Congress

Oberstar loses

Of interest to NewSpace advocates: longtime Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) lost to Republican newcomer Chip Cravaack in the early morning hours today. Oberstar was going for a 19th term in the House. He is best known in space circles for leading the opposition six years ago to the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (CSLAA) in the House, citing concerns about enabling a “tombstone mentality” for commercial spaceflight. In 2005 he introduced legislation to try and roll back some of the provisions of the CSLAA, but that legislation went no where and he had since not been actively involved in commercial spaceflight legislation or regulation. There had been some concerns two years ago that he would have another shot to take action on the industry, had he so desired, as Secretary of Transportation, but he decided to remain in Congress. Few commercial spaceflight advocates, though, will likely be mourning his defeat.

78 comments to Oberstar loses

  • I for one, have ZERO faith in commercial space doing anything worthwhile. This movement of getting the U.S. government “out of the way”, so that commercial space companies can “deliver the goods”, is a prescription for wholesale stagnation with regard to getting out of Low Earth Orbit. All these corporations will deliver will be access to LEO, and nothing more. Further decades will be wasted & squandered in servicing LEO space stations. When 2020 gets here, the ISS will simply be extended again; and not one iota of progress will have been made to getting the nation back into deep space. This commercial space craze is going to get us nowhere! What these hobbyists & rank amateurs have to offer is another twenty-year extention of the LEO merry-go-round.

  • amightywind

    Oberstar lost because he was a cynical, corrupt partisan who finally brought home an earmark that the north country clearly did not want, nationalized healthcare. He also voted for Cap and Trade which was damaging to the mining industry there. ‘Commercial space’ proponents shouldn’t take much heart in his defeat. Tea Partiers have a healthy dislike the crony capitalism that characterizes Newspace.

    As for these postings. It is hard to find a democrat involved with NASA that did not lose. Giffords, I guess, but they are still counting.

  • reader

    I for one, have ZERO faith in commercial space doing anything worthwhile.
    Uhoh .. ever heard of comsats ?

  • Doug Lassiter

    “It is hard to find a democrat involved with NASA that did not lose.”

    Not that hard.

    Half of the democrats on the House Science Space & Aero subcommittee retained their seats. Most of the democrats on House Approps/Commerce subcommittee remain. Democrats on the NASA-relevant Senate subcommittees are pretty much the same.

  • I for one, have ZERO faith in commercial space doing anything worthwhile.

    Is there some reason we should care what you have faith in?

  • aremisasling

    “Tea Partiers have a healthy dislike the crony capitalism that characterizes Newspace.”

    Really? NewSpace is characterized by crony capitalism? Somehow competed pay-for-performance investment into a variety of comapnies (in both new and established companies, I might add) is somehow more like crony capitalism than seemingly limitless funds and time for one vehicle made by a handful of companies? I’m sorry, but Cx was the one of the worst examples of shoveling large sums of money toward companies that never delivered. Orion is the only piece that had any hope of flying and thankfully we kept it. But the money we spent on that one mostly successful program is dwarfed by the spending on the potemkin Ares I rocket.

  • Byeman

    Tea Partiers have a greater dislike for large gov’t run programs like Constellation.

    This movement of getting the U.S. government “out of the way”, so that commercial space companies can “deliver the goods”, is a perfect solution to allow NASA to concentrate on getting out of Low Earth Orbit.

    There, fixed both posts.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Chris Castro wrote @ November 3rd, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    Commercial are aimed at doing LEO crew with NASA as a customer. They’ve never lead the way into BEO other than providing launch services at this stage however they have provided proposals for BEO missions using existing EELV’s.
    Commercial have supported NASA in all it’s objectives. To say otherwise is simply lying.
    The US government and it’s partners decides where the ISS goes not NASA and the US government decides what programs NASA is to undertake. Corporations have no say in the matter.
    That said, maybe NASA should simply put out a fixed price contract with basic requirements and milestones for: HLV, LEO fuel storage facility, LEO service tug, BEO spacecraft, Lunar Human Complex. The list goes on but the results may be interesting.

    And Windy, got lost in the rhetoric after the word ‘Oberstar’. No sense in that post whatsoever but then that’s nothing new.

    My $0.02 worth.

  • It’ll be great for the future of manned DEEP spaceflight, for all these Democrats to lose in Congress! All those wishy-washy Obama liberals are NOT to be trusted, when it comes to keeping America great, and getting the country to do majestic things in the space arena. Barack Obama destroyed NASA’s sense of definite direction, when he moved to wrecking-ball Project Constellation. John McCain would never have destroyed the Return-to-the-Moon initiative, had he made it to the Presidency! The vision of U.S. astronauts returning Moonward, with the new game plan of expanding surface operations & emplacing base modules there, would’ve fit finely with the patriotic concept of the nation rising to acheive greatness. The sooner Mr. Obama & his cronies are out of office, the sooner it’ll be, for true spacefaring to begin. There was NOTHING wrong with having the Moon as our prime intermediate goal! This quest should be restored, once a new Republican gets to the White House.

  • Anne Spudis

    This Nov 3, 2010 Houston Chronicle article offers an overview of the midterm election as it pertains to NASA and other committees.

    ————-

    Texas congressional delegation likely to wield power

    [Excerpt] WASHINGTON — Texas stands to gain enormous clout on Capitol Hill, with the Republican takeover of the House potentially catapulting as many as five senior Lone Star State lawmakers into chairmanships of powerful committees.

    (snip)

    “It is both very positive and very rare for a single state to have so many members in line for committee chairmanships,” says James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. “The results of this election are very significant for Texas.”

    A Houston Chronicle analysis of potential committee assignments shows the post-election switch from Democratic to Republican leadership vastly augmenting Texans’ hand in writing legislation and controlling the dollars for programs affecting the nation’s space program, next phases of energy development and attempted GOP repeal of Democrats’ health care overhaul.

    “It’s not some Beltway fiction that committee chairs have power,” says Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “They’re in the room when the decisions are made.”

    [snip]

    Overall, the GOP takeover of the House puts Texas Republicans in contention to lead five of the House’s 25 standing committees and as many as 12 of the 102 House subcommittees.

    (snip)

    Among them:

    Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall: the popular 87-year-old Republican from Rockwall who has been in Congress for 30 years and ranks first in seniority among Texas 32 House members, is in line to lead the House Committee of Science and Technology, which has jurisdiction over the nation’s $19 billion-a-year space program and the multibillion medical science industry dear to Houston’s heart.

    (snip)

    A dozen other Texans could be in line to take over leadership of House subcommittees where they’ve been serving as ranking Republicans. They include Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, to lead the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over NASA; Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, a former federal prosecutor to lead a subcommittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security; and Brady, in line to chair the House Ways and Means panel on trade. [End Excerpt]

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7278109.html

  • NASA Fan

    “It’s not some Beltway fiction that committee chairs have power,” says Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “They’re in the room when the decisions are made.”

    The scrum that is our election process, for control of the House and Senate is indeed significant for those that wield chairmanships of appropriation committees. NOT because it will make a difference for our country, but it lets them write legislation and send money to places and people that will enable their re-election.

    Too bad NASA is caught up in this scrum; look for nothing to change much and wheels to continue to spin and go no where for HSF.

  • Paul D.

    I for one, have ZERO faith in commercial space doing anything worthwhile.

    So, as humanity expands out into the solar system, you believe it will be entirely a government-run enterprise? Our future in space is 100% socialist to the appropriately named Mr. Castro.

    If this is not your position, Chris, why is now not the time for commercial entities to contribute? Particularly when they have already demonstrated a much higher results-per-dollar ratio than the NASA space bureaucracy?

  • byeman

    “John McCain would never have destroyed the Return-to-the-Moon initiative, had he made it to the Presidency!”

    He wouldn’t have had to, CxP collapsed on itselft

  • Ben Joshua

    Thanks to NASA TV and NASA EPOXI, I just got to visit (via outstanding pix, of course) comet Hartley 2, and see the reaction of the scientists and controllers as the first pix came in.

    This reminds me that great things can come in small packages, and even if grand plans for HSF are deferred by the coming budget cuts, exploration is still possible robotically. The Hartley 2 images are a wow for any space enthusiast, and speak to the amazing natural wonders waiting to be seen by us quarrelsome humans.

    Anyone for a robotic mission to Mars’ moons, Europa or any number of largely unknown locations? If HSF BEO is just too expensive for the moment, why not slip a few more affordable and public-wowing robotic missions into the budget instead?

  • Dennis Berube

    Mankinds expansion into the solar system will be helped with commercial. If Bigelow accomplishes what he wants to do, mankind will make great strides. However I think the first moves into deep space must and will be made by government programs. They must work in tandem. The government side to the coin must push science ahead. Whether that be from a military standpoint, or purely scientific, it must finance such enterprises. Mars awaits, and I am for the one way direct colonization of Mars, ASAP.

  • MichaelC

    “a perfect solution to allow NASA to concentrate on getting out of Low Earth Orbit.”

    It sounds good except for that HLV thing. There are some (like me) who firmly believe that heavy lift is the only way to achieve BEO missions- and the HUNDREDS of launches required using low throw vehicles is not practical at all.

    This view is always hammered by the regulars here but in fact, the radiation problem, which requires hundreds if not thousands of tons of shielding depending on crew size, makes HLV’s a prerequisite. Not only the shielding, but also the requirement for nuclear propulsion since chemical propulsion is hopeless when talking about such massive payloads.

    It is always the same blah blah blah counter arguments; and they do not hold water. Not moon water anyway.

  • Martijn Meijering

    1. hundreds of launches are not necessary with EELVs
    2. hundreds of launches are no more impractical than hundreds of truck rides
    3. shielding is easily divisible
    4. nuclear propulsion is not necessary (see the IAS study or use a bleeping delta-v chart)
    5. nuclear propulsion works just fine with EELV-sized launchers

    It is always the same blah blah blah counter arguments

    The above are sound arguments and you have previously been unable to poke any holes in them.

  • Vladislaw

    Michael if you logic was sound, it would be also be sound on terra firm. Why use 1000 loads of concrete from a 10 yard cement truck when if we could just build SUPER cement trucks and we would only need one load.

    The answer is simple, the bigger you get the more problems and expense you create. How do you move around the huge parts for a 500 ton heavy lift like sea dragon? You can’t use roads, you can’t use trains, you can’t use planes and are left with digging canels and using waterways. Not vary practical in today’s U.S.. We use 18 wheelers to move billions of tons of cargo in 20-35 ton loads. It will be same in space, we will build, transport, launch and assemble 20-35 ton modules up there as well.

    Look at all our bridges, dams, sky scrapers, sports stadiums, et cetera, all done in small loads but look at the end results. Now carry that into space and look what we can do there with small loads… once we make up our minds to do it.

  • Martijn Meijering

    since chemical propulsion is hopeless when talking about such massive payloads

    Chemical vs nuclear has nothing to do with the size of the payloads, but with the delta-v involved since the mass of the required propellant is proportional to the mass of the payload. If you want to trade delta-t against delta-v, then nuclear (probably NEP, not NTR) will help you do that. Heavier payloads simply mean more propellant, which is no problem at all if you use propellant transfer.

  • MichaelC

    “It will be same in space, we will build, transport, launch and assemble 20-35 ton modules up there as well.”

    No way. It is not “the same” in space.

  • Vladislaw

    It’s not the same in space? You mean they launched the ISS as a single unit in one launch? Gosh I must have missed that one launch.

  • mr. mark

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Spacex and new space needs investors and champions such as Richard Branson and Meg Whitman If say Spacex can get someone like Branson to help with funding a commercial capsule in return for leasing services, Spacex would not need as many NASA dollars. If Meg would have put her money into Spacex she most likely would of had a better return on her investment instead of going home empty handed.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    This view is always hammered by the regulars here but in fact, the radiation problem, which requires hundreds if not thousands of tons of shielding depending on crew size, makes HLV’s a prerequisite.

    If you’re talking about some program 25-50 years down the road, then I would agree that by then we’ll need an ability to move large amounts of mass to our construction factories in space.

    But that is then, and this is now. There are no funded payloads for an HLV, only unfunded wishes. Any money we spend building an HLV will detract from money we can use to build & launch real space hardware.

    We don’t even know what problem an HLV is supposed to solve, other than some mythical “bigger is better” theory. That was working out so well on Constellation…

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Mars awaits, and I am for the one way direct colonization of Mars, ASAP.

    Were you volunteering a grandchild, or do you think we should just send “the undesirables” (whosever definition that may be)?

    Besides, in the whole scheme of things, one way missions will probably end up being a significant fraction of two-way missions, so you might was well go all the way.

    And actually, one-way missions are really just expensive versions of our current robotic precursor missions, so why not just send vastly more (and more capable) robotic missions? A hundred robot explorers can probably do a lot more than four slowly dying astronauts…

  • common sense

    @ Dennis Berube wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    “Mars awaits, and I am for the one way direct colonization of Mars, ASAP.”

    Too many sci-fi movies/books/cartoons? Or simply suicidal? What the heck would you do on Mars?

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    Agreed. Peppering Mars with increasingly sophisticated robotic probes charged with a variety of functions seems a much wiser use of dwindling, limited resources while challenging the technical community to expand th capabilities of these probes in many fields of science for the next quarter century or so. There’s just no reason to send people out there yet. And closer to home, some savvy commerical-minded entrapreneurs could easily pepper the moon with cheap, disposable roving probes bristling with cameras with the capacity to be controlled by joystick from laptops worldwide– and charge customers by the hour for the amusement. American human space exploration is pretty much over- it’s half century run bookended by the last shuttle flight next summer. There’s just no need for perpetuating the luxury of a Cold War relic in the Age of Austerity.

  • MichaelC

    “Heavier payloads simply mean more propellant, which is no problem at all if you use propellant transfer.”

    No way. It is a big problem. No cryogenic propellants have ever been transfered in space, or even stored for more than a score of hours.

    You see this is the problem; all these solutions you regulars have for the problems that an HLV would solve do not exist- they are decades down the road even if they can be solved. I am not optimistic about storing liquid hydrogen for any amount of time in space- centaur proved it is extremely difficult to handle in zero G.

    The regulars will not admit any of these problems and just say the same thing over and over again.

    Those hot 5 segment SRBs are ready to go.

  • MichaelC

    “It’s not the same in space? You mean they launched the ISS as a single unit in one launch? Gosh I must have missed that one launch.”

    Well Gosh gee whilikers, I guess that station is the perfect example of assembling things in space- it was soooooo cheap.

    Do you have any idea how much that thing cost? How long it took to build? It does not even have a nuclear reactor or any shielding for BEO. No closed loop life support for multi-year missions. No propulsion system worthy of the name.

    But I guess that does not matter to people who only see what they want to see.

  • MichaelC

    “Chemical vs nuclear has nothing to do with the size of the payloads, but with the delta-v involved since the mass of the required propellant is proportional to the mass of the payload.”

    Double talk

    Simply stated, you can have battlestar galactica filled with chemical propellant or a spaceship a tenth of the size using nuclear propulsion. To carry the shielding, reactors, and life support system for a multi-year mission would require an oil tanker sized spaceship if chemical propellants are used.

  • Byeman

    “But I guess that does not matter to people who only see what they want to see.”

    Perfect description of HLV pumpers.

    You see, this is the problem, HLV pumpers have no payloads nor money for their vehicle. They state that HLV will solve problems. The issue is that there are no problems for HLV to solve, it only will create them, with its high cost and infrequent flights.

    Basically, michaelC, you don’t know what you are talking about.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Chris Castro wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 1:35 am

    John McCain would never have destroyed the Return-to-the-Moon initiative, had he made it to the Presidency!

    there is no hard data to support that statement.

    To continue Cx was going to require more money (as even its cheerleaders here admit), a lot more money…and since McCain would have inherited the same floundering economy from Bush the last that Obama did…it is hard to see the politics of asking for an increase in space exploration for a very few, when many are losing almost everything on Earth.

    What is a possible “alternative” history is that McCain and whoever he got to run NASA would have come up with an alternative plan about how to return to the Moon, one that could be done on the dollars NOW available…but that assumes two important things.

    1. That the dollars now, the ones that are hoped for in this years maybe budget are not reduced in some deficit cutting effort

    2. That someone else in charge of NASA could have put together a program to return to the moon on those dollars.

    Even if both are possible, it is clear that Cx was not going to be that program…and any change that did not include the same players would have faced the same headwinds.

    The odds are very good that a McCain administration would this instant be still facing a declining economy. The one event that Obama has done on the economy that I think a McCain administration would have done differently, is that the stimulus (and there would have been a stimulus) would have been directed differently.

    I am good friends (Whittington has met him) with one of the people who formed McCain’s “economic” team (as well as part of his campaign inner circle) and they were clearly thinking along the lines of a stim package about the same size as the one Obama had.

    What probably would have been different is that there would have been less money directed at saving the various states (including Texas) that are running red ink, and more directed at true infrastructure programs….

    of course that begs the question where the economy would be if the states that were not bailed out were going insolvent.

    It is hard to see the economy much different under a McCain administration. There are just hard times ahead, after decades of bad federal (andother) spending. BTW I voted for McCain and have been a McCain supporter since the mid 90’s…(not so much now).

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    To carry the shielding, reactors, and life support system for a multi-year mission would require an oil tanker sized spaceship if chemical propellants are used.

    Please actually quantify that – how much lift, how much mass, etc.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    I am not optimistic about storing liquid hydrogen for any amount of time in space

    You need to do more reading. Lockheed Martin and Boeing, as well as their joint venture ULA, have looked into this. Here are two excerpts from their paper called “Affordable Exploration Architecture 2009″:

    The proposed lunar architecture is based around a common propulsion stage derived from an upper stage being developed by ULA. Shown in Figure 2, it is called ACES (Advanced Common Evolved Stage) and is expected to replace the three existing cryogenic upper stages presently being used at ULA. Containing 41 mT of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen it is powered by four RL10 class engines. ACES builds on over 200 flights of Centaur and Delta, fusing technologies from both programs: sharing the Delta IV 200” tank diameter but with a common/nested intermediate bulkhead. ACES uses tank geometry, low conductivity tank structures, passive thermal protection and vapor cooling to suppress cryogenic propellant loss to boil- off.

    and

    Propellant loss rates in LEO are suppressed using passive TPS. The depot is designed to primarily boil-off and vent GH2 due to its factor of 10 higher thermal capacitance than GO2. This vent GH2 is used in LEO to satisfy the substantial station keeping requirements. Indeed with a well designed TPS the boil-off and station keeping needs are nearly balanced resulting in minimal loss.

    With its far lower heating rate the depot at L2 can establish near-zero boiloff losses- amounting to a few pounds per day which also nearly matches the minimal station keeping requirements at the quasi stable L2.

    Notice the difference between heating that occurs in LEO (with reflective radiation from the Earth) and L2. And how do you correct for the boil-off rates? Add more H2 to the shipment – easy.

    The other minor detail that you ignore is that there are other ways to transport Oxygen and Hydrogen, and this was part of the discussion at the just concluded Space Study Institute’s Space Manufacturing 14 conference. That other way? As water! It’s compact, no special handling required, and no boil-off.

    We need to learn how to transport, transfer and store every type of consumable we’ll ever need in space, so we might as well start with fuel, which we’ll need the most of. Thinking that ever larger rockets will somehow obviate the need for that is just plain ignorance of reality.

  • Ferris Valyn

    No way. It is a big problem. No cryogenic propellants have ever been transfered in space, or even stored for more than a score of hours.

    You see this is the problem; all these solutions you regulars have for the problems that an HLV would solve do not exist- they are decades down the road even if they can be solved. I am not optimistic about storing liquid hydrogen for any amount of time in space- centaur proved it is extremely difficult to handle in zero G.

    Then use storables. simple enough problem (and I would actually like to see that claim about only a few hours quantified – exactly how long, what mission)

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    Do you have any idea how much that thing [the ISS] cost? How long it took to build?

    Yes, everyone does, but you’re drawing the wrong conclusions (or you’re not aware of the basic facts).

    My background is manufacturing, and the first item you produce of a new product is always the most expensive one, since it took all your efforts to produce it. But after that, you have the designs, knowledge and tooling in place, and building more costs far less for follow-on production.

    Now imagine if we had to field a new family of larger diameter space payloads to justify the need for an HLV – building that new family of space hardware is going to be very expensive, for the same reasons the ISS was initially expensive. And if anything, because the larger payloads would be more integrated (that’s what HLV proponents say is good), more integration takes lots more time on the ground. The costs will be significantly higher for HLV payloads that perform the same functions as the current ISS family of modules.

    Concerning the length of time that it took to build the ISS, part of that delay was caused by our partners (i.e. Russia’s lack of proper funding) and the shutdown of the Shuttle program after the loss of Columbia. For the Shuttle part of the lessons learned, we now know that the Shuttle was extremely expensive to use as a bulk cargo carrier, and that existing launchers could do the same job for 1/5 the price, and less delay after a loss of vehicle event.

    If we want to build another ISS, we can do it today with existing launchers, and for probably 1/3 to 1/2 the original cost. If want to build even more, the costs will continue to drop accordingly.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    Simply stated, you can have battlestar galactica filled with chemical propellant…

    You are the one that keeps arguing for large rockets. And I don’t know of anyone on this forum that is stating to only use chemical rockets for BEO transportation. I personally think that electro-magnetic thrusters will be the main BEO engines, but we still need to figure out their power sources, or, be content with long voyages. There is no magic here…

    I think nuclear propulsion is much further off, and certainly is far from getting any funding.

  • Ben Joshua

    “Those hot 5 segment SRBs are ready to go.”

    Hmm…

  • Martijn Meijering

    Simply stated, you can have battlestar galactica filled with chemical propellant or a spaceship a tenth of the size using nuclear propulsion.

    Neither would be a problem with commercial launchers. And with use of dense propellants and Lagrange point refueling the spaceship wouldn’t have to be extraordinarily large, at least not on account of its propellant tanks.

    To carry the shielding, reactors, and life support system for a multi-year mission would require an oil tanker sized spaceship if chemical propellants are used.

    No it doesn’t. And we’ve been over the arguments before. Use Lagrange point refueling, use dense propellants if necessary, use multiple departure stages.

  • Martijn Meijering

    And I don’t know of anyone on this forum that is stating to only use chemical rockets for BEO transportation.

    It can be done, if you restrict it to crew, see the IAS study. It avoids the need for (but not the use of) nuclear propulsion, heavy lift or even the technologies Dallas Bienhoff says are “necessary” for reusable cis-lunar transport.

  • Martijn Meijering

    No way. It is a big problem. No cryogenic propellants have ever been transfered in space, or even stored for more than a score of hours.

    Storable propellants on the other hand have been. And I don’t think even the biggest skeptics doubt that this can be done with at least LOX or methane, it just adds some uncertainty to R&D costs and schedule, but it isn’t a show stopper. Hydrogen is more difficult, as even the most ardent of its supporters will admit, but not to the degree there is serious doubt it will work eventually. And there is good reason to believe it might work reasonably soon.

  • Paul D.

    No way. It is a big problem. No cryogenic propellants have ever been transfered in space, or even stored for more than a score of hours.

    So, nothing can ever be done for the first time, at least if it’s something you don’t like the implications of. Selective timidity is special.

    One wonders how nuclear thermal rockets are supposed to stop at Mars (or send astronauts back to Earth) if their propellants cannot be stored for more than “a score of hours”. Or is the proposal to use ammonia in NTRs? The Isp for that would only be a bit higher than chemical rockets.

    Of course, one wonders what the point of going out into the solar system at all is, if something as elementary as transferring a cryogenic liquid from one tank to another is going to be beyond us.

  • Don’t try to confuse people with logic, Paul. It’s mean.

  • MichaelC

    “Basically, michaelC, you don’t know what you are talking about.”

    I don’t think you know what I am talking about.

    “-we’ve been over the arguments before. Use Lagrange point refueling, use dense propellants if necessary, use multiple departure stages.”

    Yes we have, and I have pointed out these Byzantine evolutions you are talking about greatly increase the probability of mission failure. Keep it simple stupid.

    “You are the one that keeps arguing for large rockets. And I don’t know of anyone on this forum that is stating to only use chemical rockets for BEO transportation. I personally think that electro-magnetic thrusters will be the main BEO engines, but we still need to figure out their power sources, or, be content with long voyages. There is no magic here…”

    HLV’s are not what I was talking about. You regulars love to misconstrue and restate anything you disagree with. Uh-huh, you go ahead and figure out that power source Ron. And while you are talking to Harry Potter about it ask him about the radiation shielding to.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Yes we have, and I have pointed out these Byzantine evolutions you are talking about greatly increase the probability of mission failure.

    There’s nothing Byzantine about them. Departing straight from LEO with a giant EDS is a stupid idea, with lots of problems. So is throwing away a billion dollar spacecraft every mission, or a multi-billion dollar giant MTV.

    Also, the probability of mission failure isn’t increased at all, let alone greatly increased. That’s the 1-(1-p)^n myth again. If you have propellant that doesn’t boil off (or is managed appropriately), then losing a single flight (especially a propellant flight) isn’t a big deal. And we’ve discussed that before too.

  • MichaelC

    “-if something as elementary as transferring a cryogenic liquid from one tank to another is going to be beyond us.”

    Your mistake is assuming it is “elementary.” It is not like your high school science lab.

  • I have pointed out these Byzantine evolutions you are talking about greatly increase the probability of mission failure.

    Just because you point something out doesn’t make it true. In fact, the empirical evidence would indicate that the correlation is actually negative.

  • MichaelC

    “you’re drawing the wrong conclusions (or you’re not aware of the basic facts).”

    I have done nothing but state the basic facts over and over again and been told there is no problem. It will all be so easy without a HLV.

    Your position is ridiculous.

    BEO will be an incredibly difficult show even with HLV’s. The regulars here exercise so much cognitive dissonance I am surprised there is not talk of fusion reactors next year and warp drive. For the umpteenth time;

    Cosmic radiation ( 5 feet of water all around as shielding= hundreds of tons)
    Zero G debilitation (Tether generated artificial gravity)
    Life support (closed loop for multi-year missions)
    Mutated Pathogens (The first three prevent this fourth problem)
    Power requirements (Nuclear Reactors required for BEO)
    Propulsion (Some form of Nuclear Propulsion)

    Assembly in orbit of a spaceship like this in 25 ton pieces is a fools dream.
    For all his faults, what’s is name was absolutely correct about needing a minimum of 150 tons of lift. 12 such HLV missions a year would require well over 70 missions per year from smaller launchers.

    It is obvious the regulars here do not understand some basic facts, do not know what they are talking about, are confused by logic, are selectively timid about facing reality, etc. etc. etc.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Your mistake is assuming it is “elementary.” It is not like your high school science lab.

    Then substitute “fundamental” for “elementary” .

  • Martijn Meijering

    For the umpteenth time;

    You can repeat these arguments as often as you wish, but none of them require an HLV. On top of that, you don’t need nuclear propulsion. That’s not to say it couldn’t be useful although I have doubts abouts NTR, NEP seems more promising. Have you actually read the IAS study?

  • MichaelC

    “Departing straight from LEO with a giant EDS is a stupid idea, with lots of problems.”

    I did not say that- you did. Add putting words in people’s mouths to misconstruing and restating. I am talking about the same thing you are- building a spaceship in orbit. The difference is you are proposing an impractical number of launches and what I am proposing would actually work.

    “In fact, the empirical evidence would indicate that the correlation is actually negative.”

    You have no facts, no empirical evidence to correlate. Everything you are talking about at this point concerning refueling and smaller launchers is ……an advertising powerpoint. Big words do not equal reality. As I said, you guys have no solutions to the real problems that I listed.

    If you were not doing what I think you are doing then you would be willing discuss the merits of both paths. But my suspicion is this is about business, not space exploration, and you guys are just pushing a product line and trying to eliminate competition. Whether you are doing this consciously or are just gullible pawns does not matter.

    What matters is people come to this site looking for information and they are getting a load of bullhockey.

  • MichaelC

    “Have you actually read the IAS study?”

    I am pretty sure I have read it- I read everything I can get my hands on about this stuff. But please send me a link and I will review.

    It will probably only give me more ammo.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The difference is you are proposing an impractical number of launches and what I am proposing would actually work.

    There’s nothing impractical about it, at the rate EELVs were designed for it would take maybe two years to launch all payloads. Launch capacity is not a real constraint.

    But my suspicion is this is about business, not space exploration, and you guys are just pushing a product line and trying to eliminate competition.

    Eliminate competition? The whole idea is not to take sides as you would have to do with SDLV, but to let the market sort it out. That’s the precise opposite of what you are saying.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 5th, 2010 at 11:17 am

    For all his faults, what’s is name was absolutely correct about needing a minimum of 150 tons of lift.

    You keep stating that 25 tons is not enough, although that was plenty big enough to build the ISS. And now you state that 150 tons is just right, although that implies that 100 tons would still be too small, and 200 tons would probably be too big. What brand of Ouija board do you use?

    People that want HLV’s are guessing as to what they will be used for. That is no way to spend $Billions of dollars.

    In the commercial marketplace, new standards are chiefly demanded by a pain the marketplace. Examples of ever larger vehicles do exist, such as oil tankers, and that is a good example of where the market had a demonstrated need, and could calculate the reduced costs/improved profits of a larger solution.

    But we’re not there yet for space payloads. The only dependable market for payloads to space is satellites, and they are quite happy with the current generation of launchers. Heck, SpaceX hasn’t even been able to sign up any customers for it’s 35 ton Falcon 9 Heavy, despite it’s record-breaking low cost of $95M ($2,210/lb to GEO).

    HLV proponents tend to only look at the marginal cost of a mythical HLV, forgetting how much it was costing NASA just to develop Ares I, which only carried 27 tons to LEO. HLV also ignore the little issue of getting NASA to pay the $Billions it will cost for HLV payloads, none of which exist as a program or even a near-term proposal.

    In a political climate where government will be forced to scale back, it’s hard to see that more money will somehow be given to NASA for no reason other than to satisfy the needs of “Moon/Mars First” groupies. Large structures and huge expeditions, and any other HLV grand plans, will have to wait until we can afford them.

  • Martijn Meijering

    But please send me a link and I will review.

    The Next Steps In Exploring Deep Space
    A Cosmic Study by the International Academy of Astronautics
    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/AdvisoryGroupReports/iaa_report.pdf

    I got the abbreviation wrong, it’s IAA, not IAS.

  • Martijn Meijering

    As I said, you guys have no solutions to the real problems that I listed.

    If that were true you could try to answer at least one of my bullet points above. But you can’t. The discussion stops because you refuse to discuss our counterarguments to your hypothetical problems. You simply restate them as if nothing had happened.

  • byeman

    “What matters is people come to this site looking for information and they are getting a load of bullhockey.”

    And MichaelC is one of the sources of it.

    “It is obvious the regulars here do not understand some basic facts, do not know what they are talking about, are confused by logic, are selectively timid about facing reality, etc. etc. etc.”

    MichaelC is guilty of this.

    Reality. NASA does not need an HLV, it can not afford the cost of HLV size payloads nor the cost of developing an HLV. Hence is it more logical (here is the reality part that you seem to not grasp) to use existing systems and explore incrementally.

  • byeman

    Here is one of the many fallacies in MichaelC’s arguments.

    “Cosmic radiation ( 5 feet of water all around as shielding= hundreds of tons)
    Zero G debilitation (Tether generated artificial gravity)
    Life support (closed loop for multi-year missions)
    Mutated Pathogens (The first three prevent this fourth problem)
    Power requirements (Nuclear Reactors required for BEO)
    Propulsion (Some form of Nuclear Propulsion)”

    NASA doesn’t have nor will it get the money for the above, therefore an HLV is not needed for many years.

    Nobody is saying that HLVs are never needed but not for decades. Lunar exploration does not need HLV’s.

  • common sense

    @ byeman wrote @ November 5th, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    “Nobody is saying that HLVs are never needed but not for decades. Lunar exploration does not need HLV’s.”

    What is really missing is “imagination”, not an HLV. We need some people to figure within the current political context, and future, what NASA needs to do to accomplish its mission. Or maybe we need to change its mission? We keep putting the carriage before the horses and it will always, ALWAYS, fail. Requirements MUST come first, not last. We still operate NASA under a Cold War mentality/perspective, a long gone war. How about we rethink NASA and the Space Act. Why don’t we try and come up with a plan for NASA that is based on current issues and beneficial to the public, not the 1958 public but the 2010 public and beyond? Why? Until then we will debate HLVs, SD or not, and other meaningless proposals since they cannot be adequately funded.

    Oh well…

    “Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions.”
    http://thinkexist.com/quotes/albert_einstein/

  • MichaelC

    a load of bullhockey.”

    “And MichaelC is one of the sources of it.”

    I AM psychic! I knew you would post that.

    As for answering bullet points; I don’t have to answer any of your arguments. Do you understand that?

    The onus is on you to tell me how you are going to equip a human being to survive in deep space, not how I am going to make it happen with your wrong headed schemes.

  • MichaelC

    “other meaningless proposals since they cannot be adequately funded.”

    Same old argument. What if it is impossible to accomplish anything without a large increase in the NASA budget for HLV’s and BEO technology?

    It is impossible. You regulars do not seem to understand you cannot cross the atlantic in a rowboat. Well, you can, but what does that accomplish?

    The DOD is the problem- they are expending vast amounts of treasure blowing up illiterate tribesman with drones and smart bombs. A fraction of that is all we need to get into space and without it we will accomplish nothing.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The onus is on you to tell me how you are going to equip a human being to survive in deep space, not how I am going to make it happen with your wrong headed schemes.

    That’s not what I asked for. You said it couldn’t be done, I offered a rebuttal and now it’s your turn to point out why my solution could not work. You’re free not to answer of course, just as people will be free to draw their conclusions from that.

  • I don’t have to answer any of your arguments.

    Of course you don’t. That is, as long as you don’t care whether or not you can get anyone sensible to agree with you. So far, it’s been a pretty massive fail on your part.

  • common sense

    @ MichaelC wrote @ November 5th, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    “Same old argument. What if it is impossible to accomplish anything without a large increase in the NASA budget for HLV’s and BEO technology?”

    Well it’s called history and so far NASA never made anything after Shuttle. No bucks no Buck Rogers you know? And in the end if you cannot make do with what you’re given, believe me or not, your budget will go to zero. If you’ve ever been in a management position you should KNOW that. If not then keep dreamin’

    “The DOD is the problem- they are expending vast amounts of treasure blowing up illiterate tribesman with drones and smart bombs. A fraction of that is all we need to get into space and without it we will accomplish nothing.”

    No one, NO ONE, I believe is disputing this. What I and others keep telling YOU is that NO ONE will lower the budget at DOD for NASA!!! Or for anything else for that matter and either you are really naive or really young to believe otherwise. If I remember correctly the original budget for CEV was about $10B for LMT. The tanker contract was more like $50B, the tanker contract alone! How many people actually do you think you can make work on tanker vs CEV? GET REAL!

  • Byeman

    “The DOD is the problem”

    Wrong. NASA budget would be the same regardless of the DOD’s. Can you get that through your tiny brain?

    “The onus is on you to tell me how you are going to equip a human being to survive in deep space, ”

    No need for me to do that. There is no need for a human to survive in deep space, because there is no driving requirement for govt HSF in deep space. There is no need to the US govt to fund such missions, not now or in the future. Also, there no money for it, no now or in the near future. Hence there is no need for an HLV.

    It is not NASA’s job to colonize or even to operate outposts on the moon or mars. Let the marketplace do that.

  • Byeman

    “The onus is on you to tell me how you are going to equip a human being to survive in deep space”

    The same way you propose but the elements do not need an HLV. Just as an aircraft carrier does not need anything more than semi trucks to support its construction.

  • red

    “For all his faults, what’s is name was absolutely correct about needing a minimum of 150 tons of lift. 12 such HLV missions a year would require well over 70 missions per year from smaller launchers.”

    NASA clearly isn’t going to get enough money to launch 12 150 ton HLVs per year, especially one as expensive as the Shuttle-derived ones that have been proposed. It probably won’t get enough money to even develop such a 150 ton HLV in the first place. Even if it had the money to do that, how would it be pay for whatever is going to fill the 12 HLVs per year?

    That being the case, why bother with this dead end? Why not try something different, like trying to reduce mass to be launched (i.e. technology demos of ECLSS, more efficient propulsion, reusable in-space systems like tugs, ISRU, inflatable structures), lowering the cost of space access (i.e. commercial launch, shared launch infrastructure with other users, new launch approaches altogether, more affordable modest variants of HLV), using precursor robots to scout destinations for resources (the other side of the ISRU coin), and/or setting more achievable goals in the first place for now (i.e. instead of going to difficult destinations like Mars, go for and make the most of GEO, lunar orbit, and E-M Lagrange points for now)?

    Unlike the unaffordable mega-HLVs, some combination of these might get us to the destinations many of us want to go to for an affordable cost. Even if they don’t get us there right away, they will be useful in their own right (e.g.: developing technologies non-NASA-exploration-HSF can use, making space access cheaper for all users, science at precursor destinations). HLVs, on the other hand, are just an expensive burden until their impossible-sounding (12 mega-HLVs/year!) missions start happening.

  • That being the case, why bother with this dead end? Why not try something different, like trying to reduce mass to be launched (i.e. technology demos of ECLSS, more efficient propulsion, reusable in-space systems like tugs, ISRU, inflatable structures), lowering the cost of space access (i.e. commercial launch, shared launch infrastructure with other users, new launch approaches altogether, more affordable modest variants of HLV), using precursor robots to scout destinations for resources (the other side of the ISRU coin), and/or setting more achievable goals in the first place for now (i.e. instead of going to difficult destinations like Mars, go for and make the most of GEO, lunar orbit, and E-M Lagrange points for now)?

    Why not? Because some deep quaffers of the Apollo Cargo Cult Koolaid can’t recognize as a human exploration program anything that doesn’t look like the unaffordable Apollo.

  • MichaelC

    “HLVs, on the other hand, are just an expensive burden until their impossible-sounding (12 mega-HLVs/year!) missions start happening.”

    I have to bust you on this one buddy. The shuttle was an HLV.

    Impossible already happened.

  • MichaelC

    Over 130 times we sent about a hundred tons up on/as the shuttle.

    One failure of SRB out of over 260 firings resulting in catastrophic loss of crew.

    We should be able to add 50 tons on using 5 segment SRB’s and RS-68’s.

    By using the second stage as a skylab type wet workshop (skylab was actually a small dry workshop) we could send up a hundred missions over the next ten years.

    We have had thirty years to perfect the SRB and LH2 engine technology; it will work. Period.

    Now consider all of your newspace schemes compared to the certainty of a successful HLV.

    It is the only way we are going to explore anything besides the inside of the ISS.

    By the way, nice picture of a comet on the cover of USA today.

  • @ Robert G. Oler… On the alternative history scenario of John McCain winning the ’08 Election instead of Obama: Look boys, a President McCain would NOT have necessarily listened to the Anti-Moon people (the Planetary Society, the Mars zealots, Buzz Aldrin, & the Trekkies), so he would’ve had no pre-conceived biases about the Moon being unworthy of future manned visits. Project Constellation would’ve simply been slowed down, but NOT eliminated; and instead of a new manned landing by 2020, it might have taken till 2025 or 2028,—but by God, we would’ve finally have left LEO!! The government would’ve done the much-needed “leading of the way”, and if the commercial sector thenafter wanted to get on board with some participation, I’m sure there would’ve been plenty of room for that—if these companies could ever really get to be up to the task. What happens now, under the flim-flam man Obama, is that now there is NO escape from Low Earth Orbit, and ALL commercial space will deliver will be more ferris-wheeling around the Earth, a mere 200 miles up. The expectations for the future have plummeted, in terms of manned spaceflight. I enthusiastically await the next Republican to win the Presidency!

  • Byeman

    How many times does it have to be said, NASA does not have nor will it get the funding needed for the obscenely expensive payloads to fly on an HLV. Period.

    My period carries more credibility than yours.

    Also,”all of your newspace schemes compared to the certainty of a successful HLV. ”

    1. ULA is not new space
    2. successful HLV is not a certainty, not matter how many times you type it.
    3. NASA doesn’t have the expertise to design launch vehicles anymore

  • red

    “a President McCain would NOT have necessarily listened to the Anti-Moon people (the Planetary Society, the Mars zealots, Buzz Aldrin, & the Trekkies)”

    From the 2008 campaign:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/06/mccain-wants-a-man-on-mars.html

    McCain Wants a Man on Mars

    “McCain said ever since reading Ray Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles, “I’m intrigued by a man on Mars. I think it would excite the imagination of the American people … Americans would be very willing to do that.””

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080606111510.5jnz56gu

    McCain would like to see a man on Mars

    “Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars as part of a “better set of priorities” for NASA that would better engage the public.”

    “Project Constellation would’ve simply been slowed down, but NOT eliminated;”

    Constellation was way behind schedule. It was already on a course to get astronauts to the Moon not in 2020, but in the mid-2030’s, while devouring funding from the rest of NASA including Moon work. How much would McCain have slowed Constellation down if he was starting with that?

    “he would’ve had no pre-conceived biases about the Moon being unworthy of future manned visits.”

    Noone is saying the Moon is unworthy of future manned visits. Bolden, Garver, and other NASA officials have said again and again that they expect NASA to get astronauts to the lunar surface sooner with their original FY2011 plan than Constellation would have. Obama just said the Moon isn’t the first destination, not that the Moon wasn’t a destination. That’s entirely consistent with the Augustine Committee Flexible Path options, which do include the Moon as an option after reaching lunar orbit, E-M Lagrange points, E-S Lagrange points, and NEOs. Note that the first destinations (lunar orbit, E-M Lagrange points) are quite useful for lunar surface visits. Personally I’d move the lunar surface up a spot or 2 in that line, but that wouldn’t get to the lunar surface any faster, it would just allow more work and visits to the earlier destinations. Of course with Congress’s SLS and MPCV, all bets are off for any lunar surface or deep space visits, since those 2 items will be very expensive and put exploration technology, commercial space access, affordable versions of HLV, and robotic precursors in jeopardy.

    Even with the looming SLS and MPCV, the Moon isn’t doing too bad. Here are some missions in the U.S.:

    Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) – about the only part of the VSE that survived Constellation, doing a great job
    Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) – also did well
    Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) – development
    Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) – development
    Lunar Quest (multi-purpose NASA lunar science program for missions, technology, studies, etc) – budgeted
    ARTEMIS – 2 repurposed THEMIS spacecraft
    Google Lunar X PRIZE – from the point of view of the U.S. and NASA, 6 U.S. teams now have Innovative Lunar Demonstrations Data contracts with the agency
    MoonRise – the South Pole-Aitken Basin sample return mission is one of 3 New Frontiers finalists
    Robonaut – I don’t know if they’ll get there, but they have their sights set on the Moon
    lunar surface robotic precursor mission – the first robotic precursor mission in the Administration’s Robotic Precursor line was a lunar surface robotic precursor to test lunar ISRU, etc. I don’t know how it will do in the reduced funding world of SLS/MPCV, but it was strong in the original FY2011 budget.

    In addition to these robotic missions, lunar surface visits would benefit from most of the FY2011 exploration technology efforts that were originally planned: ISRU (starting with lunar volatiles characterization and ISRU), SEP, propellant depots, ECLSS, inflatable habitats, space tug, autonomous precision landing (probably to be tested on a lunar mission), telerobotics (first ISS and then lunar rover), etc.

  • red

    “I have to bust you on this one buddy. The shuttle was an HLV.

    Impossible already happened.”

    The shuttle is not an HLV. You can’t count the orbiter as payload – the payload is contained in the orbiter. The Shuttle is certainly not an HLV with 150 tons of lift. The Shuttle didn’t fly 12 missions per year on average. It didn’t fly 12 missions in any year. When flight rate was pushed higher, it failed. The Shuttle didn’t leave money for exploration payloads. The 150 ton HLV is in even worse shape than that since it doesn’t even exist at the moment.

  • Martijn Meijering

    “all of your newspace schemes compared to the certainty of a successful HLV”

    Propellant transfer is not a new space idea. So many “new” ideas were already dreamt of by the pioneers. Von Braun had clear ideas about the use of depots and even Tsiolkovsky wrote about it. Propellant transfer is also a proven technology.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The shuttle is not an HLV.

    I think it is clear enough that an HLV could be developed from the Shuttle reasonably straightforwardly. It is also clear enough that NASA doesn’t know how to design launch vehicles anymore, that EELV would be a better basis for a (smaller) HLV, and that HLV isn’t necessary at all. To that I would add that an HLV is actually harmful because it gets in the way of development of cheap lift.

    But other than that it’s great! ;-)

  • Vladislaw

    “it might have taken till 2025 or 2028,—but by God, we would’ve finally have left LEO!!”

    How could we have left LEO by 2028 without an EDS? There wasn’t any funding going towards it. 2028 was the estimated best case for just the Ares 1, orion, Ares V. That’s it, no EDS, no Altair lander, no lunar base, no ISRU. By 2028 all we would have been able to do is fly the Orion to the ISS.

    Oh wait, the ISS would have been deorbited by the end 2015, NASA would have been flying around in circles in the orion crew capsule from 2016 until 2035 with no space station. Ya the american taxpayer would have readlily funded that. 19 years of flying a capsule in earth orbit…lol

  • Paul D.

    “-if something as elementary as transferring a cryogenic liquid from one tank to another is going to be beyond us.”

    Your mistake is assuming it is “elementary.” It is not like your high school science lab.

    It’s “elementary” in the sense that transfer of fluids from one tank to another is a rudimentary building block of almost any industrial or commercial process.

    Ultimately, space is going to have to pay its way. That means industrial activities out there. Any industrial activity will be a web of interconnected “elementary” processes. If those elementary building blocks make us cower in fear, what chance is there that the much more complex activities of an actual mine, or refinery, or manufacturing plant, could pass muster?

    No, MichaelC, your timidity is a position against space *ever* being economically productive. You are actually arguing that manned space spending should be zero, not that heavy launch vehicles should be built.

  • Coastal Ron

    MichaelC wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    You see this is the problem; all these solutions you regulars have for the problems that an HLV would solve do not exist- they are decades down the road even if they can be solved. I am not optimistic about storing liquid hydrogen for any amount of time in space

    I’m curious – how do HLV’s solve the problem of storing Hydrogen and other consumables in space?

    Explain to us how HLV’s will supply the ISS and all the other space stations and vehicles in space with fuel and other consumables, and how they will be so much better than using the proposed fuel depot solutions.

    Maybe you just haven’t provided us enough information for us to see the advantages you see for HLV’s?

Leave a Reply to Coastal Ron Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>