS modules. The ISS modules cost so much for the same reason the Ares 1 Corndog costs so much, huge standing armies of bureaucrats and workers building handbuilt specialized parts. Go read the article.
OK. I read it. It does not say a thing about Bigelows modulars or that they cost a fraction of the ISS, in fact the only thing it says about the ISS modules is a recommendation. Nothing about huge stand armies. All of your post was about your opinion, not the article.
From the article;
1. ‘use as few “bricks†as possible”
Exactly what a wet workshop does.
2. ‘Using propellant depots generally requires more launches, but this should not necessarily be a problem.”
It is a problem that grows bigger as the launch vehicle gets smaller.
3. “The use of propellant depots might mean an important change in international cooperation for space exploration. It provides more possibilities for modularity in that multiple nations can provide different “bricksâ€, much like on the International Space Station.”
This is all the article says about the ISS.
I expended about a quarter of an hour of my lifespan disproving what it took someone a couple minutes to whip out. This is why it is so hard to tell the truth on forums. No one has the time or reason to answer endless made up arguments. So the people who just make up stuff- and say other people are the ones making up stuff- they always win.
Gary Church, it will only cost as much as 3 Falcon 9’s, probably less. It would be on a per-order basis, at that, so there is no real loss or confusion. The best part about it is that SpaceX will be nearly doubling their workforce in 2 years. Many of those 600 employees being pulled from Lockheed at least will have a place to go.
R7, thanks for the article, I just now finished it. It is unlikely he read it given that he replied to you 4 minutes after you posted it.
Josh Cryer wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
“interesting numbers on Atlas, got a citation for that?”
I’m glad you asked, because I was remembering the Atlas V number incorrectly. Michael Gass, CEO of ULA, testified before the Augustine Commission last year, and he stated that Atlas V could cost $130M launch, but did not provide a cost/seat (no capsule yet). The YouTube link is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LavQstnW410
Gary Church is probably a member of that huge standing army of bureaucrats and union workers.
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
“I see the “regulars†are shunning me. Please let it continue. This is how it should be.”
We have been “shunning” your childish behavior. I don’t care that you and I disagree, but calling me a liar does not make me want to engage you in discussion. However, today you have been making articulate points, so I’ll respond to a few on separate posts.
* Un-shun *
I read the article. And everything in my post was correct and everything in his post was not in the article.
And….What will cost only as much as 3 Falcon 9’s? The falcon 9 heavy? Probably less? A pre-order basis so there is no real loss or confusion?
I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.
That is all I had to say- are you contributing or advertising?
‘We have been “shunning†your childish behavior.”
You have been shunning because I insult back. Or was. Now you think you can get away with it again and want to play. No thanks. Please keep shunning. I will just have to do what I just did; spend all my time disproving your lies. Leave me alone.
From the article I posted:
Gary Church decided to ignore this paragraph. The article discussed much more than just fuel depots. I don’t like dishonest debaters with hidden axes to grind.
Coastal Ron, ahh, I figured you got that figure from that. Those are “Recurring costs.” Not the cost of actually flying the Atlas V. The Augustine Commission placed it around $400 million per flight, afaik. Their way of trying to pad the numbers by inventing a secondary cost factor.
Gary Church, Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.
There’s no demand for F9H. SpaceX made the proper design choice, which is why they’re 5 times cheaper than their nearest competitor and why they are going to be the largest supplier of logistics to the ISS. Sorry, you’re simply wrong.
But I’ll agree with you on one thing, they do need bigger engines.
“I don’t like dishonest debaters with hidden axes to grind.”
You keep trying to cover up your dishonesty by accusing me. Just like I said.
Gary Church, he substantiated his accusation. You explicitly are ignoring the philosophy described in the article, and indeed, are trying to distract from its truth by simply reiterating your nonsense.
“There’s no demand for F9H. SpaceX made the proper design choice, which is why they’re 5 times cheaper than their nearest competitor and why they are going to be the largest supplier of logistics to the ISS. Sorry, you’re simply wrong.”
Wrong about what?
I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.
That is all I had to say- are you contributing or advertising?
This is exactly what I said; endless posts making things up. You guys just exhaust anybody who dares to disagree and express an opinion.
Gary Church, you are posting the same thing, endlessly, apparently. I already responded to your claims, and R7’s article sufficiently debunks your nonsense. Now you can repeat what you wrote, again, or you can just accept that you were wrong.
To Gary Church:
And yet you claimed you answered the article’s points.
But apparently you ignored this paragraph:
And went on to say:
I suspect that you’re a member of that huge standing army of bureaucrats and union workers that was going to build the Ares Rockets.
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
““And Musk has demonstrated that flying hardware can be had for “lessâ€.
I think it is going to get more expensive Mr. Oler. Things like escape systems cost and as I said, there are only so many people rich enough to support tourism.”
Before Musk quoted that SpaceX would be able to offer rides to LEO for $20M/seat, I had already guess at that figure. Because I was able to validate what he was saying (and he should know), I have good confidence that SpaceX can meet the price.
I derived my costs from the following assumptions:
– Falcon 9 published price is $51.5M/launch
– Dragon holds seven, but assume two for crew, which leaves five paying passengers. At $20M/seat, SpaceX received $100M in revenue, which leaves $48.5M for us to divvy up.
– By the time they launch crew, they will have nine Dragon capsules that have made one flight into space for the COTS program, and can not be used for COTS again. These can be refurbished for crew – call it $5M/capsule
– We don’t know what the LAS will be, but the incremental costs for an LAS shouldn’t exceed the costs of a full-up engine or two, so call it $10M.
– The Dragon unpressurized trunk is new for each flight, and I’ll assume $5M
– Crew training and crew recovery services would be $10M.
– Overhead & misc. = $8.5M
– Profit = $10M/flight
Regarding who will fly them, I agree that there are not enough tourists, but there are some.
Bigelow has said that they look to the sovereign government needs, and that it would be for research type stuff. SpaceX is one of the two crew service companies that they are looking at, but they want more than one.
There is also the unknown markets that appear when costs become low enough to accommodate their needs. All of this will be gradual, but SpaceX can survive quite well with it’s COTS and cargo business, and since it’s the same capsules and launcher, they will be ready for the expanding market as it appears.
That’s my take on it.
“…but we need those members to define that support;”
Congressmen and Senators are happy to make general noises of support to anyone they don’t need to antagonize, especially ardent Ares supporters. This is politics 102, and most members of Congress practice it diligently and easily.
When meeting with a congressperson or staffer, hear their words tactically, from their position, especially general expressions and conditional words. Otherwise it’s very easy to hear what you want, and walk away encouraged.
If you want more definition to the meeting, ask specifically if the member supports your point of view, and to what degree (posturing, negotiating, deciding) they will act on that support.
With NASA FY11 moving closer to reality, Congress would like it to happen with as few waves as possible. That’s why you’re starting to hear phrases like, “continue to fight,” among POR/Cx supporters. They are making a good show, but know the matter is largely done, and in the hands of the appropriations committee.
btw, I wonder if ULA/Atlas is looking at a potential dreamchaser timeline, now that SpaceX has made a good start, and Orion lite and the Boeing question mark capsule are still apparently at the conceptual phase.
@ Best Effort
“Yes, let’s throw good money after bad, so that we can have more debacles like Constellation. How’s your Australian space program coming along?”
Do you have any evidence that the government’s investment in space has been bad for the US economy because I’ve never seen it?
“You explicitly are ignoring the philosophy described in the article, and indeed, are trying to distract from its truth by simply reiterating your nonsense.”
Here we go again. Every statement he made was false. He was not talking about ‘philosophy’, he was citing mention of Bigelow which the article did not, and citing the ISS opposite of the author. He was lying. Just like you. This is how it works; I finally have to just say it to you guys- you are lying. And then comes the righteous indignation. And then the insults. Leave me alone. Go away. Go pick on someone who will play your game. All I am doing is stating my opinion of what is being posted here and of HSF in general. That’s all.
“I suspect that you’re a member of that huge standing army of bureaucrats and union workers that was going to build the Ares Rockets.”
And I suspect you are advertising SpaceX.
“This way, a hundred Lego bricks of three basic types, connected with a common interface, make for a much less complex system than 15 specialized plastic pieces, only to be put together in one specific way.’
I am not talking about preschool toys- I am talking about, well:
I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.
That is all I had to say- are you contributing or advertising?
This is exactly what I said; endless posts making things up. You guys just exhaust anybody who dares to disagree and express an opinion.
Gary Church, stop playing the victim here. You made a statement to me about “27 engines” not being the “best engineering practice.” R7, not speaking to you explicitly, but making a general observation, implied that 27 engines may indeed be the “best engineering practice” if you incorporate the “lego concept.” He then linked an article on the “lego concept.”
He then added, his own opinion, in no way implying that his opinion was reflected in the article, about ISS modules vs Biglow inflatables. You took his statement about Biglow inflatables to have been mentioned in the article (he never said that they were, nor was it, again, in any way implied). After that point you just started copy+pasting your drivel.
I’d ask that you, please, go away, since it is you who are taking things out of context, who are misinterpreting what people are saying, and who are wrong in this instance. As long as you refuse to contribute actual substance the discussion will go nowhere.
“Gary Church, you are posting the same thing, endlessly, apparently. I already responded to your claims, and R7’s article sufficiently debunks your nonsense. Now you can repeat what you wrote, again, or you can just accept that you were wrong.
This is exactly what I said; endless posts making things up. You guys just exhaust anybody who dares to disagree and express an opinion.”
I’d ask that you, please, go away, since it is you who are taking things out of context, who are misinterpreting what people are saying, and who are wrong in this instance. As long as you refuse to contribute actual substance the discussion will go nowhere.
This is exactly what I said; endless posts making things up. You guys just exhaust anybody who dares to disagree and express an opinion.â€
Your comment
Josh Cryer wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Nice try Josh, but understanding complex sentences are not his forte. You will tire of his simplicity eventually.
Gary Church said:
I mentioned Bigelow as an example of the philosophy stated in the article after your mention of the ISS. The philosophy of which you are deliberately ignoring. Falcon 9 is also an example of that philosophy. You’re not going to argue that the Ares Rockets are cheaper than Falcon 9, are you?
The Falcon heavy is going to require three boosters plus an upper stage. That’s a lot more complex than necessary.
Boeings inline shuttle derived booster concept would be a lot simpler than the Falcon heavy and a lot cleaner– especially when the US finally moves totally towards a nuclear and renewable energy economy.
Boeing’s New HLV Concept could be the DC-3 of Manned Rocket Boosters:
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2010/05/boeings-new-hlv-concept-could-be-dc-3.html
Josh Cryer wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
ULA stated it would take $400M to upgrade Atlas V and the infrastructure to handle commercial crew (non-recurring), but they would then charge $130M/launch (recurring).
For Delta IV Heavy, they would need $1.3B to upgrade the launcher and infrastructure (non-recurring), but then they would charge $300M for each Orion you want to launch to LEO (recurring).
However, their launch costs are just for the launcher, and they do not include the capsule, which is either provided (NASA Orion for Delta IV), or separately contracted (Boeing commercial crew capsule or ???).
We’ll have to get a clarification if ULA is quoting the actual costs without overhead and profit, or with. I suspect it’s with, and there is no way the price of Atlas V would go from $130M recurring costs to $400M launch price – they don’t have that much overhead, and there’s too much competition to encourage gouging.
“Boeing’s New HLV Concept”
Let them develop it on their own dime, with their own workforce, and offer its use on a per flight basis to NASA for a reasonable price. I’m for that.
from: We will see how this thread turns out. I am no longer responding to abuse with abuse, I will just identify it from now on and state my opinion. Arguing with people who just lie and insult is a losing battle. Telling the truth is all I should have been doing from the beginning.
to: “You didn’t even bother to read the article did you, Gary Church?’
‘Bigelow’s modules are also modular like the ISS, yet they cost a fraction of the price of the ISS modules. The ISS modules cost so much for the same reason the Ares 1 Corndog costs so much, huge standing armies of bureaucrats and workers building handbuilt specialized parts. Go read the article.”
to :OK. I read it. It does not say a thing about Bigelows modulars or that they cost a fraction of the ISS, in fact the only thing it says about the ISS modules is a recommendation. Nothing about huge stand armies. All of your post was about your opinion, not the article.
to:“You explicitly are ignoring the philosophy described in the article, and indeed, are trying to distract from its truth by simply reiterating your nonsense.â€
to: This is exactly what I said; endless posts making things up. You guys just exhaust anybody who dares to disagree and express an opinion.â€
“I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.”
Okay, I’ll bite: what’s the basis for that claim? Ceteris paribus, having fewer engines is usually better than having more engines, but ceteris isn’t exactly paribus here. What the development and operation costs of one large engine versus 9 or 27 smaller engines? What cost model are you using to make those calculations? Are you factoring in economies of scale (in both cost and reliability) that come from building and operating more engines? And what about the potential (still unproven) reusability of Merlin engines on F9 first stages?
“You’re not going to argue that the Ares Rockets are cheaper than Falcon 9, are you?”
“understanding complex sentences are not his forte.”
This is how it works; I finally have to just say it to you guys- you are lying. And then comes the righteous indignation. And then the insults. Leave me alone.
This is exactly what I said; endless posts making things up. You guys just exhaust anybody who dares to disagree and express an opinion.â€
Gary Church, are you going to ever stop copy+pasting that drivel? R7 did not imply that the article mentioned Biglow modules. R7 is of the opinion that the “lego concept” is represented by Biglow modules, and that it certainly applies to the F9H 27 engines. You have yet to actually form a coherent argument as to why this may not be the case. Are you Taos Eddy? There’s another guy I know online who loves to just copy+paste as a response, rather than actually forming sentences. And no, I am not “abusing” you. I’m saying it like it is.
Coastal Ron, according to astronautix the Atlas V HLV is $254 million, add the $130 million recurring cost to that figure, and you are close to the $400 million the Augustine Commission determined. I agree that it’s unclear though from these data we’ve found so far, but I am more inclined to believe the $400 million figure than the $130 million figure. If ULA could do it that cheap there would be no problem.
@Bennett
“Boeing’s New HLV Conceptâ€
“Let them develop it on their own dime, with their own workforce, and offer its use on a per flight basis to NASA for a reasonable price. I’m for that.”
Since it also allows NASA to use it as a heavy lift vehicle when its coupled with SRBs, it would be a good investment for NASA to fund its development. It would be a lot better plan than the Obama NASA welfare plan to spend nearly $100 billion over the next 5 years funding nothing to go nowhere.
“having fewer engines is usually better than having more engines”
That would indicate the burden of proof is on you. Do I really have to spend the time finding some kind of documentation for this? I have read in several books that the F-1 was holding up Apollo because of the problems with large clusters. The Russian N-1 moon rocket has been cited in other books I have read concerning the same problems with large numbers of engines, each with their own separate mounting, feul, and control systems. The NASA design teams called it “clusters last stand.” Every time I mention the large number of engines on falcon I get jumped on and it get’s ugly quick. No one wants to hear it. Okay Freddo?
“Gary Church, are you going to ever stop copy+pasting that drivel?
There’s another guy I know online who loves to just copy+paste as a response, rather than actually forming sentences. And no, I am not “abusing†you.”
This is exactly what I said; endless posts making things up. You guys just exhaust anybody who dares to disagree and express an opinion.
Thanks for acting civilized Freddo. The rest of you guys can have at me now; I have to go. See you tomorrow.
None of these companies can really do anything cheap because there are too many global launch companies and vehicles and not enough demand for space launches. Dramatic cost reductions will occur only when there is a dramatic increase in space travel.
Space tourism is the key to dramatically increasing launch activity.
Gary Church, thanks, I have my answer. You appear to have stopped copy+pasting until at least tomorrow.
And fyi: This is exactly what I said; endless posts making things up.
I made up that you copy+pasted drivel over and over again?
Freddo, I think it’s a moot point anyway, there doesn’t appear to really be any significant demand for a F9H, so SpaceX, if they built one, wouldn’t be building that many. Certainly, since they succeeded at the oft-claimed “impossible” task of successfully igniting 9 engines in their first flight, all the way to orbit, I think they are up to the task.
Minor Tom wrote:
“There is no MECO on a solid rocket like Ares I, only main engine burnout. A solid rocket can’t be cut off.”
The term ‘press to MECO’ is used as a metaphor for the routine successful completion of a shuttle flight, and our belief that Ares development will be similarly routine and successful. Also, you are aware that an Ares has an LH2 upper stage, right? My guess is that you are trying appear foolish. You have succeeded.
Marcel F. Williams, you have contradicted supply and demand: Dramatic cost reductions will occur only when there is a dramatic increase in space travel.
Look up “price elasticity of demand,” please.
amightywind said:
LOL!
amightywind has returned to entertain us with nonsense.
Josh Cryer wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
“Coastal Ron, according to astronautix the Atlas V HLV is $254 million, add the $130 million recurring cost to that figure, and you are close to the $400 million the Augustine Commission determined. I agree that it’s unclear though from these data we’ve found so far, but I am more inclined to believe the $400 million figure than the $130 million figure. If ULA could do it that cheap there would be no problem.”
Good question, and one that I had to look closely to figure out.
To lift Orion, ULA is proposing Delta IV Heavy, and they would charge $300M (recurring) for the launcher.
For Commercial, ULA is proposing Atlas V (likely the 401 version), which can put 21,600 lbs into LEO. Delta IV gives them a heavy crew lifter, and Atlas V gives them the lighter version.
For comparison, Falcon 9, which carries the Dragon capsule, can lift 23,050 lbs to LEO. ULA must be assuming that the Atlas V will use a Dragon-class capsule for commercial flights, most likely the one that Boeing is proposing for Bigelow.
The $130M for the launcher-only is still good in my view, and still significantly higher than SpaceX ($51.5M/launch).
ULA & SpaceX are not easy to compare, because SpaceX owns their capsules launchers, and ULA’s customers have to provide their own capsules for each mission. ULA’s charter is to be a launch provider only – they don’t build or sell what goes on top of the launcher.
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
“I have read in several books that the F-1 was holding up Apollo because of the problems with large clusters.”
A quick check of Wikipedia shows that the F-1 was developed based on a 1955 USAF requirement, not Apollo. It did have problems, specifically:
“For seven years of development F-1 tests revealed serious combustion instability problems which would sometimes cause catastrophic failure.
These problems were addressed from 1959 through 1961.”
The F-1 was ready for Apollo way before Apollo was conceived.
From what I can tell, using more than one engine was not a problem for Saturn. The Saturn V used five F-1’s, and the engineers must have felt they would do their job OK. If you have a specific source you’d like to cite, please do.
“The Russian N-1 moon rocket has been cited in other books I have read concerning the same problems with large numbers of engines, each with their own separate mounting, feul, and control systems.”
The N1 was ambitious, and the Soviets were not able to pull it off. It’s hard to know what failed, whether it was the plumbing, the engines reacting with each other, or who knows. A failure of one launcher with multiple engines does not damn all multi-engine designs forever, and the U.S. has been successful with multi-engine designs.
The Saturn V used five engines, and the Shuttle also uses five. The F-1, though big, was also complicated, and there is a trade-off between the number of moving parts on one assembly versus the number of simple assemblies you group together. It’s the modular thing again.
For SpaceX, their engine is very simple (one shaft for everything), and very efficient (latest engine technology knowledge). In the end, their design studies pointed them towards what they have. If they have made a bad decision, then the company may not survive. However we will only get the results from them launching Falcon 9’s, and since they only get paid when they deliver their cargo, they have a great incentive to make them work. Time will tell.
Every other large launcher in the world uses multiple engines, so if you’re advocating for one engine to launch a rocket, no rocket scientists are agreeing with you.
Your opinion is as valid as anyone else’s, but the reality of what the world is doing is something else. Unless you are a well know rocket scientist, you’re not going to change things by writing posts on this blog.
Coastal Ron, seems reasonable enough if they go with the 401. Those numbers would fit, then. Thanks for helping clear that one up for me. I’ll have to keep digging. May be that we don’t know actual costs until they make their bid.
5 years from now.
Josh Cryer wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
I would be fine with moving forward to man-rate Delta IV Heavy. It’s already used by the government, and it could silence the fears some in Congress have about non-NASA crew launchers. The question of what it will launch is still open (Orion or ???), but at least it could be declared the default government crew launcher.
@amighty “breaking” wind: Let the counterattack begin! For 6 years Constellation enjoys bipartisan congressional support on a march to a bright space future. There is no reason to pitch the project just because the executive branch has been briefly seized by radicals. Press to MECO America!
You would have had a nice career in the former Soviet Union. Your nonsensical pronunciations and declarations remind me of that bygone era. Sort of nostalgic, in a way. :^)
Coastal Ron dribbled:
“I would be fine with moving forward to man-rate Delta IV Heavy. It’s already used by the government, and it could silence the fears some in Congress have about non-NASA crew launchers. The question of what it will launch is still open (Orion or ???), but at least it could be declared the default government crew launcher.”
Of course you would. In ancient Rome after the fall squatters who lived among the ruins gazed at the marvels of architecture, realized they would never build similar structures themselves, and then cannibalized the remains to build their shacks. It reminds me of you armchair rocket engineers cobbling together disparate parts of rockets designed for an entirely different purpose and calling it a manned space program. The geezers who built Apollo must be LTAO. I wish the political class would focus more on what the mission is and let the engineers take the wisest course. The politicization of NASA by this administration is the worst calamity it has yet faced.
Gary, R7 raised an entirely valid point.
The article contradicts your position with a different systems engineering philosophy. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the fundamental difference.
I’d also note that Deming’s quality control work explicitly showed that you can’t inspect your way to quality, it has to be designed into the product and processes from the beginning.
amightywind blew @ June 6th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Considering that Delta IV Heavy is a current proven launcher, your analogy is wrong. They are not talking about cannibalizing anything, they are talking about taking an existing launcher, making modest man-rating upgrades, and using it to launch crew to LEO.
The “armchair engineers” in this case are the real engineers at ULA, since they are the ones that proposed this. You appear to not like products improved.
Unlike you, some of us don’t share the Constellation motto of “Costs Be Damned!”. Modular assembly, which is all around you, is a less expensive way to go, while achieving the same objective. If you were an engineer, you would understand this. Instead you appear to be a failed history student.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
I just finished reading the pdf file on the Boeing proposal. I did not notice a single price on anything. It makes for wonderful images, but I would have been a lot more interested to know if they would do this at a fixed cost based on milestones met and with them providing some of the funding so they have some skin in the game or is this just another same ole same ole cost plus monster?
They did not mention how much of the workforce would be retained or retrained or how big the workforce would be. If it is another 200 million a month if they launch or not and will be there from now until it’s first launch it is to expensive.
Marcel F. Williams wrote:
“None of these companies can really do anything cheap because there are too many global launch companies and vehicles and not enough demand for space launches. Dramatic cost reductions will occur only when there is a dramatic increase in space travel.
Space tourism is the key to dramatically increasing launch activity.
Another key to increase the flight rate is to increase the amount of cheap cargo to space. Fuel is the perfect item for this and why we should go with fuel depots instead of a heavy lift. If you launch the REUSABLE EDS unfueled and do it in space instead you can get around having to invest 50-100 billion in a heavy lift. Buy the fuel commercially IN SPACE instead of having NASA involved in fuel launches.
NASA can do nothing if they are spending 2-3 billion a year in a standing army waiting around to launch something commercial space can handle.
Get NASA astronauts in space building things that can be used for BEO. I want NASA out of the cargo and crew business to LEO and instead have their exploration START in LEO.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Boeings inline shuttle derived booster concept would be a lot simpler than the Falcon heavy and a lot cleaner– …
probably not. By any measure of “complexity” or “simple” there is nothing simple about Boeing’s SDV concept, DIRECT or anything else that has shuttle hardware with it..first there is the technology itself which as NASA never tires of telilng everyone is the most complex vehicle ever built or some nonesense
But aside from that..if the choice is to stack three vehicles (and an upper stage) with mostly similar technologies and characteristics or stack essentially three different vehicles (in the SDV system) well simplicity is of like kinds.
“Boeing’s New HLV Concept could be the DC-3 of Manned Rocket Boosters:”
not a chance…none Robert G. Oler
Vladislaw wrote: Get NASA astronauts into space, building things that can be used for BEO. I want NASA out of the cargo and crew business to LEO and instead have their exploration START in LEO.
Exactly. The money spent developing and maintaining a HLV could provide for human access to LEO, vehicle/habitat deployment, fuel depots, in-space construction experience, and fuel delivery flights that make the business of commercial launch that much easier to sustain.
It’s a winner all the way around.
@Vladislaw
NASA’s not in the cargo and launch business because the ISS is not a business.
The ISS is the most expensive socialist science laboratories ever built.
Although, I guess you could argue that the ISS is a black hole, the way it sucks in tax payer dollars. And of course, where ever tax payer money flows, Elon Musk will follow:-)
@ Robert G. Oler
Its a lot simpler to launch humans aboard a rocket with a single booster than to launch humans on a Falcon heavy of a Delta IV heavy requiring 3 or 4 boosters. That’s 3 or 4 things that could go wrong.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
“The Falcon heavy is going to require three boosters plus an upper stage. That’s a lot more complex than necessary.”
How is it complex? The Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy both use this configuration, so Boeing and Lockheed Martin don’t seem to share your concern. Each core is exactly the same as the other three, so there is no added complexity, and there is more commonality. Another bonus is that you are validating your -Heavy every time you launch a non-heavy version.
The Boeing concept calls out for two types of main engines and three types of boosters – how is this lowering complexity?
“Boeings inline shuttle derived booster concept would be a lot simpler than the Falcon heavy and a lot cleaner– especially when the US finally moves totally towards a nuclear and renewable energy economy.”
The Boeing in-line starts at 35,273 lbs to LEO for the basic no-boosters version. Falcon 9 starts with 23,050 lbs to LEO for a single core launcher. Unless Boeing builds a larger capsule to take more than six people, then Falcon 9 is less expensive getting crew to space.
For the Boeing in-line short stack, with SRB’s it tops out at 83,334 lbs to LEO. Falcon 9 Heavy can lift 70,548 lbs to LEO. Hard to tell about cost, but SRB’s add a lot of cost, so it will be interesting to see how Boeing can keep costs down. The Falcon 9 & Heavy versions cost about $3,000/lb to LEO – any idea what Boeing is estimating?
“Boeing’s New HLV Concept could be the DC-3 of Manned Rocket Boosters”
I would say that the existing Delta & Atlas families are already the DC-3 of cargo launchers. They carry a wide variety of payload weights and sizes, and they have been doing it for a long time. The hallmark of the DC-3 was that it wasn’t the fastest or the best, but it was dependable. Atlas/Delta can lay claim to the dependable moniker for now, and Falcon 9 costs far less.
Maybe the Boeing launcher can be the 747 of manned rocket launchers? The question is, are we ready for that much capacity?
@Vladislaw
A reusable EDS only makes sense if you’re traveling to the Moon.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 1:59 am
“Its a lot simpler to launch humans aboard a rocket with a single booster than to launch humans on a Falcon heavy of a Delta IV heavy requiring 3 or 4 boosters. That’s 3 or 4 things that could go wrong.”
You can’t say that Delta and Atlas are unreliable. They have had 40+ launches without a failure, so that’s pretty good.
You also can’t say that cost is not a factor. You were ribbing Vladislaw about what a black hole the ISS is, so why aren’t you concerned about what it costs to get crew & cargo to LEO?
Boeing may have a workable design, and it may turn out to be ultra reliable, but the biggest question is can we afford it? All things being equal, what is the least expensive way to get a job done? Boeing needs to get the cost below the Atlas/Delta vehicles if they want to impress us. We already have reliable vehicles we can use.
I didn’t say that Delta or Atlas were unreliable. I said that a single booster launch is more reliable than a multi-booster launch.
I don’t care about the cost of going to the ISS because I believe that the ISS should be terminated after 2015, unless our partners want to take it off our hands. There’s no way we’re getting $5 billion worth of science (shuttle plus ISS) every year from the space station program. No way! This is really a bad government program that should be ended in 2015. And I was against it when Ronald Regan first conceived it back in the 1980s. There was no logical reason to build a super titanic microgravity space station that can only be used by 6 people at a time.
We should have used that ISS money to develop a heavy lift vehicle so that we could have launched a larger and much cheaper space station or space stations with a single launch. Of course if we already had a HLV, we could probably return to the Moon within 5 years.
Marcel F. Williams wrote:
@Vladislaw
“A reusable EDS only makes sense if you’re traveling to the Moon.”
Exactly, Lunar orbits or GEO, EML1, or any of the other lagrange points. Including servicing the James Webb. The point is to move to a space based, reusable, gas n’ go, vehicle. Rather than using a hlv at all. Let’s spend that 50-100 billion on in space hardware, rather than something to put hardware into space. The planet will have more than enough launch systems to push hardware into LEO. NASA’s job should be assembling the modules in space.
“Of course if we already had a HLV, we could probably return to the Moon within 5 years.”
Marcel, I as well would like to see a return to the moon. But just returning to the moon in the shortest possible time span is not enough to make us a true spacefaring nation where future generations of American explorers have the legacy of going deep into the inner solar system in a way that the U.S. can sustainably afford. The people who back the flexible path (that includes commercial vehicles as JUST ONE corner stone) want to see a return to the moon in a way that allows us to send more people there at less cost. If it takes a bit longer to do the research that allows us to do that, that’s an acceptable trade off. Let’s develop the needed cost effective technology so that a decade or two from now we can send hundreds or thousands of people to the moon and beyond, rather than a trickle of a chosen elite simply because that’s all we can afford.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 2:55 am
“I didn’t say that Delta or Atlas were unreliable. I said that a single booster launch is more reliable than a multi-booster launch.”
I think you’re arguing a safety point that doesn’t exist. It’s like saying that the Airbus A380 is safer than the Boeing 747. Maybe someday it will be deemed so, but we have decades of flight for both airplanes before the statistics will tell us. Until then both are acceptably safe.
Same with Delta/Atlas, you can’t say an attribute of the Boeing HLV is safety, because that implies the alternatives are not, and that is not the case.
“I don’t care about the cost of going to the ISS because I believe that the ISS should be terminated after 2015”
I don’t share your opinion. I think the ISS is a great outpost in space, one that we can use to build upon as we expand into space. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Vladislaw wrote:
“Including servicing the James Webb.”
You realise that JWST is not built to be serviced. Right? It has no capture points. The science instruments are not designed to be removed and replaced. It is incredibly fragile. It will orbit Earth/Sun L2 1.5Mkm. Your postings are bordering on mental masturbation.
amightywind wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Oh I think you’re the one getting their self-serving jollies off. The rest of us talk about the potentials in space, whereas you just sit in judgement and spurt out something inane every so often…
Gary Church, I support your analyses, argumentation and logic. Let’s go with the article and begin dissecting it. First of all, Charles Bolden’s presentation of the President’s petty $40 million to assist those who will be losing their jobs is NOT a guarantee that the money shall actually and verifiably HELP them obtain new jobs. This is a photo op for the press and Obama to claim that they are trying to help. For all of the mice following the pied piper, this sounds wonderful, but it is fodder to the rest of intelligent employees at NASA and its many suppliers who will be losing jobs. Secondly, there can be a role for the Commercial space market in the United States for companies such as Space X. The fact that Falcon IX had a successful launch on Friday is indicative and evident of nothing else than the success of its launch. The contract that was authorized for sending humans back to the moon is for the Constellation Space Program, not for Space X which is trying to flex its space muscles so that Obama can start galavanting around the country and declare how successful Space X is. It is inconsequential and the success of the Falcon on Friday will become Obama’s new advertisement for his vision.
Next, does anyone wonder where Space X is getting all of their money with only 90 employees? Are there any investigations of no-bid contracts occurring? Then, the timing is an issue. Why is Space X blasting off their rockets right at the very time that Bolden has been addressing Congress? Because Elon Musk and the Space X stockholders are betting on the cancellation of Constellation. This is all timed beautifully for the SpaceX people and shareholders. Remember, the owners of SpaceX are going to become multi-multi-millionaires at the expense of taxpayer money. NASA is non-profit and yes has very well paid upper-middle class engineers who attended top engineering schools in the United States who are not going to be paid millions of dollars in stock options and paybacks and bonuses as will the top people of Space X. Let’s be honest here. There may be a very excellent role for Space X in the future. But Space X is trying the old “look at me” routine like a kid raising his hand in class wanting to be picked because the other kid was sent to the dunce corner. What the Augustine report fail to do is address the Obama’s relationship with SpaceX. Why is Bolden who is the head of NASA talking about the importance of companies such as SpaceX when he is the head of NASA? He is nothing less than traitorous and as has been eloquently stated before is an insult to NASA and should be ousted as soon as the Congress reappropriates the funds for Constellation.
Furthermore, this Congress passed a law. Only Congress shall make the final decision to continue Constellation or not. The fact of the matter is that Constellation is well supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
Next, as an engineer, I agree with Gary Church that a rocket with a simpler design is always more desirable. The Ares I and V rockets are superior to the Falcon. The more engines that the rocket has, the more chances that a failure shall occur at some point. This is pure mathetics and statistical certainty.
As for the Constellation space program, the many mice who support the Pied Piper’s statements with his authentically bold vision for space travel from the Commercial industry, you need to start contacting MIT and The University of Michigan and tell their engineering students to stop the research for the heat shields of the Orion Space craft and tell them that, oh, there’s that newly authentic and bold vision for space travel that means we have to shut down the research at “your university so that our tax payer money can go to the private sector to Space X”.
The pied piper’s disciples of mice also probably subscribe to the for-profit universities getting some of the funding too, you know the diploma mills, let’s give the research to DeVry and University of Phoenix for the Falcon IX heat shield funding too. Isn’t that a good idea? After all, those public universities such as MIT and The University of Michigan are kind of like NASA – big and arrogant – right?
NASA shall survive and the Congress shall vote to keep the funding. Let the mice eat their cheese!
Congratulations to SpaceX and Elon Musk on a great maiden flight of the Falcon 9. Any step made to expand our access to space is a step in the right direction.
While this is a good step tword commercial HSF to LEO it by no means validates the presidents proposal in his FY 2011 budget. Even when ULA, SpaceX or other commercial enterprises achieve HSF to LEO they will still be going boldly where many others have gone before.
The weak point int the FY 2011 budget has always been the lack of a coherent plan for beyond Earth orbit exploration. Technology demonstrators and R&D, while needed, dose not make a true road map or plan to explore beyond Earth orbit.
First we need Heavy Lift. This was pointed out by the Augustine committee in its report. While fuel depots and in-space construction has their place, eventually, and soon, we’ll need to lift the heavy weight and high volume modules needed for true exploration and exploitation. Why are we waiting till 2015 to make the decision on an HLV? It’s obviously needed, your own committee came to that conclusion, and there is no game changing technology on the 5 year horizon for getting to LEO. The time is now to pick a fuel, hydrogen or kerosene, and start development so heavy lift will be ready by 2015.
Another thing that I find interesting is that Bolden, Garver and the Prez, say things like we’ll be going to asteroids, Mars, circumlunar flights in the 2020 to 2025 time frame. With what? There’s no money for space craft development in the FY 2011 budget. The other question is, Why? Circumlunar flights are great for testing equipment and procedures but a big waste of money to just take a spin around the moon. We still need lander development to truly do exploration either to the moon, asteroids and especial Mars.
This is not a defense of the Constellation program. It has it’s own issues. To support the president’s proposal as it is is to give up any hope of beyond Earth orbit exploration for a generation.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 1:59 am
@ Robert G. Oler
Its a lot simpler to launch humans aboard a rocket with a single booster than to launch humans on a Falcon heavy of a Delta IV heavy requiring 3 or 4 boosters. …………..
that is NOT a very valid analysis. It is kind of a lay persons analysis there is nothing technical about it.
The space shuttle or an space shuttle derived system is essentially 3 or 4 boosters as much as the Delta IV heavy (or a Falcon 9 is. And really all that is is a “lay person” statement of “simplicity” (ie the number of elements).
Since the Delta consist of all “common core” elements while the shuttle system consist of three of the most “un simple” engines around (the SSME) and two solids the shuttle system is far less simple.
Sorry , you dont have a clue what you are talking about here.
Robert G. Oler
MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 11:11 am
…
The weak point int the FY 2011 budget has always been the lack of a coherent plan for beyond Earth orbit exploration…..
why? do you hear this giant clamor in the land “we want human exploration”…sorry where are you seeing/hearing that?
Robert G. Oler
Francis Louis Charbonneau Jr wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Gary… er, I mean Francis (two of like mind – I get confused). A couple of thoughts:
“The fact that Falcon IX had a successful launch on Friday is indicative and evident of nothing else than the success of its launch.”
Agreed. However taken with their track record with getting the Falcon 1 going, there is a trend. Time will tell. I’m sure you’re wishing them well…
“Next, does anyone wonder where Space X is getting all of their money with only 90 employees?”
Elon Musk has stated that they have close to 1000 employees, with 700 in California (engineering & manufacturing), 150 in Texas (engine test), and 150 in Florida (launch facility). I won’t go into their finances here, but there are public statements from Elon about how the company is funded. No big surprises.
“Are there any investigations of no-bid contracts occurring?”
The Bush/Griffith administration awarded SpaceX a competitively bid contract under the COTS program. There are two winners, SpaceX and Orbital, and Orbital took over their spot when the previous company could not meet the terms of the COTS contract. SpaceX and Orbital only get paid when they perform work outlined in the contract, so there is not much that isn’t public. You should Google the COTS program for more info
“Why is Space X blasting off their rockets right at the very time that Bolden has been addressing Congress?”
Bolden has been testifying before Congress since he was nominated to the post last year, so it would be hard to pick a month to launch that did not include at least one congressional testimony from Bolden.
“Remember, the owners of SpaceX are going to become multi-multi-millionaires at the expense of taxpayer money.”
Since Constellation was a Moon program, and SpaceX only builds launchers that take cargo to LEO, they do not directly benefit from the cancellation of CxP. ULA (and Boeing/Lockheed Martin) stands to benefit more from the cancellation than SpaceX or Orbital.
“What the Augustine report fail to do is address the Obama’s relationship with SpaceX.”
The only government contract that SpaceX has received was awarded by the Bush/Griffith administration, not the Obama/Bolden. The Augustine Commission’s goal was to ensure the nation is on “a vigorous and sustainable path to achieving its boldest aspirations in space.”, not to look into alleged abuses of the Bush Administration.
“The Ares I and V rockets are superior to the Falcon.”
You’re falling into the same myopic trap as many others. When Griffith proposed the Ares I, there were already two existing and proven launchers – Delta IV and Atlas V. Both of the heavy versions of these launchers can do the same as the Ares I, so why are we spending more than $16B to duplicate existing capability? Ares V is an HLV, and only competes with existing launchers if the method we use for going places in space is changed. I’m speaking of the debate between HLV versus using modular spacecraft assembly and in-space refueling, and that is an ongoing topic of debate. The other issue with Ares V is it’s cost, which is massive, and whether it’s too expensive to build and operate.
“Next, as an engineer…The more engines that the rocket has… This is pure mathetics and statistical certainty.”
I don’t know what kind of engineer you are, but the real rocket engineers at Boeing, Lockheed Martin, EADS, Energia and SpaceX would disagree with you. Go convince them you’re right, and they are not.
“Next, does anyone wonder where Space X is getting all of their money with only 90 employees?”
SpaceX only has 90 employees? Did they fire the rest?
Coastal Ron wrote “Gary… er, I mean Francis”
Thanks man, I saw that too and was wondering if I had time to address all the things that are stupidly wrong in the comment from “Francis”. You did well, and I admire your restraint.
Cheers!
amightywind wrote:
“You realise that JWST is not built to be serviced. Right? It has no capture points. The science instruments are not designed to be removed and replaced. It is incredibly fragile. It will orbit Earth/Sun L2 1.5Mkm. Your postings are bordering on mental masturbation.”
It was studied in 2007 for a grapple arm and in 2008 they decided no on it. But I saw a blurb by John Decker that said it was still a possiblity, this was in 2009 but searching through links I couldn’t find the quote, if I find it I will post it.
“It is pretty obvious that a congress teetering on the brink of political oblivion will fund the government with a continuing resolution, preserving Constellation until the next (GOP) congress.”
Constellation can’t be “preserved” at this point. LockMart has already pulled hundreds of engineers off Orion, and Constellation managers have stopped pursuing Ares I as a launch vehicle for Orion.
“Orion Becomes a Liability as Lockheed Martin Pulls 600 Engineers Off the Contractâ€
“NASA managers have effectively given up on any faint hope of implementing the long-term strategy that was centered around the marriage between Ares and Orion.â€
nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/orion-liability-lockheed-pull-600-engineers-off-contract/
Don’t make stuff up.
“The illegal effort to deconstruction by Garver and Bolden…”
What “illegal effort”? GAO has ruled that NASA is within its rights to pursue new programs to replace Constellation.
“NASA has not violated the Exploration appropriation’s restriction on the use of Exploration funds to ‘create or initiate a new program, project or activity.'”
gao.gov/decisions/appro/319488.pdf
Don’t make stuff up.
“…has been forcibly stopped.”
No, it hasn’t. See GAO ruling directly above.
Don’t make stuff up.
“No denial here.”
Oh no, you’re not in denial about anything — besides the drawdown in the Orion workforce, Constellation managers giving up on Ares I as an operational launch vehicle, and GAO rulings that exonerate NASA’s pursuit of new programs to replace Constellation.
Keep whistling past that graveyard.
“The term ‘press to MECO’ is used as a metaphor”
MECO is not a “metaphor”. This isn’t Oprah’s book-of-the-month-club.
MECO is a specific event in the Space Shuttle launch sequence, when the three Space Shuttle Main Engines are shut down.
Don’t make stuff up.
“for the routine successful completion of a shuttle flight”
A Space Shuttle flight is not “successful” at MECO. A Space Shuttle flight is successful after achieving its mission objectives and safely landing the orbiter and crew.
Even the Space Shuttle launch sequence isn’t complete at MECO. OMS firings are still required for orbital injection.
Don’t make stuff up.
“…our belief that Ares development will be similarly routine and successful.”
Your “belief” doesn’t matter. Constellation managers have given up on Ares I as a launch vehicle for Orion.
And you’re using the royal “we” to refer to yourself.
Really?
“Also, you are aware that an Ares has an LH2 upper stage, right?”
Oh, gee, thanks, I had no idea that J-2X was a LOX/LH2 engine. I thought it was powered by fairydust.
[rolls eyes]
Here’s a hint: It’s not an SSME, and it’s not a main engine.
FWIW…
“1. No products that can be sold. There is no profit in space…”
Entire domestic and foreign corporations have been created (Hughes, etc.) and exist today (Loral, etc.) to build satellites for commercial communications. Entirely new businesses (DIRECTTV, XM/Sirius, etc.) have come into being in recent years based on commercial space services. Entire investment firms (Near Earth LLC) even exist to service these (and other) space markets.
Don’t make stuff up.
“Only reason to go into space is to respond to the threats to civilization”
It may be important, but with the possible exception of military early warning satellites and missile defense systems (which, at least in theory, respond to existential nuclear threats to a country, if not civilization), it’s not been the rationale for any past or current space activity — civil, military, commercial, or otherwise.
Don’t make stuff up.
“2. Merlins are not a good example of economy of scale.”
Sure they are. The smaller and simpler something is, the smaller its non-recurring costs are. The more you produce of something, the more it’s recurring costs go down. Those are both economies of scale that smaller, simpler rocket engines produced in larger numbers enjoy over bigger, more complex rocket engines that are produced in fewer numbers.
Don’t make stuff up.
“If the only reason to go is tourism, we will not keep going.”
Who said that the only reason to send humans into space is “tourism”?
Don’t make stuff up.
“Main engine cut off, MECO, is when the second stage is cut-off”
No, it’s not. MECO is a specific event in the Space Shuttle launch sequence, when the three Space Shuttle Main Engines are shut down. MECO is not the second-stage (which isn’t a main engine, anyway) shutdown on any launch vehicle.
Don’t make stuff up.
“He was not making anything up”
Yes, the other poster was making stuff up when he claimed that Musk “sneered” at Congress. To sneer at something, you have to express scorn for it. Musk didn’t express scorn at Congress. He said he didn’t understand why a member of Congress would want to send out a press release that’s hurtful to SpaceX employees who are also that congresswoman’s constituents, voters, and taxpayers.
Don’t make stuff up.
“You made something up by rejecting the opinion”
It wasn’t an opinion. It was a statement of fact (“Musk sneered”) that’s false.
Don’t make stuff up.
“and demanding a quote.”
Asking for evidence is not making something up. It’s the opposite of making something up.
Please, think before you post.
And where’s the evidence? Where is the quote demonstrating that Musk “sneered”?
“I am no longer responding to abuse with abuse”
Yes, you are, you reposted the same exact language at least five times (and I probably missed a few) in just over an hour-and-a-half, as follows:
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
“27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.”
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
“I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.”
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
“I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.”
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
“I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.”
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
“I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.”
You’re spamming this forum (and with a point that you don’t back up with any evidence, no less). That’s abusive to anyone who comes here to read or post. Take it elsewhere.
“Arguing with people who just lie and insult is a losing battle… This is why it is so hard to tell the truth on forums… Go pick on someone who will play your game… You guys just exhaust anybody who dares to disagree…”.
Maybe you should take a hint, and consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you’re wrong when multiple other people disagree with your argument.
Look, if you’re so unhappy here, then just stop coming back. Don’t waste our time or your own.
FWIW…
Robert:
Nice strawman.
Did you read my whole post or was this the only out of context statement you had a shot at rebuttal?
The Prez, Bolden and Garver all say Mars is the ultimate destination for HSF and have said there would be cicumlunar flights and trips to asteroids in the 2020 to 2025 time frame. If they are being truthful then this is an example of just the type of HFS “joy rides” that you have said you are so set against. If there is no intention of doing this then why lie to us? If the purpose is to kill NASA HSF at least be honest and “transparent” and tell us so. I really hate an administration pissing on my head ant telling me it’s raining.
As for SpaceX or Delta IV vs SD….
There is no doubt that having 27 simple engines poses a much greater risk of failure vs 3 complicated (yet proven very reliable) engines.
As for the Delta IV, 3 core segments represent the reasonable maximum limit for the Delta IV configuration. A SDV using 3 SSME or RS-68’s and 2 SRB’s (wich has been a very reliable design since 1988) is just the beginning for this configuration. Evolving this design could take it close to 200mt to LEO.
MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Robert:
Nice strawman.
Did you read my whole post or was this the only out of context statement you had a shot at rebuttal?….
Mr Earl. I read the entire post that I comment on…and while there were things that were entertaining in it, the reality was that it flounders when one makes the assumption that “exploration” of the human kind is some foundation of policy that that everything should be based on.
if that is the case, if that should be the reason/foundation of space policy then the explanation of “why” that is the case should be true. because there is no real support for it.
Robert G. Oler
“First we need Heavy Lift. This was pointed out by the Augustine committee in its report. While fuel depots and in-space construction has their place, eventually, and soon, we’ll need to lift the heavy weight and high volume modules needed for true exploration and exploitation. Why are we waiting till 2015 to make the decision on an HLV?”
So that you appropriately size the HLV to take advantage of fuel depot and in-space construction demonstrations (and closed loop life support, aerocapture, etc. demonstrations). HLV development is historically an enormously expensive undertaking that has always proven unsustainable over a few years to a decade (Saturn V, Energia) or burdened civil space programs with expensive operations for decades to come (STS). You don’t want to build any bigger, more complex, and margin-thin HLV than you absolutely need.
The technologies that NASA is pursuing now would reduce the IMLEO mass of a typical human Mars mission by more than a factor of five — from over ten ISS-equivalent masses to a couple. That has huge implications for the size and type of HLV you pursue, which, in turn, is critical to whether you have any spare change left to put anything on top of that HLV when it launches.
And regardless of when the final design is chosen, real HLV work starts much sooner under the FY 2011 plan than under Constellation. We’re going to start spending hundreds of millions of dollars on HLV development work starting in FY11, vice the $20 million per year that was going to be spent on endless Ares V redesigns through 2015 under Constellation. Aside from the issue of when the exact final design is picked, you’re actually in violent agreement with the FY11 plan on not waiting to get HLV work started.
“Another thing that I find interesting is that Bolden, Garver and the Prez, say things like we’ll be going to asteroids, Mars, circumlunar flights in the 2020 to 2025 time frame. With what? There’s no money for space craft development in the FY 2011 budget.”
You can answer this question based on what you already know about HLV design decisions in 2015. HLV, crew module, and transit stage builds start in 2015, not 2011.
“Circumlunar flights are great for testing equipment and procedures but a big waste of money to just take a spin around the moon.”
Well, which is it? Are circumlunar missions great for testing equipment and procedures or are they a big waste of money?
We can’t have it both ways.
“We still need lander development to truly do exploration either to the moon, asteroids and especial Mars.”
Obviously, and that’s why the Augustine report phased the lander budgets for when it was time to develop those landers for surface missions in the report’s various options. It makes no sense to start building a lunar or Mars lander now, finish it circa 2015 at huge cost, and have it and its standing army sit around for years waiting for the HLV, crew module, and transit stages to finish their builds and shakedown runs (whose development we would probably have to starve to pay for the lander).
And you don’t need landers for NEOs (maybe bigger asteroids if we’re going out beyond Mars orbit in the far future), which is why they’re a near-term target. You can use NEOs to do shakedown runs with your HLV, crew module, and transit stages to a moderately faraway target before taking on the risks of landing and even farther targets.
FWIW…
“There is no doubt that having 27 simple engines poses a much greater risk of failure vs 3 complicated (yet proven very reliable) engines.”
That’s simply not true. If the bigger, more complex engines individually have much larger rates of failure and much more catastrophic failure modes than the small, simpler engines, then it’s very easy for a vehicle with a smaller number of engines to have a greater failure rate than a vehicle with a greater number of engines.
I’m not saying that’s the case in comparing Falcon 9 to Delta IV (or any other set of vehicle comparisons). We simply don’t have enough firing/flight history with Merlin yet to know.
But I am saying that the devil is in the details and numbers. Blanket statements rarely hold true in engineering.
FWIW…
MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
As for SpaceX or Delta IV vs SD….
There is no doubt that having 27 simple engines poses a much greater risk of failure vs 3 complicated (yet proven very reliable) engines..
yes there is. particularly if “cost” is factored into the equation.
Aviation (and other fields) are full of designs which worked the issue(s) of powerplant numbers (and hence output) vrs reliability and cost. It is of a piston airplane (but rocket engines are about where piston engines for airplanes were in the 60’s) but it is pretty germane.
In the 60’s Piper was looking at a version of the Comanche which were higher powered…and they took two design paths. Same fuselage same everything but the Twin Comanche has relatively simple engines of fairly reasonable thrust (160hp each) as a downrate of a popular 200hp engine. They also went the other way…they essentially married two of the 200hp engine to make a 400 hp 8 cylinder giant. With 60 more ponies the single is a tad faster then the twin. The Twin has a far lower incident of powerplant failure. (both BTW are a pleasure to fly and the Comanche has for its era the largest cabin in its class)
that is not a precise analogy but it is close to what the tradeoffs are with the SSME/some smaller mass produced motor. I dont know if the Merlin is the sweet spot or if it is the border on the “small” category. But if price is part of the equation, as in the Comanche it is a no brainer. Must can build (apparently) a lot of Merlins for what it takes to “salvage” the SSME’s much less build them.
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
sorry I was typing and having lunch…so two corrections
“With 60 more ponies the single is a tad faster then the twin.” that should be “80” more poinies.
“Must can build (apparently) a lot of Merlins for what it takes to “salvage†the SSME’s much less build them.”
should be “Musk can build…”
the editor regrets the error
Robert G. Oler
Further to Major Tom’s post of June 7th, 2010 @ 1:07pm, if, and this is a big if, propellent transfer and orbital depots work out as a technology, then I find it unlikely that anyone will need an HLV with a maximum IMLEO much over 100t ever again (unless there is a serious case of planning blight in the mission vehicle development stage). As it will no longer be necessary to carry the TOI fuel load from Earth, a lunar landing mission could have an IMLEO as low as 70t to 80t, especially if your upper stage does double-duty as the EDS.
I think that I’ve mentioned this before but the cirumlunar ‘fly-around’ mission (for non-tourist flights) is best done by an unmanned spacecraft. That way, you get to test the radiation shielding (thermal and ionising), power systems and re-entry systems without risking a crew. Call it ‘Zond redux’ if you like.
A lunar orbiter could have significant public impact (espeically if it was timed for late December 2018, the hemicenteniary of Apollo 8). The real role of such a mission would be to test the habitat module for an NEO flight sufficiently close to Earth to allow a relatively quick Orion-only abort to Earth in case of an emergency. Another advantage of doing this in lunar orbit is that the crew would also have a very large multi-billon lump of rock to provide a moderate amount of GCR shielding.
FWIW, I support missions to the Earth co-orbital ‘moons’ that were recently discovered. The real question to be asked about the Flexible Path is what is the priority – further afield or greater detail? If the former is the priority, then you should be aiming for more and more distant targets (both in terms of physical distance as well as delta-v requirements) – Venus, Phobos and ultimately Mars. If it is the latter, then a vacuum lander that can be used on both the Moon and larger asteroids is the priority, so that targets with significant gravity wells but no significant atmosphere can be examined at finger-tip range.
Coastal Ron, you may denigrate any of my statements or of Gary Church, but the fact of the matter is that our statements over sound logical conclusions which your arguments do not.
The fact of the matter is that the Saturn V which was highly successful had a first stage with five engines to put it into orbit; a second stage and third stage to get the men to the moon. Where in engineering does it say that more is better as far as engines, that somehow 27 engines are better than 3 powerful ones? In electrical engineering, if you wire relays in series and must monitor each relay of an assembly cell with a safety relay that detects faults in the emergency stopping system, are you trying to argue that it would be better to have multiple relays separately monitoring each robot e-stop separately or would it be better to have them all monitored by one safety PLC? You tell me, that having more is better – and argue it with verifiable engineering proofs not with your emotional garbage.
I will state it again – so get this through your head – Constellation is still contracted for the remainder of the fiscal year until the end of October. Congress shall vote to keep appropriations for Constellation and NASA not the President of the United States. If Delta IV were to be used for the heavy lift part of Constellation, it would have already been used. Ares I and V are the counterpart rockets. The Ares I is to put the men into space, and the Ares V shall separately provide the lunar module, etc.
Now, I have watched Charles Bolden try to worm his way out of very direct and precise questions from both Democrat and Republican Congressmen and Congresswomen. Charles Bolden did not even admit that he knew about Hanley being fired from Constellation. He hemmed, hawed, and equivocated his responses to the chagrin and dismay of his questioners. There is an old Logic statement that goes something like this – when you eliminate variables and possibilities, then what remains must be the truth. The fact of the matter is that the evidence leads to a direction that was sent from the Administration and most likely the President to Charles Bolden to get Hanley out of his position immediately and forthwith. Hanley from a PR standpoint was causing problems for the President and his agenda to cancel the Constellation.
It is obvious that you have already made up your mind. Your pen pal who made his comments about me displays the lack of gentility you both share for opinions that differ from your own.
Now for starters, get on your computer and send letters to Lockheed Martin, ATK Space Systems, Boeing, etc. and tell them they need to start laying off their high paid engineers today because a brighter future awaits them from the $40 Million in jobs retraining that Bolden announced on the same day of the Falcon IX launch, and oh, write that letter to The University of Michigan and Massachusetts Institute of Technology to stop wasting taxpayer money on useless research for a space craft that has been shown by the Augustine Report’s panel of experts. Write and tell the students that the money needs to go to Space X and DeVry so that really well designed and well manufactured rockets can be manufactured.
Start writing and spend more of your time on productive causes…and why don’t you call Space X up and ask if you can their poster child advertisement. I am sure they’d love you and oh contact Charles Bolden too and tell him how much his inspiring words have meant to you.
Go ahead or are you chicken?
Robert:
It comes down to this. IF the administration is serious about HSF, then show us the plan. If not, and that is a legitimate point of view, then state it clearly so the Republic can debate it and stop hiding behind imagined future missions meant to obscure the true nature of their proposal which I believe is to abandon human space flight.
As for SpaceX vs Delta IV vs SD you also forget the value of the “cargo”.
For HSF a Delta IV heavy with 3 engines would be a far safer choice than a Falcon 9 with 9 or an F9 Heavy with 27.
An SD launcher with SSME or RS-68 would offer much greater expansion opportunities than either the Falcon 9 or Delta IV.
“Gary Church, I support your analyses, argumentation and logic.”
Thanks, that would make you the only one. This site is inhabited by a clique of advertisers posting infomercial style. They lie, accuse and mostly, with a few exceptions, only interested in one thing; killing nasa’s involvement in HSF so the private companies can reap a fortune.
They will tolerate absolutely no criticism. They do not want to hear it;
“Look, if you’re so unhappy here, then just stop coming back. Don’t waste our time or your own.”
The sad thing is that the public comes to this site looking for info and just finds an infomercial.
All the big topics that need to be discussed, like Heavy lift, BEO exploration, the opposite view that cheaper is not better and space flight is inherently expensive- none of these are allowed to be discussed. Anyone disagreeing with the infomercial script is accused insulted and buried in lies and misquoted information, while they are accused continually of doing what is being done to them.
The best thing to do is go somewhere else and leave these lying con artists to their fantasy football space clown scam.
Coastal Ron, you may denigrate any of my statements or of Gary Church, but the fact of the matter is that our statements offer sound logical conclusions which your arguments do not.
He does not care. He is just going to make up a bunch of B.S. and say we are the ones full of it. This site sucks. Goodbye and good luck.
What the public comes for is a debate, not a grayscape Obamaspace activism rejected by a solid bipartisan majority in Congress, not to hype the faux exploits of hobbyists rediscovering technologies perfected 50 years ago and calling them new.
“It is pretty obvious that a congress teetering on the brink of political oblivion will fund the government with a continuing resolution, preserving Constellation until the next (GOP) congress.â€
Constellation can’t be “preserved†at this point. LockMart has already pulled hundreds of engineers off Orion, and Constellation managers have stopped pursuing Ares I as a launch vehicle for Orion.
“Orion Becomes a Liability as Lockheed Martin Pulls 600 Engineers Off the Contractâ€
“NASA managers have effectively given up on any faint hope of implementing the long-term strategy that was centered around the marriage between Ares and Orion.â€
nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/orion-liability-lockheed-pull-600-engineers-off-contract/
Don’t make stuff up.
“The illegal effort to deconstruction by Garver and Bolden…â€
What “illegal effort� GAO has ruled that NASA is within its rights to pursue new programs to replace Constellation.
“NASA has not violated the Exploration appropriation’s restriction on the use of Exploration funds to ‘create or initiate a new program, project or activity.’â€
gao.gov/decisions/appro/319488.pdf
Don’t make stuff up.
“…has been forcibly stopped.â€
No, it hasn’t. See GAO ruling directly above.
Don’t make stuff up.
“No denial here.â€
Oh no, you’re not in denial about anything — besides the drawdown in the Orion workforce, Constellation managers giving up on Ares I as an operational launch vehicle, and GAO rulings that exonerate NASA’s pursuit of new programs to replace Constellation.
Keep whistling past that graveyard.
“The term ‘press to MECO’ is used as a metaphorâ€
MECO is not a “metaphorâ€. This isn’t Oprah’s book-of-the-month-club.
MECO is a specific event in the Space Shuttle launch sequence, when the three Space Shuttle Main Engines are shut down.
Don’t make stuff up.
“for the routine successful completion of a shuttle flightâ€
A Space Shuttle flight is not “successful†at MECO. A Space Shuttle flight is successful after achieving its mission objectives and safely landing the orbiter and crew.
Even the Space Shuttle launch sequence isn’t complete at MECO. OMS firings are still required for orbital injection.
Don’t make stuff up.
“…our belief that Ares development will be similarly routine and successful.â€
Your “belief†doesn’t matter. Constellation managers have given up on Ares I as a launch vehicle for Orion.
And you’re using the royal “we†to refer to yourself.
Really?
“Also, you are aware that an Ares has an LH2 upper stage, right?â€
Oh, gee, thanks, I had no idea that J-2X was a LOX/LH2 engine. I thought it was powered by fairydust.
[rolls eyes]
Here’s a hint: It’s not an SSME, and it’s not a main engine.
FWIW…
Major Tom wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
“1. No products that can be sold. There is no profit in space…â€
Entire domestic and foreign corporations have been created (Hughes, etc.) and exist today (Loral, etc.) to build satellites for commercial communications. Entirely new businesses (DIRECTTV, XM/Sirius, etc.) have come into being in recent years based on commercial space services. Entire investment firms (Near Earth LLC) even exist to service these (and other) space markets.
Don’t make stuff up.
“Only reason to go into space is to respond to the threats to civilizationâ€
It may be important, but with the possible exception of military early warning satellites and missile defense systems (which, at least in theory, respond to existential nuclear threats to a country, if not civilization), it’s not been the rationale for any past or current space activity — civil, military, commercial, or otherwise.
Don’t make stuff up.
“2. Merlins are not a good example of economy of scale.â€
Sure they are. The smaller and simpler something is, the smaller its non-recurring costs are. The more you produce of something, the more it’s recurring costs go down. Those are both economies of scale that smaller, simpler rocket engines produced in larger numbers enjoy over bigger, more complex rocket engines that are produced in fewer numbers.
Don’t make stuff up.
“If the only reason to go is tourism, we will not keep going.â€
Who said that the only reason to send humans into space is “tourism�
Don’t make stuff up.
“Main engine cut off, MECO, is when the second stage is cut-offâ€
No, it’s not. MECO is a specific event in the Space Shuttle launch sequence, when the three Space Shuttle Main Engines are shut down. MECO is not the second-stage (which isn’t a main engine, anyway) shutdown on any launch vehicle.
Don’t make stuff up.
“He was not making anything upâ€
Yes, the other poster was making stuff up when he claimed that Musk “sneered†at Congress. To sneer at something, you have to express scorn for it. Musk didn’t express scorn at Congress. He said he didn’t understand why a member of Congress would want to send out a press release that’s hurtful to SpaceX employees who are also that congresswoman’s constituents, voters, and taxpayers.
Don’t make stuff up.
“You made something up by rejecting the opinionâ€
It wasn’t an opinion. It was a statement of fact (“Musk sneeredâ€) that’s false.
Don’t make stuff up.
“and demanding a quote.â€
Asking for evidence is not making something up. It’s the opposite of making something up.
Please, think before you post.
And where’s the evidence? Where is the quote demonstrating that Musk “sneered�
“I am no longer responding to abuse with abuseâ€
Yes, you are, you reposted the same exact language at least five times (and I probably missed a few) in just over an hour-and-a-half, as follows:
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
“27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.â€
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
“I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.â€
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
“I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.â€
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
“I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.â€
Gary Church wrote @ June 6th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
“I say again. Falcon heavy design. 27 engines with a turbopump for each one- not the best engineering practice. Inspecting and test firing all those engines will be expensive compared with fewer larger engines.â€
You’re spamming this forum (and with a point that you don’t back up with any evidence, no less). That’s abusive to anyone who comes here to read or post. Take it elsewhere.
“Arguing with people who just lie and insult is a losing battle… This is why it is so hard to tell the truth on forums… Go pick on someone who will play your game… You guys just exhaust anybody who dares to disagree…â€.
Maybe you should take a hint, and consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you’re wrong when multiple other people disagree with your argument.
Look, if you’re so unhappy here, then just stop coming back. Don’t waste our time or your own.
FWIW…
It is not worth a f*ck
MT:
The Merlin engine would have to have a reliability rating 27TIMES greater the SSME or the RS-68, both very reliable engines. Having so many engines also introduces new considerations like thrust variations that can create oscillations that can destroy the booster. You only have to look at the short unhappy life of the Soviet N1 to see that.
“What the public comes for is a debate, not a grayscape Obamaspace activism rejected by a solid bipartisan majority in Congress, not to hype the faux exploits of hobbyists rediscovering technologies perfected 50 years ago and calling them new.”
Next to Major Tom, you are the worst jackass on this site. I won’t miss you. Goodbye again.
McEarl, I apologize for telling you to go to hell that day. You were right to just come out insulting these lying con artists. Now I know. They will continue to argue with anything they do not like- and they will first start making stuff up- then accuse you of doing it- and then go to endless insults. 27 engines a bad idea? each with it’s own fuel system, mounting structure, turbopump, and control system? What could be wrong with that? It could not be any better than just one. These fools are talking completely out of their ass and will not admit even one flaw in the plan to kill nasa and make a fortune off being the only HSF provider. The problem is- they are trying to do it cheap and…………THERE IS NO CHEAP!
Oh, goodbye again.
Ideally IMHO what should have been done in the last decade was the U.S. should have invested heavily in developing single stage to orbit RLV,s by setting up a new organization with a sun set law limiting it’s lifetime. A large sum of funding would have been granted to it and the money dispensed to companies that submitted winning proposals. The top 2 or 3 designs would have got additional funding after a sucessful flight to establish their business. Then a COTS type contract would have been given to the lowest cost provider. They would have provided NASA and the military with launch services. The other companies could offered their services to private companies and other nations. About 90% of NASA,s payloads could be launched by the Delta Clipper design.This would have brought us to about 2010 or 2015. After this it’s likely that provided additional funding through the FAA we could have developed a ballistic passenger/ package delivery vehicle with the technology in hand provided the cost per lb was low enough. Even if it was not, it could still offer specialized military applications.The result IMHO would have been much lower costs for access to LEO and a established commercial launch industry.
Has Elvis left the building?
MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Concerning the reliability of 1 vs 3 vs 5 vs 9 or 27 engines, the debate may rage on, but the engineers and corporate officers of the respective companies have already looked at the issue and decided for themselves.
We can theorize all we want, but the only way we’ll know is by launching all of them, and seeing what happens. If you feel that strongly, I suggest you lay money on it in Vegas.
Otherwise, the avalanche has begun – it’s too late for the pebbles to vote.
OOPS- sarcastic typo; 27 engines could not be any WORSE than just one.
And oh yeah, no problem going to the moon…or anywhere using these kerosene fueled 20 something ton payload expendables. It will all work out, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Pure, unadulterated bullshit false advertising. Can’t do it without liquid hydrogen upper stages and HLV’s. These companies pretending to be providers of HSF are using substandard components and propellants and they will never get beyond LEO.
Has Elvis left the building?
He’ll be back, nutty as ever, if recent history is any guide.
“Concerning the reliability of 1 vs 3 vs 5 vs 9 or 27 engines, the debate may rage on, but the engineers and corporate officers of the respective companies have already looked at the issue and decided for themselves.”
No, they decided it would “cost too much” to build and test anything bigger. So they went CHEAP.
More advertising. Is it time for me to leave because I am so unhappy yet?
What hasn’t been mentioned (as far as I’ve seen) is the brief burst/flash of the rocket exhaust about 20 seconds after launch as two of the nine engines were cut (MECO 1). Although I didn’t hear the call by mission control, I had read that they were going to do so. I did hear “MECO 2″ just before stage separation.
The math to determine exactly how much “more reliable” a Merlin engine needs to be to have the same “safety” as a SSME gets really complicated when Falcon 9 can get to orbit even if it loses one or two of the first stage engines.
Rand Simberg is a true monkey crap slinger. Likes to just post insults. Nothing to contribute off the infomercial script- just insults.
MT:
Even if you are right and the R&D is able to reduce the mass needed for a Mars mission from 10 ISS mass’ to two you have to consider that it took 36 shuttle flights and 10 years to build the ISS! Also take into consideration that a trip to Mars will require some sort of electric drive, ION, VASIMER or some thing else, that will require heavy nuclear generators. HLV in the 150 to 200 mt range will be needed to complete the Mars ship in a reasonable time at an affordable price.
Another myth that keeps getting kicked around here and other places is that SD will be too expensive based on how expensive it is to support the shuttle. What most people fail to realize is that the vast majority of the cost of shuttle operations is for the refurbishment and maintenance of the orbiters them selves.
Francis Louis Charbonneau Jr wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Hmmm, I responded back to you on eight separate points, and all you can say is “but the fact of the matter is that our statements over sound logical conclusions which your arguments do not.”?
I used facts, and you use rhetoric. Are there any facts that you would like to refute? Here’s a small sample:
– The number of SpaceX employees? You say 90, I say 1000
– No-bid contracts claim, when the COTS program was competitively bid by the Bush administration
– That Ares I is somehow unique, but it duplicated available & proven commercial launchers when announced
I could go on.
Any comments Francis/Gary?
“Falcon 9 can get to orbit even if it loses one or two of the first stage engines.”
That is not why they went with 9 engines. If they could have, they would have went with as few as possible. Just like every other rocket design. More advertising.
Costal Ron wrote:
“Concerning the reliability of 1 vs 3 vs 5 vs 9 or 27 engines, the debate may rage on, but the engineers and corporate officers of the respective companies have already looked at the issue and decided for themselves.
We can theorize all we want, but the only way we’ll know is by launching all of them, and seeing what happens. If you feel that strongly, I suggest you lay money on it in Vegas.
Otherwise, the avalanche has begun – it’s too late for the pebbles to vote.”
WHAT??????
You shouldn’t be drinking this early in the day.
MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
There are alternative ways to accomplish the same mission. You don’t need to cram everything into one vehicle, but instead have a fleet of ships that fly out.
The model for this is not unlike aerial refueling, where the plane tops off after taking off, and then refuels multiple times in flight. The same can be done for long space flights. I’m not saying that this is optimal, but it’s something that can be done sooner, especially for NEO trips.
No matter where we go, we’ll want more supplies to be sent anyways, so why not start sending them along with the crew (or just in advance), so the crew can use them for supplies or backup.
MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Robert:
It comes down to this. IF the administration is serious about HSF, then show us the plan. If not, and that is a legitimate point of view, then state it clearly so the Republic can debate it and stop hiding behind imagined future missions meant to obscure the true nature of their proposal which I believe is to abandon human space flight…..
that would be nice…but its not how things Work in The Republic on issues which REALLY dont matter to the people.
We can hardly have great debates on issues that do matter…but there are issues which are simply boilerplate and get “lip service” because they are the facade of the politics of the country, and human exploration of space is one of those.
There just is not the critical mass of interest by a wide enough group of people to have the debate you want.
”
For HSF a Delta IV heavy with 3 engines would be a far safer choice than a Falcon 9 with 9 or an F9 Heavy with 27.”
that “might” be but I am not willing to say that outright yet until we come to some “more better” understanding of the reliability of the individual engines/the cost of each and most importantly the operational impact of an engine loss.
For instance if a Falcon 9 loses 1 I think it still burns to orbit…For a Delta that obviously is not the case.
As an side. I would make two points.
First i have the highest regard for the viewpoints you express. If in some post you personally (or anyone else) found some percieved insult I am regretful .
Second I really dont think that we need heavy heavy lift. I am willing to let the market design that.
Robert G. Oler
“Any comments Francis/Gary?”
Why yes Ron, You come up with every small detail to argue about but the ones that matter. You respond to those critical issues with technobabble fabrications that I have called you on so many times. I will make this point; using kerosene as the sole fuel the falcon 9 or Falcon 9 Heavy with 27 engines will never be able to send a lander to the moon. True or false. If you go with the orbital lego and fuel dump myth you have to say how many launches that will take.
“that would be nice…but its not how things Work in The Republic on issues which REALLY dont matter to the people.’
Like that one trillion dollars in defense spending? The people are being manipulated and these “entrepreneurs” are facilitating the destruction of a priceless infrastructure so they can make a profit.
You mean what REALLY matters to Musk and his space clown wannabee sycophants.
“Second I really dont think that we need heavy heavy lift. I am willing to let the market design that.”
I think we do. And I am not willing to let commercial interests destroy HSF, which I believe it is doing right now. It is that different again Mr. Oler;
The infomercial team has a vision of billionaire space clowns taking joyrides in cheap rockets with huge profits courtesy of the taxpayer who will be subsidizing the obscene spending habits of the ultra-rich because they have to send astronauts to the ISS. Which, by the way, is going to cost a hell of a lot more money than this swindle is letting on. I do not believe it is going to work and we will be paying billions to the Russians after castrating our own HSF capability.
My vision is not about profit.
Ron:
You’re only looking at one part of the problem, fuel to get beyond Earth orbit. There is also module weight and volume both of which need heavy lift. MT claims that NASA has decided that the mass and volume equivalent to 10 times the ISS would be needed for a journey to Mars with present technology and they want to focus R&D to to bring it down to 2 ISS’. It took 36 shuttle flights to create just 1 ISS plus the Russian and ESA flights.
What if we could launch Skylab sized modules?
‘There are alternative ways to accomplish the same mission. You don’t need to cram everything into one vehicle, but instead have a fleet of ships that fly out.The model for this is not unlike aerial refueling, where the plane tops off after taking off, and then refuels multiple times in flight. The same can be done for long space flights. I’m not saying that this is optimal, but it’s something that can be done sooner, especially for NEO trips.”
This is a con. The smaller the launch vehicle the more number of launches is required and storable propellants make it even worse with their low ISP till you very quickly have a totally unsupportable number of hundreds of launches. There are no plans for how this will work to be found because it would be absurd when the numbers of launches and tons are added up. These mythical plans depend on “new technology” in other words, unobtainium.
More false advertising.
Thanks Robert. I think you and Common Sense are two people on this blog who I may not agree with but I do respect their opinions.
On the other hand, messing with Major Tom is just too much fun some times.
Now…Elvis has left the building. You know you are a bunch of lying con artists.
Here is a lander plan that uses the Delta IV and no hvl.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ula-claim-gap-reducing-solution-via-eelv-exploration-master-plan/
You know, I’m pretty sure that someone could use Mr. Church’s post history here for a ‘development of a troll’ study. Starting with honest questions and interest in responses before verging into increasing disbelief and egomaniacal certainty that one’s own position must be true because so few support what the subject considers so reasonable and intuitative. The subject then descends into paranoia, conspiracy theories and finally into foaming rage and ad hominem insults that chronicle the collapsing self-identity’s desperate attempt to find some grounds other than the wrongness of one’s own opinions to explain away one’s defeat.
Anyway, back to the topic of Jeff’s original post, specifically the comments of the mayor of Huntsville:
I get the real impression that ObamaSpace will be passed with few or no amendments by default. I’ve seen no honest attempt by anyone to offer a workable alternative other than ‘stay the course and hope for a miracle’. In engineering, miracles rarely happen. In any case, whilst some representatives and senators hate it, too few like any alternative enough to block the passage of the budget proposal. CxP only enjoyed bipartisan support so long as the bill stayed down. It didn’t stay down.
I belive it was Winston Churchill who once said: “The Americans will always do the right thing… once they have exhausted all other possible courses of action.”
@MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
“Thanks Robert. I think you and Common Sense are two people on this blog who I may not agree with but I do respect their opinions.”
I haven’t followed this thread but thanks anyway.
“On the other hand, messing with Major Tom is just too much fun some times. ”
Major Tom provides quite often real good data and analysis. And I do enjoy reading the posts of someone who obviously knows a lot about space and in particular space policy/politics. It is very difficult not to be frustrated when one reads the comments of amightywind, Gary Church and often Marcel Williams to cite a few. That can explain a lot about Major Tom’s responses. I personnally think I am going to ignore these guys from now on. I like facts based comments. I like when people admit they’re wrong as I try to when I am. Anything else is noise. I realize how emotional all that is going has to be for some people but hiding or distorting the truth will make things even harder. I believe Major Tom provides most of the time true, facts based, statements and that should be commended! Others might learn by this approach.
Oh well…
“Gary Church wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Coastal Ron, you may denigrate any of my statements or of Gary Church”
But you are Gary Church. How can you have made statements and Gary Church have made statements, if Gary Church wrote that?
Seek professional help for those split personalities, starting with Charbonneau Junior.
And, at least in the past, Mr. Foust has preferred that posters use a single screenname.
“storable propellants make it even worse with their low ISP”
LH2 is LH2 and CH4 is CH4 and LOX is LOX, no matter how long they’re stored. If the chemical doesn’t change, neither does the ISP. It’s cryogenics, not alchemy.
“monkey crap slinger… you are the worst jackass on this site… Pure, unadulterated bullshit… It is not worth a f*ck… ”
“Goodbye again… Oh, goodbye again.”
C’mon, enough with the juvenile profanity and indecision.
Grow up or get out.
Vladislaw wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
I think this is the source document from ULA for that article:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
I really think what everybody argues about regarding needing Saturn-V-class-HLV’s vs the-existing-launchers-we-already-have-right-now is addressed in this paper. It really changed my thinking about it.
Gary Church wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
“If you go with the orbital lego and fuel dump myth you have to say how many launches that will take.”
Good question, and one that is relevant to some related posts. I like the approach that United Launch Alliance (ULA) has taken, and they published their vision in 2009. It’s called “A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture”, and you can find it on their website (/Education & Exploration/Exploration) or on the internet as AIAA 2009-6567.
I’ll post a clip from the front page, and then try to address your question directly:
“The use of smaller, commercial launchers coupled with orbital depots eliminates the need for a large launch vehicle. Much is made of the need for more launches- this is perceived as a detriment. However since 75% of all the mass lifted to low earth orbit is merely propellant with no intrinsic value it represents the optimal cargo for low-cost, strictly commercial launch operations. These commercial launch vehicles, lifting a simple payload to a repeatable location, can be operated on regular, predictable schedules. Relieved of the burden of hauling propellants, the mass of the Altair and Orion vehicles for a lunar mission is very small and can also be easily carried on existing launch vehicles. This strategy leads to high infrastructure utilization, economic production rates, high demonstrated reliability and the lowest possible costs.”
Their architecture proposes using the first year to establish an in-space infrastructure, and then deliver humans to the Moon in years two and on. This would not be a expedition like Constellation was supporting, but the establishment and support of a permanent presence on the Moon. I say that because it’s not going to be apple & apples for launch mass.
In their proposal, starting on page 19, they outline the depot and tanker launches (2 & 17) along with their ACES Altair landers (not like NASA’s) for cargo and crew (2 + 1). They end up with spare everything in space, so there is redundancy and safety.
For year 2, they assume that the crew has a 120 day stay duration, with 10 day overlap for crew rotation. Remember this architecture supports a continuous presence, not a temporary expedition (footprints & flags). No more depot launches, but 21 total tankers, 2 ACES/Altair cargo landers, 3 ACES/Altair crew landers, and 4 Orion crew launches. This supports 1,496 crew days of human occupation on the Moon, with 6 landings and 5 return trips from the Moon.
The operation can continue on, and the amount of supply deliveries depends on the amount of fluid recycling or ISRU.
All of this is done with current launchers, and extensions of the current Centaur family of upper stages. No new main engines, and no new launchers are needed. I counted 52 launches required through year 2, and if we use the Delta IV Heavy price of $300M (excluding the cheaper Falcon 9 Heavy), then the launch costs would be $15.6B. Feel free to plug in your own numbers, but I’d say that’s pretty cheap overall.
For comparison, the Constellation folks say the Ares I will cost $16B to develop, so you know that’s a low number. Ares V was going to be $50-100B just to develop, so that’s another point of reference.
These should all be public numbers that I’m using, so let me know if you find any obvious errors.
Well Gary, what to you think?
Ben:
If Sir Winston is right, and I hope he is, then the right thing to do would be to find that third way.
Constellation was spending a lot of money and getting no ware fast. When I spoke at the Human Space Flight committee hearings in Washington last year I was hoping that the committee would find that third way that would make use of what we had to move quickly into the future. That did not turn out to be the case.
I may be naive but I still think Human Space Exploration is important to this nation. With proper leadership and a proper budget, ($20 billion adjusted for inflation), we can have an inspiring and useful human space exploration program that builds on past achievements while ushering in breakthrough technologies. Too often we like to tear everything up to start all over again.
To me that third way is simple and I’m sending correspondence to my senators and congressmen to tell then how I feel and what I think the next steps should be.,
About Gary:
I know how he feels. Anyone who expresses opposition to the Obama plan or doubt about the commercial companies ability to do HSF anytime soon are vilified, called stupid, mis-represented and ridiculed. When they speak up to defend them selves they’re called liers and and trolls.
There are intelligent people that have legitimate differences of opinion on all sides of this issue. In many cases, the vices that you are accusing others of having are just as evident in your own refusal to see any other opinion but your own.
I know how he feels.
Yes, it’s quite clear how he “feels.” Unfortunately, that’s all he seems to do. I’ve never seen any evidence that any thought is involved.
@ Mr. Earl,
I think that I’m pretty open-minded. I see potential benefits in commercial-based, CxP lite (using less expensive equipment development than orthodox CxP) and President Obama’s proposals, based on ‘wait and see if we can find a way to push down costs’. All have different advantages, depending on where you want to go, in what manner and how fast.
The simple fact is that the politicians have shown no interest in greatly (or even slightly) increasing NASA’s budget, so whatever is done has to be with what is likely to be available. One can complain until the sun turns into a red giant and swallows the Earth whole that the US spends enormous amounts on frivolities and politican whims and that only a tiny fraction of that could turn NASA around. However, this ignores the key fact that the politicians are not willing to move even this tiny proportion to NASA. Disgusting? Yes. A national scandal? Yes again, from my outsider’s perspective. Nonetheless, this is the political reality of the day. Any plan or proposal that does not reflect this reality is simply dream-weaving.
IMHO and FWIW…
MrEarl,
I disagree with your assertion that “Anyone who expresses opposition to the Obama plan or doubt about the commercial companies ability to do HSF anytime soon are vilified, called stupid, mis-represented and ridiculed. When they speak up to defend them selves they’re called liers and and trolls.”
I believe most who comment here respect fact based debate, and differences of opinion have little to do with that. It’s the “Obamaspace killing HSF” stuff and other inaccurate generalizations that grate, but if they’re coupled with an honest desire to discuss our options moving forward, most are willing to overlook that kind of thing.
I think most who comment on this site have little patience for talking points or conspiracy theories. Bring the numbers and the facts and let’s talk about it.
Personally, I don’t care what anyone’s political beliefs are, I just want to see real progress in HSF and space exploration in general.
MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Thanks Robert. I think you and Common Sense are two people on this blog who I may not agree with but I do respect their opinions………
there are very few people on this forum (but there are some) who I think are just a total wash and who I simply just scroll…I even read “some” of everything “Gary” and “Wind” write but most (not all) of their post quickly lose my interest. On the other hand some of them are thought provoking.
There is no one on this forum whose politics I more differ with then Simberg. We probably dont even get along on a personal basis (although we have never met)…Yet I read just about everything he writes because as long as it is on space stuff (and even space politics) his words are at least thought provoking.
My “excrement” meter starts with phrases like “X wants to kill human spaceflight”. There was no policy I disagreed with more then Bush the last and his really lame dumb, stupid foreign policy. When my two month old daughter is my age we will still be dealing with the really bad echoes of that policy (in my view) and almost nothing good…But I use to draw flack from people on the Dean For America and other blogs (and in groups when we meet…and if you dont buy this ask Kolker) when they would start with the “Bush is a baby killer” or “He just wants to do (this or that evil)”.
Those comments only have a place in the debate if there is extraordinary proof that they are correct. When someone would tell me “bush planned the 9/11 attacks” my response was always the same “unless you can prove that in the first 30 seconds of the conversation STFU” (and I usually did not abbreviate it).
We can disagree on Obama’s space policy. I dont think he has evil motives.
Robert G. Oler
@ MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
As I said before, it is not Gary alone so don’t “pick” on him: amightywind, DCSA, Marcel Williams have most of the time ignored reality. But I will grant you that even Eric Sterner makes comments out of the blue to say the least. There are I think different drivers here: 1) political (no matter what it’s bad kinda reaction) 2) emotional (we need to explore because it is difficult, it is our destiny, we need to save the human species, “I am going to lose my job”) and 3) economical/societal. Usually 1 and 2 ignore 3 since their drive is so moch more important than anything else. People in 3 try to make it palatable to others outside our nicely behaved community why we are doing HSF. People in 3 try to find reasons why it benefits the US in reality, i.e. economically and socially. People in 3 try to come up with facts and references. People in 3 most of the time (used to) belong in either 1 or 2 or even 1 and 2 but can get a hold of themselves. People in 3 realized that 1 and 2 go nowhere and are subject to the politics of the day. It a little bit like maturing from teenage to adult. And the people in 3 have various degrees of maturity but can address one another regardless of their political inclination so long they can keep the emotions at bay. In any case my experience is that 1 and 2 drive us nowhere so I would hope that most people “grow up” to 3 that is more rooted in reality.
Oh well…
There is no one on this forum whose politics I more differ with then Simberg. We probably dont even get along on a personal basis
It’s hard to get along with someone when one repeatedly tell lies about what the other believes and claims (e.g., that I’ve claimed that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster).
Bennett, Rand, Ben:
All I know is what I’ve experienced. I’m for an alternative other than Constellation and definatly see the President’s budget as killing HSF beyond Earth orbit. I get far more insults for the later than the former.
Some people, like me, just shake their head and move on using this forum as a way to find holes in their arguments. Others like Gary lash out.
Bennett, I also just want to see real progress in HSF and space exploration in general, politics aside. I can understand how some would believe that the President’s budget would help further human space flight. I happen to believe that it is rather nebulous and the R&D will be rolled into politician’s pet pork projects never to achieve anything useful.
For that last statement Major Tom will come back citing R&D and demonstrator projects and then state that I’m either making things up or I have no idea what I’m talking about. I know what I’m talking about, I read the budget, I’m just skeptical that any of this stuff will happen without a well defined plan which most in congress and elsewhere would agree is lacking in the FY 2011 budget. No offense intended but you would be the first one to congratulate MT on how well he told me off.
Some don’t really see the need for HSF beyond Earth orbit. That’s a legitimate point of view. If debated in the nation, Senate or Congress and it was decided that HSF was not a path that this nation should take, I would be disappointed but felt at least all sides got a fair hearing. I believe, and I’m not the only one, that with the FY2011 budget the administration is killing HSF without that debate.
Why you wild eyed zealots suddenly fancy yourself open minded is beyond me. Are you finally coming down from your SpaceX high? Oler, you especially with your bullsh*t-o-meter. You were barking incoherently about that evil Bush and WMD just a few days ago. What hypocrisy! BTW, I don’t care about the WMD. I just liked the conquest.
Wind:
Your not helping yourself with statements like the one above. Sigh….
It takes at least two to have a conversation. Some people want to converse, exchange and challenge about space, and that’s what forums do well.
There are some that only want to push their own views, which is fine, but don’t want to discuss or defend them. I certainly have done this, but if I don’t get any traction on the comments, I feel that no ones up to discussing that topic or my views on it, and I don’t continue to “beat the dead horse”. I move on.
I have been influenced by what many people have said, and I have even changed my opinions about some topics. However if people don’t consider the views of others, then why bother to post? Maybe something along the lines of #2 that Common Sense proposed above, but sometimes it seems they missed the “play well with others” class in elementary school.
That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy verbal jousting, which I think is natural in high emotion topics. Luckily I don’t have the long post history that some of you have, so I don’t have a list of people I should be remembering to disagree with…
Enough soliloquy, how about sending all monkey crap slingers to space on a Side-Mount Launch Vehicle???
Anyone hear the sound of air escaping? Not a lot of wind, not a big or mighty wind, but something wheezing and tired.
Sounds like a whoopie cushion to me, but not as entertaining.
@ Coastal Ron wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
“Enough soliloquy, how about sending all monkey crap slingers to space on a Side-Mount Launch Vehicle???”
With or without a LAS? Did I say a LAS would not work on a sidemount?
Anywho…
What does the “other side of the aisle” have to say about the ULA approach?
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
While I do think FY11 needs a more coherent “story” to it, meaning all of the bullet points that are in the R&D proposals need to have a more direct connection to whatever end goal the president wants, I think it is leaps and bounds better than the only other option being seriously debated in Congress, which is Constellation.
We can’t have one program just eating EVERYTHING of NASA from the inside out. Yes, there will always be higher priority projects that take funding from lower priority projects when the higher priority ones go over budget, but Constellation is a whole other beast that is just a financial wrecking ball right through everything NASA is doing.
And history says it will just be cancelled anyways, just like Apollo.
So, that is the pattern that I hope can get broken, and this paper from ULA seems like the only approach that can break the cycle. Maybe the details change (i.e., we use something different than ACES), but the overall approach taken in the paper seems like the only way we can move forward at this point without just staying on the same cycle we’ve been on since Apollo.
MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
I understand your concern about the need for a large cohesive HSF project for Congress to focus on. However I don’t see that as the way to expand into space in any meaningful way. “Programs” end, and then you become dependent on the next “Program” to do something meaningful. Constellation was not guaranteed to succeed, or to escape the budget whims of future congresses. It could easily have ended up as a de-rated program to nowhere.
What I like about the current plan is that it gives us incremental progress, and maybe that will be enough for the space industry as a whole to pick up and move forward without the government in the lead. It would take longer, but I think we have enough knowledge and capability in place now to allow that to happen.
My $0.02
@ MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
“I’m for an alternative other than Constellation and definatly see the President’s budget as killing HSF beyond Earth orbit”
All right. Here is what I think. NASA HSF beyond Earth orbit started and ended with Apollo. Since then no such thing has existed at NASA until VSE/CEV. The O’Keefe implementation of the VSE was slow and would not have brought the BEO part of HSF real soon. Griffin saw it and bet the farm on Ares/Orion. I believe he lost control of the beast. Had he only just kept Orion as a “taxi” and not have ridiculously changing requirements then maybe just maybe he could have made it with a 4 segment SRB and his ESAS thing. But what coul have been does not matter anymore, The PoR was not going BEO. Period. So in effect the PoR killed HSF BEO. Look at the facts, the budget and the technology. What this WH is doing is to reboot the whole thing. It’s a fairly hard reboot. But it is trying to go back to an O’Keefe approach. People feel that there ought to be destination and timeline. Well if you don’t have the technology ready how do you know where you are going in how much time??? This is what was really wrong about the VSE. The timeline was completely out of a hat. See people believed we already did it so no big deal. They just forgot that most of the people who did no longer were with us, that the corporate knowledge about Apollo was essentially gone. Therefore a lot had to be relearned. We could not go from 0 to the Moon in such a little time. The right thing would have been to build the LEO capability all the while building the architecture to the Moon. This was NOT Constellation. Constellation wanted every thing right now. And with the NASA budget it was allocated by our whiny righteous politicians in Congress and the previous WH (yes it is a fact! it is not political!) it failed and it failed miserably.
It will be difficult to recover from that failure, very difficult. So this WH seems to think that they will give a better chance to the commercials. See if they can make it, see if it is possible. The cost is low, the risk high but the return might be real great.
So did this WH kill HSF BEO? No absolutely not if you consider the reality of living within a budget. But yes if you think that there is unlimited budget available and they failed or did not want to provide it. The real reality is that Constellation or the PoR killed HSF BEO. Unfortunately.
@ Coastal Ron wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
“I understand your concern about the need for a large cohesive HSF project for Congress to focus on. ”
See I don’t understand this. We all know, do we not, that Congress is unable to “focus” on anything, not even on wars. The only thing Congress can focus on is the near term elections they face and that is about it. So a sustainable approach has to take this into account. Or it is doomed to fail. No matter what.
“MT:
Even if you are right and the R&D is able to reduce the mass needed for a Mars mission from 10 ISS mass’ to two you have to consider that it took 36 shuttle flights and 10 years to build the ISS!”
That’s true, but unlike the ISS, most of the mass — 70-90% — of a human Mars DRM is bound up in the propellant. So when we put together a Mars mission, we’re not doing a lot of construction, certainly not nearly as much as ISS. But what we are doing is a lot of fueling. So it’s not a Space Shuttle that we need. Rather, we need in-space cryogenic propellant management and an affordable, reliable, and efficient Progress flavor of frieghter (but with bigger and cryogenic fuel tanks). If we don’t have either of those, especially the former, then we need an impossibly large HLV to get humans to Mars.
“Also take into consideration that a trip to Mars will require some sort of electric drive, ION, VASIMER or some thing else, that will require heavy nuclear generators. HLV in the 150 to 200 mt range will be needed to complete the Mars ship in a reasonable time at an affordable price.”
Space nuclear reactors are not nearly that big. Topaz, an in-space Soviet nuclear reactor design that was ground tested extensively in the U.S. back in the 1990s, massed just over 1mT. NERVA, a nuclear-thermal rocket design from the late 1960s/early 1970s that was repeatedly ground-fired, was 3-4 mT, and subsequent, untested, designs promised to get down to under 2 mT. (The exact masses for all these are on wikipedia, surprisingly.)
Today, NASA is looking at garbage can-sized reactors for surface power. Theoretically, those could be launched on Pegasus-sized vehicles and ganged together for in-space power needs. It’s extreme — I’m not advocating it because hooking up all those reactors to their coolant, propulsion, and power systems would involve a lot of detailed in-space assembly versus just launching one reactor already hooked up inside a larger transit stage — but it illustrates the range of design space opened up by the modular approaches other folks are talking about on this forum.
“What most people fail to realize is that the vast majority of the cost of shuttle operations is for the refurbishment and maintenance of the orbiters them selves.”
That’s not true. A substantial fraction of the Shuttle operations budget went to the care and feeding of the orbiters. But it wasn’t the “vast majority”.
“For that last statement Major Tom will come back citing R&D and demonstrator projects and then state that I’m either making things up or I have no idea what I’m talking about. I know what I’m talking about, I read the budget, I’m just skeptical that any of this stuff will happen without a well defined plan…”
Look, the reality is that you can’t claim that there is “no well defined plan” and expect to get away with it when there are literally hundreds and hundreds of pages of budget, planning, and solicitation material on the street that do lay out a very defined NASA exploration plan post-Constellation. Just at the recent ESMD workshop alone, there were five program presentations:
–Exploration Technology Development & Demonstration (ETDD)
–Heavy Lift & Propulsion Technology (HL&PT)
–Flagship Technology Demonstrations (FTD)
–Explorations Precursor Robotic Missions (xPRM)
–Commercial Crew (CC)
And there were six presentations on specific FTD missions:
–Automated/Autonomous Rendezvous & Docking Vehicle (ARDV)
–Solar Electric Propulsion Stage
–CRYOGENIC Propellant STorage And Transfer (CRYOSTAT) Mission
–Inflatable Module Mission
–Environment Control and Life Support (ECLS)
–Aerocapture, Entry, Descent & Landing
All of these are available at:
nasa.gov/exploration/new_space_enterprise/home/workshop_home.html
I can also point you towards the budget material and soliciations for each of the programs above.
If you want to debate the actual plan and its specifics, great, have at it. There’s lots of material to critique, and I, for one, think it would be a worthy discussion.
But don’t make patently false and ignorant claims that there is “no well defined plan” when there are reams and reams of planning documents that I or any other idiot can point to online. It ignores reality, it’s a waste of your time and everyone else’s, and it doesn’t provide a substantive critique of the actual plan.
I would much rather discuss the specifics of, say, the CRYOSTAT mission (why is it going after CH4/LOX as a baseline, which is relatively easy, instead of LH2/LOX, which is the real challenge) on this forum instead of endlessly pointing out the obvious. But in every thread, there’s a few folks can’t get past the existence proof for a plan that has been available in written form since early February. It would be good if they could.
“On the other hand, messing with Major Tom is just too much fun some times.”
I must have missed the post in this thread where you were “messing” with me.
FWIW…
“wild eyed zealots”
“barking incoherently”
“bullsh*t-o-meter”
Knock it off. If you can’t make your point without hyperbolic namecalling and profanity, then you don’t have one.
Grow up or get out.
@ MrEarl You wrote “No offense intended but you would be the first one to congratulate MT on how well he told me off.”
None taken, but I don’t think I’ve ever congratulated anyone for trashing someone. I don’t agree with you on what FY2011 means for HSF, but as long as you don’t base your arguments on a dislike for our current President (before anything else), I’m willing to hear your arguments.
I’ve come to realize that going negative is personally unsatisfying. I ignore the fools that spout rhetoric and read with interest the debate and the parsing of HSF and NASA developments. I’m done with letting anything written here ‘get to me’, and I’ll let others go after the trolls.
MT:
I would love to get into the nitty gritty of cryogenic storage with you but I really don’t know enough to hold up my end.
Where we differ is that you see these R&D projects and demonstration projects and see a plan, I don’t. I see it as a place holder for pork or something to be raided for other priorities.
As for nuclear reactors they would have to be in the 200Mw range to get to Mars in 39 days. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1006/01vasimr/
Where we differ is that you see these R&D projects and demonstration projects and see a plan, I don’t.
Maybe you don’t understand what a plan is. More importantly, you don’t understand what a sustainable one is. Constellation was not.
[…] Space Politics » Briefly noted: task force meeting, SpaceX support … […]
MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 2:50 pm:
“It took 36 shuttle flights to create just 1 ISS plus the Russian and ESA flights.”
That’s not quite right. ISS took 36 shuttle flights to build AND operate with a permanent crew for most of the last 10 years. A large fraction of the mass to ISS was for crew rotations and supplies, not construction.
The US lofted portions of ISS come to a bit less than 300,000 kg, which could have been lofted by 15 shuttle missions or less if a more favorable orbit was selected.
@ Rick Boozer
The purpose for returning to the Moon was to establish a permanent base so that we can begin to exploit the Moon’s natural resources in order to lower the cost of space travel and grow the economy– and also to find out if a hypogravity environment is harmful or harmless to human health which would have profound implications as far as the human ability to colonize other worlds.
Of course the President says: “Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before.â€
Rhyolite:
My point is this, 300mt to LEO = 15 shuttle flights or 15 Delta IV heavy or 3 SaturnV class launchers. We can develop a 120mt launcher from the ET, SSMEs or RS-68s and the SRBs for much less than the Aries 5 was going to cost us and would be much cheaper to launch 3 of those rather than 15 Delta IVs.
Marcel F. Williams wrote:
“The purpose for returning to the Moon was to establish a permanent base so that we can begin to exploit the Moon’s natural resources in order to lower the cost of space travel and grow the economy”
The federal government does the exploration, the private sector does the exploitation of resources. Unless the commercial sector is riding along, which will never happen with NASA, it will be a government facilty not interested in making money, but a money pit for congressional districts.
Each part of the base would be farmed out to which ever senator and they will do exactly what they are doing with the shuttle and constellation, underfund it then complain if it gets canceled. A base has to pay for itself.
Rhyolite wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
“The US lofted portions of ISS come to a bit less than 300,000 kg, which could have been lofted by 15 shuttle missions or less if a more favorable orbit was selected.“.
Or, let’s say there was an assembly shack in space waiting for our “space trucks” to deliver the material. If we used Delta IV Heavy for those deliveries, which has been quoted by ULA for $300M/launch, it would cost us $4.5B to get that 300,000 kg (660,000 lbs) to LEO.
To put that in perspective, the Shuttle program was costing $200M/month to run, whether you launched a Shuttle or not. No doubt that the Shuttle is an all-purpose vehicle, but for carrying cargo only it’s pretty expensive.
What if we used Falcon 9 Heavy instead Delta IV Heavy? Even though Falcon 9 Heavy can carry 20,000 lbs more, we’ll assume the same number of launches. Falcon 9 is advertised for $51.5M, so let’s assume 3x $51.5M, which is $154.5M for the -Heavy. That brings those 15 launches down to $2.3B, or about one years worth of running the Shuttle program.
Using our current launchers, and modular construction (i.e. ISS type sections), the next generation of space assemblies should be far less expensive than what we experienced with the ISS.
Just to add onto what Coastal Ron said, and quoting someone from the Augustine Committee
And those, kiddies, are the harsh realities
MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
“My point is this, 300mt to LEO = 15 shuttle flights or 15 Delta IV heavy or 3 SaturnV class launchers. We can develop a 120mt launcher from the ET, SSMEs or RS-68s and the SRBs for much less than the Aries 5 was going to cost us and would be much cheaper to launch 3 of those rather than 15 Delta IVs.
A couple of questions:
1. What is the demand for an HLV? If there was an identified demand that could not be satisfied by current means, then that would be the first requirement. Maybe an HLV would duplicate the capabilities of smaller launches, so then you have to ask #2
2. Is there a business case? What would the projected $/lb or $/launch be if the HLV was run by a private company? Unless the government sees HLV as a national imperative, in which case costs be damed (i.e. Constellation-ish). Otherwise, then #3
3. If there is such a demonstrated demand for an HLV, why doesn’t a private company build and run the HLV? Why shouldn’t the government entice an aerospace company with a COTS like contract – the U.S. guarantees X amount of launches to help the company establish themselves, but otherwise let’s the marketplace decide if they survive or not.
I know at some point, as we expand into space, we’ll need an HLV and a super-HLV, but I don’t think we’re there yet because no one has been able to “show me the money”, so to speak.
Can you?
Ferris Valyn wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
“And those, kiddies, are the harsh realities”
Especially in these harsh budget times, we have to look at all available choices. Good engineers excel at challenges, and figuring out how to accomplish a task the least expensive way is a big one. However, if the goals are outlined clearly, then I’m sure NASA, our space industry and our educational institutions can find creative ways to accomplish those goals.
Griffith did not do that for his Moon plan, and we ended up with his design for Constellation.
[…] Space Politics » Briefly noted: task force meeting, SpaceX support … […]
“We can develop a 120mt launcher from the ET, SSMEs or RS-68s and the SRBs for much less than the Aries 5 was going to cost us and would be much cheaper to launch 3 of those rather than 15 Delta IVs.”
That’s not true.
It can’t get to 120 mT, but the cheapest Shuttle-derived HLV around is a sidemount. NASA’s sidemount presentation to the Augustine Committee quoted a development cost of $6.6 billion. See page 9 at:
nasa.gov/pdf/361842main_15%20-%20Augustine%20Sidemount%20Final.pdf
That doesn’t include the costs of the actual launches — just the development to get the capability. Just one year of Shuttle operations will run a minimum of around $2 billion. (Shuttle actually ran about $4-5 billion per year when she wasn’t in shutdown mode.) Assuming three launches in one year, we’re probably looking at $8.6 billion for development and operations, at least.
Again, this was a best case using sidemount numbers, and a sidemount’s throw weigh is ~50-70mT (depending on if you need an upper stage) short of 120 mT. A Shuttle-derived actually capable of 120 mT is almost certainly going considerably more expensive.
For the Delta IV competitor, according to Astronautix, a Delta IV Heavy went for $254 million back in 2004.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/deltaiv.htm
Even if we call it $300 million to account for inflation, poor NASA contract negotiations, and my lazy math at midnight, we could buy 15 Delta IV launches for $4.5 billion.
So those 15 Delta IV launches are at least $1.9 billion less than the cost of just developing a sidemount Shuttle-derived HLV, and at least $3.9 billion less if we add a year of low-cost Shuttle operations to actually get that Shuttle-derived HLV launched a few times.
And the savings are almost certainly going to be much more than that given that we’re really talking about a bigger, more expensive, 120 mT Shuttle-derived HLV (not a sidemount) and given that I boosted the stated cost of the Delta IV Heavy by almost 20% (from $254 million to $300 million).
FWIW…
@ Vladislaw
I think a Moon base could pay for itself. But it doesn’t have to pay for itself. We just need to be able to afford to build a base. Government builds the fort and the settlers and the privateers follow.
The ISS program is certainly not paying for itself and Obama intends to pump even more money down that black hole–with Elon Musk urging him on so that he can get his share of the cut!
Major Tom wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
“For the Delta IV competitor, according to Astronautix, a Delta IV Heavy went for $254 million back in 2004…Even if we call it $300 million to account for inflation“.
The $300M/launch comes from the testimony of ULA CEO Michael Gass last year before the Augustine Commission. That was their price for a man-rated version of Delta IV Heavy, and I use it as a worst case price assuming they build all of their Delta IV Heavies the same. The bonus side of that is that you can shift your cargo/crew launch sequence around without having to change your production line around.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ June 8th, 2010 at 12:13 am
“I think a Moon base could pay for itself. But it doesn’t have to pay for itself. We just need to be able to afford to build a base. Government builds the fort and the settlers and the privateers follow.”
The big difference between the Moon and forts on Earth are that if the supply train doesn’t make it, the settlers could go out and live off the land. We don’t have the knowledge or technology for that yet, and we don’t know what we even need to know yet.
I’m curious though, specifically how would a Moon base pay for itself?
What pent-up demand is it satisfying?
What market is it going to be cornering?
How will it get it’s products to market?
I think we’ll get there eventually, but not for decades. I see the indigenous production of raw materials and products as satisfying a local need first (cheaper transportation costs), and then expanding into interplanetary markets as supply & demand merits.
“To market, to market to buy a fat pig.”
http://www.alephbet.com/pictures/31908.jpg
“The $300M/launch comes from the testimony of ULA CEO Michael Gass last year before the Augustine Commission.”
Thanks for the reference. I posted before I saw your response. My figure was just a ROM.
FWIW…
Once again, Gary Church dishonestly ignores the “Lego Concept” yet again and ignores the philosophy presented in my article yet again. Did I forget to mention that the Falcon 9 is a tiny fraction of the cost of Ares I Corndog?
MrEarl wrote @ June 7th, 2010 at 10:34 pm:
“We can develop a 120mt launcher from the ET, SSMEs or RS-68s and the SRBs for much less than the Aries 5 was going to cost us”
I certainly agree with this statement – it’s hard to imagine a more expensive route to an HLV than Ares V.
“and [it] would be much cheaper to launch 3 of those rather than 15 Delta IVs.”
But this statement does not necessarily follow. For the operational costs to be lower, you have to show that 1 HVL costs less than 5 Delta IVs. As MT demonstrates, this is not a slam dunk. Likewise, even if the operational costs are lower you have to show that the difference in operational would pay back the added development cost and risk in a reasonable period of time. I have my doubts.
Even if the costs are a push, there are other policy reasons to favor many medium launches over a few large ones. Higher operational tempos may lead to lower cost and higher reliabilities. Many medium launches can be distributed over several providers so a single launch failure doesn’t bring a program to a halt. Finally, using non-developmental launchers means that you can start your program immediately rather than waiting a years for a new vehicle.
There are legitimate trades to be done here and I don’t think the answers are obvious.
MrEarl, Rhyolite, see the right column: http://quantumg.net/geekchartbig.png
@ Coastal Ron
Human beings have been melting rocks for thousands of years. I don’t think we’re going to have too much trouble extracted oxygen and water for the lunar regolith. But if we’ve reached a state where we can’t dig dirt and melt rocks anymore then maybe be should go back to our caves:-)
One thing to note about Oz residents is that like the US, not many are very interested in space per se. And I’ll further qualify that by saying that even fewer are interested in human spaceflight. Like the US of A, Australia finds it hard to get past local issues and consider anything that doesn’t impact directly on the hip pocket or jobs.
Now my compatriot believes that Cx is worth saving. I disagree on a more than a purely financial perspective and plenty’s already be written about relative costs so that even ‘blind Freddy’ can tell the Cx is wasted in more ways than one: money, technology, time, manpower, etc. Ares1 is overbudget, overtime, and overblown for the job it’s meant to do. The Falcon is more capable and has made orbit whereas the Ares1 has done … nothing since the test flight wasn’t actually anything remotely like the final Ares. Just have to check the vehicle specs’s to see that.
The facts speak for themselves. NASA has failed to produce a vehicle to replace the commercial vehicles (one ccould at a pinch include Falcon9) for LEO duties despite many attempts and with the exception of the Shuttle. It’s time to leave that behind and attempt to do stuff that will lead to exploration beyond LEO. I don’t mind whether that’s the Moon, Asteroids, Mars or a 14 year round trip to Titan. I’ll be in that one. Just so as they make some progress on leaving LEO and getting on with the job of moving the human race off Earth.
Let’s face it squarely, it’s all been a con to maintain jobs – at least in the decade or so!!!
And please don’t bring up any HL concepts. It’s not needed and there isn’t a case for it. Docking, construction and refueling in space is done now so we can use several flights with existing LVs and dock modules or a worst, utilise some of that hard won experience on in-space construction.
And NASA needs to involve those companies doing forward thinking things such as Bigalow. There’s others as well that aren’t companies but individuals eg. the glove competition, etc.
And the other argument: robotics do just as well. I’ll answer that one by mentioning Steve Squires who stated in his book on the MER’s, that a human could do in 10 minutes what one of his MER took all day or longer to do, and finished by saying that the best thing that he wanted for Spirit and Opportunity was to see human footprints in their tracks.
Anyway, that’s my blurb. Could write all day about the nonsense I’ve seen espoused by the likes of ‘Blowsalot’ etc.
Honestly thought that those closer to the action would have more perspective but clearly not the case. Also troubling to see the lack of facts in the arguments put forward but .. you get that!!
Oh and how long have I been around. Long enough to have watched the Apollo moon landings and know that it wasnt’ fake!! And another aside, Australia has supported NASA and others in space since then both on the observatory front as well as through various testing efforts in Woomera. Not a lot but long running and consistent.
PS It is the Australian tapes that NASA now has of the Moon landings.
Cheers
Obama Space.
“Flight to Houston, we have a problem.”
The number you are calling is no longer connected.
“Mother of God, what?”
Please wait and one of our service personel will help you. To help us help you please choose one of the following options:
If your call is about an unpaid account press one.
If you are enquiring about one of our new saver plans press two.
If you are experiencing difficulty achieving low earth orbit…
@commonsense: “As I said before, it is not Gary alone so don’t “pick†on him: amightywind, DCSA, Marcel Williams have most of the time ignored reality. But I will grant you that even Eric Sterner makes comments out of the blue to say the least.”
Here’s reality: Commercial space exploitation is not space exploration.
As previously noted, without a new manned spacecraft in the pipeline and a HSF program in work, there will be no need in the public’s eyes to continue funding NASA. The space agency has been equated with space exploration, not space exploitation, from the X-15 through shuttle. And any sidetrack into ‘profitability’ a la Reaganomics for this once superb R&D organization has been disappointing at best and disastrous at worst.
As current deficits balloon, budgets for discretionary spending shrink and distressed economic trends continue, there will be very little of NASA worth funding without the manned space program. The civilian agency will become a perceived ‘luxury’ – an extravagant discretionary expense – that a nation clearly hurtling toward bankruptcy can do without. Most of the general public, who pay the freight, equate HSF with the civilian space agency. That may be unfair, but it’s reality. Without any manned spacecraft, a mission and a destination/goal, it can and will be rationally disbanded, lauded for accomplishing what it was tasked to do in years past and its esoteric research and existing assets easily folded into existing agencies conducting similar research (FAA, DoD, NOAA, etc.,). This is what Armstrong and Cernan, with his famed intangibles et al, see looming. Space exploration will simply fade away. There is not a politician alive who wouldn’t crow over closing down a Federal agency in this era. And a public craving more entitlements for down-to-earth problems from a shrinking discretionary spending pie will agree.
A similar battle was fought before. Not long after Apollo was announced, resistance and cries to rethink it arose. “In 1962 [ Former Republican President Dwight D.] Eisenhower asked in the ‘Saturday Evening Post,’ “Why the great hurry to get to the moon and planets?” [Ike] endorsed space research, but not a “fantastically expensive crash program.” … The Republican Party followed up, forming a space advisory committee that condemned Apollo and called Kennedy’s failure to build a strong military presence in space “perhaps the most disastrous blunder by any government since the last war.” … “[T]he GOP assault continued under Goldwaterites, who deflected the Eisenhower critique into a less profound struggle over goals and management.” – source, ‘… the heavens and the Earth- by Walter McDougall.’ This time it’s not the military so much as the commercial elements– with Obama more like Ike than JFK.
@MrEarl- “It comes down to this. IF the administration is serious about HSF, then show us the plan. If not, and that is a legitimate point of view, then state it clearly so the Republic can debate it and stop hiding behind imagined future missions meant to obscure the true nature of their proposal which I believe is to abandon human space flight.”
The plan is to let it fade away.
Major Tom: “It can’t get to 120 mT, but the cheapest Shuttle-derived HLV around is a sidemount. NASA’s sidemount presentation to the Augustine Committee quoted a development cost of $6.6 billion … That doesn’t include the costs of the actual launches — just the development to get the capability. Just one year of Shuttle operations will run a minimum of around $2 billion. (Shuttle actually ran about $4-5 billion per year when she wasn’t in shutdown mode.) Assuming three launches in one year, we’re probably looking at $8.6 billion for development and operations, at least.”
Are there ways to make the option from that presentation cheaper? For example, what if NASA didn’t consider using the sidemount for crew? What if NASA stuck with the block I for an extended time (or permanently), or only made gradual improvements to it? Is that a viable long-term configuration? If it’s more expensive per flight, what if we scale back those 3 launches per year to 1 or 2 per year? Often the sidemount is discussed alongside a Shuttle extension, but what if there is no Shuttle extension – just enough maintenance of the Shuttle infrastructure to get to the sidemount?
I don’t mean this in the sense of competing with Delta IV. For example, only launching 1 or 2 times per year will make the comparison with Delta IV even worse. I mean it in the sense of a compromise for the sake of politics – any actual capabilities would be a side benefit.
Major Tom: “I would much rather discuss the specifics of, say, the CRYOSTAT mission (why is it going after CH4/LOX as a baseline, which is relatively easy, instead of LH2/LOX, which is the real challenge) on this forum instead of endlessly pointing out the obvious.”
I agree. There are a lot of interesting discussions like your CRYOSTAT one within the new plan that I haven’t seen played out because there is so much focus on Constellation vs. the new plan. For example:
– Is the balance of the initial robotic precursor missions the right one? The presentations show the first 4 destinations as a NEO, the lunar surface, Mars, and Mars. Should the balance be tipped a bit, with maybe a Phobos mission or another lunar surface or NEO mission replacing one of the Mars ones (given that the Martian surface won’t be reached for quite a long while)?
– The NASA presentations showed the lunar robotic precursor as being overly ambitious for the budget. What capability should be set aside on that mission if it is indeed too ambitious?
– During Mike Gold’s presentation at ISDC, in response to a question about NASA’s inflatable habitat demo, he (and I therefore assume Bigelow) was concerned with the requirement to work on the ISS. Should that demo be a free-flyer? Is the mission too difficult? It’s not necessarily Bigelow’s mission, so what would other competitors think? What about the ECLSS demo that would happen there if it’s not attached to the ISS?
– It seems to me that the ARDV used in most of the flagship technology demonstration missions would be capable of a lot of non-demo work. What sorts of missions could it really do? Will it be a commercial vehicle, or a NASA one?
– Mars is being considered as a destination for the solar electric propolsion mission. Is that a good choice? If so, what instruments would be the best ones to put on it (for science or HSF precursor reasons)? What sorts of military, science, or commercial non-HSF missions will be enabled if the demo succeeds?
– Should the aerocapture/EDL mission go to Mars, or should the demo be a back-to-Earth one? If it’s to Mars, what payload should it carry?
– What should the robotic precursor scout missions look like? There were no details on them.
– In general, will the flagship technology demonstrations be self-sustaining (i.e. open up useful and affordable capabilities for commercial, military, science, or other space areas before being used in a HSF exploration mission)?
– What are the risks for the various demo missions? What is the expected level of payoff (for exploration and other space purposes) for them?
– What other technology demonstrations might be better to put in the front of the queue?
etc … and that just covers the robotic precursors and the flagship demo missions.
DCSCA: “As previously noted, without a new manned spacecraft in the pipeline and a HSF program in work, there will be no need in the public’s eyes to continue funding NASA.”
I’m not convinced that’s true. What is so special about a new manned spacecraft in the pipeline? Does it need to be a NASA-owned spacecraft to convince the public? Why can’t the technology demonstrators serve the same purpose as Ares I/Orion as “a pipeline” for a later exploration vehicle? Why can’t the ISS serve as the NASA spacecraft?
“this once superb R&D organization”
Note that with the new plan, NASA will be revitalizing its R&D capabilities that were taken apart during Constellation.
“As current deficits balloon, budgets for discretionary spending shrink and distressed economic trends continue, there will be very little of NASA worth funding without the manned space program.”
First, NASA’s manned program isn’t going away with the new plan. The ISS is still there. It will be used and improved. Its life will be extended. NASA will operate the Orion-based CRV. There will be lots of technology demonstration missions, robotic precursor missions that are run for HSF (rather than science) purposes, and HLV efforts.
Also, under the economic pressure you described, an approach like Constellation or similar mega-projects is really difficult to maintain. The funding shrinks, and the mission slips to the future while expenses grow. A portfolio with many smaller components can handle this environment better. Entire missions can be dropped or delayed without affecting the whole agency. This may seem like a bug because it makes it possible to drop projects, but the alterative with the megaprojects is even worse. The more flexible approach is also better for the taxpayer.
Finally, I’d make the case that the new approach is actually more worthy of funding than something like Constellation even in the tough budgetary environment. That’s because so many of the new efforts deliver benefits even before HSF exploration uses them. The first flagship technology demo mission is an example of this. It’s demonstrating technologies that can be used by the military (some of the technology will probably come from DARPA) and other users.
No one has as yet, presented a convincing argument for heavy lift. If NASA wants to do serious exploration beyond LEO then what’s needed is as follows:
1. Political Will
2. Increased Risk Acceptance
2a Throwing out the hero concept that currently exists within NASA and seemingly the US of A. For God’s sake, they’re just people doing a job that they ‘chose’. Your personnel (and our’s) in Iraq and Afganistan are apparently less heroic than an astronaut. Sorry bit of a rant there!!
3. Reliable access to LEO (preferably more cost effective than at present but not absolutely necessary if points 1 and 2 above are met)
4. Fixed price contracts based around fixed deliverables. Once those are identified, it’s up to the contractor to decide on how to deliver them. No NASA detailed oversight during delivery which is based on agreed milestones and it’s working harware not vapourware that’s delivered. This would include preliminary design planning that form initial separate tenders.
5 All contracts open tendered (I could add international but that’s probably beyond hope. Nah let’s go for it!!)
6. In-space construction capability
7. In-space refuelling and propellant storage capability
8. In-space habitat both for construction crews and for emergency situations such as medical;
and finally, one out of left field:
The Exploration Mission is decided by providing a range of straightforward (read simple eg. base capable of supporting 6 persons on the Moon for a period of 12 months with 6 month rotation) options to the American people. They choose by preference ballot which is the electoral system used downunder ie. say 6 alternatives; voters rank by preference 1 through to 6. Lowest scoring mission is eliminated with voters who voted for that mission, preferences counting toward the remaining mission rankings!
Short list of missions identified by an impartial board with representatives from politics, NASA, Defence, Private Space Companies, public.
Ok that’s about it roughly. So in the list above, the only thing stopping a full-scale exploration effort IMO are points 1, 2, 2a and a full committment to points 4 and 5. The rest provide all that’s necessary and I’m including additional vehicle development since that’s within current technological capabilities.
Timeframe would depend on the mission chosen and the mission’s development requirements.
Unfortunately NASA has given up on exploration leadership and has become so risk-averse that nothing is achievable now for acceptable cost. This of course suits the existing contractors and maintains the current jobs status quo.
BTW I think that this is the ‘plan’ that’s currently missing from the arguments raging back and forth between the pro-Shuttle Cx and the pro-Obama plan.
Cheers
red wrote:
“I agree. There are a lot of interesting discussions like…”
1) – I would like to see a Phobos mission instead of the two mars missions. Sample returns from an asteroid and a Martian moon.
2) – I would scrap from the lunar mission something that is not dual or multiple use for any moon or asteroid. Building up tools for multiple destinations instead of every single instrument being a custom built, one off design would make further missions less expensive.
3) – Although I like the idea of a free flyer, it would be a bit more expensive to run a totally separate system and by attaching it can utilize what is already built at the ISS. I would prefer that the inflatable add more floor space to the ISS. If the dragon or other commercial vehicle is running crew to the ISS and only 2 – 3 need to be swapped out you have empty seats or those crew only get to stay a short time. By increasing the ISS capacity the crew vehicles can run full.
4) – Solar works best going towards the Sol. Solar propulsion missions to Venus, Mercury, Aten and Apollo asteroids.
5) – I would prefer the aerocapture test be for earth, it would be more immediately valuable for ALL missions beyond earth orbit before we attempt Mars.
I have not given much thought to the precursers yet, I would like to see them fleshed out more. Unless I am not finding the released data on them yet.
@ red wrote @ June 8th, 2010 at 10:07 am
“NASA will operate the Orion-based CRV. ”
Let’s just hope they never, never “operate” the CRV… See what I mean? Unless of course they have requirements to bring it down every so often, but that won’t be “often” enough to make it “special” in the eyes of the public.
@ Vladislaw wrote @ June 8th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
“5) – I would prefer the aerocapture test be for earth, it would be more immediately valuable for ALL missions beyond earth orbit before we attempt Mars”
The problem is that the atmospheres are so different that it is not clear how Earth applies to Mars. But it would definitely demonstrate a “concept”. On the other hand we might need a version of aerocapture to be used for possible “shuttles” between Earth and Mars (or somewhere else). Not necessarily vehicles that would land on the planet(s) but that would shuttle people and cargo to and from, a la Aldrin’s cycler I believe.
common sense wrote @ June 8th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
“… On the other hand we might need a version of aerocapture to be used for possible “shuttles†between Earth and Mars (or somewhere else). Not necessarily vehicles that would land on the planet(s) but that would shuttle people and cargo to and from, a la Aldrin’s cycler I believe.”
I think Earth would be the first need. With the ability to aerocapture when returning to Earth, you eliminate the need for a high-speed capable heat shield, and the need to drag your CRV with you on deep space missions.
The best of all cases when returning for BEO is to rendezvous with an orbiting way-station. Just as you use an airport to transition from your long distance vehicle to your local one, we’ll also need to get in the habit of doing in-space quarantine when we come back from new BEO places.
@ Coastal Ron wrote @ June 8th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Aerocapture will require a very thick heat shield unless materials be developed. The time it takes to slow down will be “long” and therefore the heat loads will be “large” when compared to a direct entry. It’s all about trade for the heat shield. However I can see pretty “big” cycler vehicles braking around the Earth or elsewhere before docking with a station of some sort. If such an architecture is ever developed you will still need some sort of CRVs or escape pods from the vehicle in case of an abort or for possible medical emergency thaat cannot be treated on the way station or that require immediate attention.
I found a link I have not seen on here yet about the Flagship Technology Demonstrators:
FTD
It is also filled with time lines! Hope that helps the detractors.
Trent Waddington wrote @ June 8th, 2010 at 3:03 am:
Thanks for the link. I had a good laugh.
…especially the box labeled Bob Zubrin.
common sense wrote @ June 8th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
“Aerocapture will require a very thick heat shield unless materials be developed.”
Inflatable aerocapture systems (ballute) have been under study for a while, and would not have the weight issues of a solid-mass heat shield. You don’t have to slow down all at once either, and most flight profiles I’ve seen have had multiple “dips” into the atmosphere to slow down gradually. We need to get out there and do some testing, and it looks like the Flagship Technology Demonstrator program wants to do that, so I’ll keep my fingers crossed it gets fully funded.
I do like the idea of the cyclers too, and who knows what combination of technologies & techniques will finally provide us with our first workable BEO system.
“I’m not convinced that’s true. What is so special about a new manned spacecraft in the pipeline? Does it need to be a NASA-owned spacecraft to convince the public?…”
The Cernan intangibles– national pride, human curiosity, inspiration, etc. Average taxpayers connected with Americans competing, exploring and setting foot on the virgil lunar soil and planting the team colors- a U.S. flag. That may be unfair, but that’s the reality of it.
“@amightywind- “The geezers who built Apollo must be LTAO. I wish the political class would focus more on what the mission is and let the engineers take the wisest course. The politicization of NASA by this administration is the worst calamity it has yet faced.”
Administrator Paine once mused that in the Apollo days, you presented a program/mission profile then worked out a way to budget for the task accordingly. Today, it’s the opposite- here’s your budget, now craft a program that fits it.
@downunder”- “If NASA wants to do serious exploration beyond LEO then what’s needed is as follows:
1. Political Will
2. Increased Risk Acceptance
2a Throwing out the hero concept that currently exists within NASA and seemingly the US of A. For God’s sake, they’re just people doing a job that they ‘chose’. Your personnel (and our’s) in Iraq and Afganistan are apparently less heroic than an astronaut. Sorry bit of a rant there!!”
1. “Political Will-” JFK discovered the value in it for space at the right time but it was LBJ who truly exploited it. Obama’ take is similar to Eisenhower’s.
2. “Increased Risk Acceptance”- “To Eisenhower, the essence of couage was to resist the temptation to use dangerous tools. To Johnson, the essence of courage was to dare to take them up in a good cause. — Walter McDorgall, ‘The Heavens and the Earth.” .
2a “Throwing out the hero concept that currently exists within NASA and seemingly the US of A. For God’s sake, they’re just people doing a job that they ‘chose’. Your personnel (and our’s) in Iraq and Afganistan are apparently less heroic than an astronaut.”
The ‘hero concept’ is as American as apple pie. Read up on baseball then rant as an Aussie about the ‘World Series’ being anything but. Soldiers have been fighting and dying in wars for centuries on this planet. Astronauts have been flying up and away from it for less than 50 years. Re-read Wolfe’s ‘The Right Stuff.’
@ Coastal Ron wrote @ June 8th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
“Inflatable aerocapture systems (ballute) have been under study for a while,”
Understood.
“and would not have the weight issues of a solid-mass heat shield.”
I don’t think that it’s that clear just yet. Lots of issues with deployment and elasticity for a large vehicle. Then again it depends on the ballute and the vehicle, e.g. hypercones?
“You don’t have to slow down all at once either, and most flight profiles I’ve seen have had multiple “dips†into the atmosphere to slow down gradually. ”
Still the heat load will be an issue since it is “difficult” to cool the TPS in space. And those dips my go “deep” into the atmosphere if you don’t want to slow down “for ever”. Trade study…
“We need to get out there and do some testing, and it looks like the Flagship Technology Demonstrator program wants to do that, so I’ll keep my fingers crossed it gets fully funded.”
Yep.
“I do like the idea of the cyclers too, and who knows what combination of technologies & techniques will finally provide us with our first workable BEO system.”
I think it is decades if not more away. But you gotta start some day!
Ah, I guess I’m getting off topic for Jeff’s original post, except indirectly by paying more attention to the new plan’s details than any “turning up the noise” by Constellation supporters, but …
Vladislaw: “I found a link I have not seen on here yet about the Flagship Technology Demonstrators”
I’m not sure what links have appeared here, but here’s one link that includes that presentation and a lot of the others from the recent NASA exploration workshop:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/new_space_enterprise/home/workshop_home.html
It includes high-level overviews of the early flagship technology demonstration missions, robotic precursors, and more. You can search around nspires for RFIs for more exploration work. In some cases there are a lot of details on NASA’s initial ideas. For example:
https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?method=init&solId=%7B980D21C5-AF8F-7252-C1BA-507EA54906BB%7D&path=open
“1) – I would like to see a Phobos mission instead of the two mars missions. Sample returns from an asteroid and a Martian moon.”
Without being able to compare the details of the missions, I’d tend to agree with that. I figure 1 precursor mission to Mars, given that Mars itself is far off in the future, is probably good enough for the initial batch. Phobos seems to fit in with the initial Flexible Path mission sequence a bit better (even though it’s pretty far off, too). Also, there would probably be plenty of Mars science missions for HSF robotic precursor instruments to hitch a ride on, and the robotic precursor budget does have a spot for such “missions of opportunity”.
“2) – I would scrap from the lunar mission something that is not dual or multiple use for any moon or asteroid. Building up tools for multiple destinations instead of every single instrument being a custom built, one off design would make further missions less expensive.”
That might be another reason to do the sample returns you mentioned. There is a 5th mission in the initial NASA plan to a NEO, but it’s not even roughly defined. Sample return is 1 listed possibility.
“3) – Although I like the idea of a free flyer … By increasing the ISS capacity the crew vehicles can run full.”
Without knowing how bad the increased technical difficulties Gold alluded to are, I’d tend to prefer the ISS attachment. The free flying is probably ideal for Bigelow, but the ISS attachment is probably better for NASA’s overall mission. For example, it could be actually used as an ISS production system once demonstrated. It’s also the home for NASA’s ECLSS technology demo plans. It looks like it includes a capability to add modules to the ISS (via the ARDV vehicle) that may have other uses, too.
“4) – Solar works best going towards the Sol. Solar propulsion missions to Venus, Mercury, Aten and Apollo asteroids.”
I guess I’m sympathetic to NASA’s approach in this case. You’d want to demonstrate the technology in the environment it would be used on in production missions (possibly for astronaut missions after some more waves of improvement, possibly robotic precursors to HSF destinations before then). I might have picked a NEO though.
“5) – I would prefer the aerocapture test be for earth, it would be more immediately valuable for ALL missions beyond earth orbit before we attempt Mars.”
It seems to me that they’re putting an awful lot of emphasis on their long-term destination (Mars). From their charts it looks like the Earth option would be in 2016 but the Mars one would be in 2018-2020, so the Earth mission would get done sooner, too. I do think they’re thinking a lot about robotic missions in the near term, too (to the Martian surface or to other worlds like Titan and Venus). The intended scale of this demo is 10t delivered to the Martian surface, and a later one penned in for year 2028 is 50t delivered to the Martian surface, presumably part of enabling astronaut landings.
“I have not given much thought to the precursers yet, I would like to see them fleshed out more. Unless I am not finding the released data on them yet.”
Here are a few high level details (from the page I presented above):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/457443main_EEWS_ExplorationsPrecursorRoboticMissions.pdf
common sense: “Let’s just hope they never, never “operate†the CRV… See what I mean?”
I agree … I didn’t mean it that way of course. Let’s have them operate it in that sense after parts of it morph into parts of a beyond-LEO craft.
@ red wrote @ June 8th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
“Let’s have them operate it in that sense after parts of it morph into parts of a beyond-LEO craft.”
At this stage I seriously doubt the Orion CRV will ever be turned into a BEO ship ever. It’s too late the wheels have already turned. Now you say “parts of it” and maybe so. But here again the “parts” may become obsolescent real soon. But we shall see. For example I seriously doubt that a “capsule” will be the lander for Mars. Of course it all depends on the final architecture which we don’t know yet.
My crystal ball says that the first BEO mission will be a commercial company doing a fly-by around the Moon with a mix NASA/Private crew…
“Red,” can you email me at simberg@transterrestrial.com? I’ll keep you address confidential.
@commonsense -“My crystal ball says that the first BEO mission will be a commercial company doing a fly-by around the Moon with a mix NASA/Private crew…”
Why bother. Per President Obama, ‘been there, done that.’ See Apollo 8, Apollo 10, 11,12, 13, 14,15, 16 and 17; and six of those threw in lunar landings as well.
@commonsense -“My crystal ball says that the first BEO mission will be a commercial company doing a fly-by around the Moon with a mix NASA/Private crew…”
Why bother. Per President Obama, ‘been there, done that.’ See Apollo 8, Apollo 10, 11,12, 13, 14,15, 16 and 17 for details — and six of those threw in lunar landings.
@ DCSCA wrote @ June 9th, 2010 at 1:40 am
“Why bother. Per President Obama, ‘been there, done that.’ See Apollo 8, Apollo 10, 11,12, 13, 14,15, 16 and 17 for details — and six of those threw in lunar landings.”
Nonsense. If you cannot see the difference between a NASA only mega budget Apollo style fly by and a mix NASA/private fly by that’s too bad.
@common sense June 9th, 2010 at 12:25 pm – Nonsense? ROFLMAO why bother, especially using NASA personnel in when in out years discretionary budgets will be decreasing more and more. Nonsense? The President of the United States was more glib – ‘been there, done that.’
[…] Bolden and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, has been meeting to develop a plan to spend that money; at a public meeting in Orlando earlier this month Bolden said that $30 million would be used for regional economic growth and the other $10 million […]
Having spoken with folks at SpaceX, they are only but narcissistic disciples of Musk. Everything and everything is a constant “we are revolutionizing the industry, and everyone else is old space and backwards/slow”. It is never ending, and one gets the impression that they are insecure and have to talk down on everyone else in order to make themselves feel good. I won’t go their route, I do acknowledge some stuff they are doing is pretty neat. That said, the arrogance stinks, and Musk is his own worst enemy. If anything goes wrong from now on, SpaceX is over. I believe they will have very few folk that sympathize with their demise — and again, the fault is only theirs. Anyway, visit the facilities sometime, they are basically hiring new graduates with BS degrees to work 100h/weeks until they burn out, and then they bring in more people. One has to wonder how much money would have been saved if they’d actually brought in some top-notch engineers and treated them as people.