Congress, NASA

Differing opinions on reducing dependence on Russia for ISS access

There’s one thing that both NASA’s leadership and key Congressional figures can agree on: none of them are particularly happy about having to rely on Russia for access to the ISS. They disagree, though, on the best way to eliminate that dependence.

NASA on Monday issued a press release about a new deal with the Russian space agency Roskosmos for Soyuz seats to the ISS, with a mouthful of a title: “NASA Extends Crew Flight Contract With Russian Space Agency Administrator Bolden Repeats Call For American-Made Commercial Alternative”. In the press release, NASA administrator Charles Bolden used the deal, which prices ISS access at a new high of $62.75 million a seat, as a reason why NASA needs to press ahead with commercial crew development. “This new approach in getting our crews and cargo into orbit will create good jobs and expand opportunities for our American economy,” he said in the statement. “If we are to win the future and out build our competitors, it’s essential that we make this program a success.”

Earlier Monday, though, The Hill published an op-ed by Congressman Ralph Hall (R-TX), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, where he argues that NASA should focus its energies—and funding—on building the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lifter and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) spacecraft, fielding both by the 2016 deadline mandated in the 2010 authorization act. “Failure to do so will result in continued reliance on the Russians’ Soyuz to transport astronauts to the International Space Station. This is unacceptable,” Hall writes. “NASA should give highest priority to developing the SLS and MPCV programs that build on the tremendous investments that have already been made in the Constellation systems.”

Commercial providers, Hall continues, should focus on transporting cargo to the ISS. “Ultimately, perhaps they will demonstrate their capability also to safely transport astronauts,” he states. “Space exploration, however, is too important to be placed at risk for failure, so we must continue to support a robust program at NASA, which has a record of success.”

110 comments to Differing opinions on reducing dependence on Russia for ISS access

  • Rep. Hall bloviated:

    “Space exploration, however, is too important to be placed at risk for failure, so we must continue to support a robust program at NASA, which has a record of success.”

    Huh?!

    Fourteen dead astronauts on Shuttle?! A five-month delay in launching STS-133?! And how many years late/over budget was the ISS?!

  • If Rep. Hall wants a NASA DIRECT rocket built, him and other pork Congress-critters need to relent from the 130 ton edict. Then Bolden can get a basic DIRECT 70 ton lift rocket built by 2017.

    But of course the real goal of the Red State NASA district coalition who want the 130 ton SD-HLV funding is the money for a jobs program. If a rocket actually gets built in the process it’s just gravy.

    And Bolden serves at the pleasure of the President, not Congress.

  • Scott Bass

    With everyone looking for a role for sls perhaps now would be a good time for proposals for multiple space based power stations. I am unversed in the feasibility of space based collection and beam down however I am familiar with how much a single Nuclear reactor cost. If Obama is really looking for his Sputnik moment then this would be a great political opportunity.

  • amightywind

    Ralph Hall is proving himself to be a friend of NASA.

    Classic Obama/Bolden politics. Use a bad deal with Russia (which they negotiated!) as justification to plunge ahead with Newspace. Obama and Bolden must realize that their political influence in space policy is on the wain and that the best way to prevent any further damage is to honor the compromises that have been made. Bolden’s mind should be filled with the SLS mission, not on Obama’s dwindling hopes of rewarding his Newspace contributers. Alas, it is not. Bolden continues to gnaw the ends of his old plots, even as his political enemies multiply in congress.

  • Dennis Berube

    this whole business of astronauts being killed, gets me. If anyone here really believes that commercial will never kill astronauts, then you are looking reality in the face. Think how many astronauts have gone to space, due to NASA. Constantly dredging up past failures, to promote commercial is rediculous. Believe me commercial will fail in the future too. What then? As to commercal having no delays, what a joke. Hasnt that already happened with SpaceX? It certainly will happen again too. Even the Russians just now have postponed a flight due to computer problems. I truly dread the day people die aboard commercial spacecraft. Wait a min. didnt Boeing build Apollo, and three astronauts died aboard Apollo 1? Then it already has happened. Danger is inherent in spaceflight, and if anyone thinks otherwise they are only fooling themselves. Nothing is 100%. Give it a rest..

  • Dennis Berube

    Forgive my typing. It should have read: If anyone here really believes that commercial will never kill astronauts, then you are NOT looking reality in the face. Im not to good at typing…. One more point, the Russians have too, lost people in the space endeavor. Its got to happen. Everyone attempts to minimize it, but it will still happen, and to commercial too.

  • Justin Kugler

    With friends like you and Hall, windy, who needs enemies?

  • Das Boese

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 6:50 am

    I found this much more nonsensical:

    “(…)NASA should focus its energies—and funding—on building the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lifter and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) spacecraft, fielding both by the 2016 deadline mandated in the 2010 authorization act. “Failure to do so will result in continued reliance on the Russians’ Soyuz to transport astronauts to the International Space Station.”

    Neither SLS (and HLVs in general) nor MPCV match the requirements for routine LEO crew transfer duty.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    It’s beginning to dawn on me that Administrator Bolden and the politicians seem to inhabit very different universes with few common features. For example, in Rep Hall’s universe, commercial crew is not an option; It possibly doesn’t even exist, hense his otherwise-nonsensical comment that every year of delay on SLS/MPCV is another year of reliance on Russia for crew launch.

    Since I cannot believe that a person canny enough to be elected to national office is so ignorant that he doesn’t know about commercial crew, what is the explanation? I think that I like the phrase I heard in a recent video about Congress’s current treatment of NASA, that was applied to commercial crew. It described SLS/MPCV as “a lack of faith-based initiative”. I have to agree that Rep. Hall certainly reflects this explanation for the situation. He cannot believe commercial crew will work, ergo it won’t work and thus does not even factor into the question of when NASA regains US-indigenous human launch capability. In his universe, MPCV is the only other crew vehicle apart from Shuttle and Soyuz on the table. All the others (even Boeing’s CST-100) are fantasies that will never fly and are thus effectively non-existant.

  • Dennis Berube wrote:

    this whole business of astronauts being killed, gets me. If anyone here really believes that commercial will never kill astronauts, then you are looking reality in the face.

    You’re making things up. Show us one post by anyone who said commercial would never kill astronauts. If you have to make things up to argue your point, then your point is very weak.

    The point I made was that Hall was lying when he said NASA has a “record of success” which is why humans should only fly on government spacecraft. Shuttle has killed fourteen astronauts and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board specifically recommended it be phased out because it’s too risky. That’s why Bush cancelled the program in 2004, effective the end of ISS construction.

  • Das Boese

    Dennis Berube wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 8:50 am

    It’s not about wether commercial providers are more or less likely to kill people (less is a more reasonable assumption though)

    The advantage of commercial crew transport with multiple providers is that, unlike with a single government system, an accident will not shut down your entire manned spaceflight prgram and leave you at the mercy of foreign launch providers (if you care about that).

  • Ben Russell-Gough wrote:

    Since I cannot believe that a person canny enough to be elected to national office is so ignorant that he doesn’t know about commercial crew, what is the explanation?

    He’s lying, to cater to a constituency who expect lifelong government jobs with high salaries and good benefits regardless of whether their skills are required any more.

    One can only imagine what he might have done a century ago when the horseless carriage was about to replace the stagecoach …

  • Dennis Berube

    Mr. kugler, we are not your enemies. We simply want NASA to continue with deep space exploration, getting us out of LEO for a change. I want commercial to succeed, believe me, but not at the expense of NASA. I do believe that the CST-100, Dragon and all the rest will probably fly and work, and that is a good thing. Multiple ways of reaching orbit, other than utilizing the Russian way, is important and should be promoted. However, it will alway remain costly, and I believe Musk will raise his prices too as he already has. Maybe not to the 62 per seat the Russians are now asking, but certainly higher than first claimed. Personally I want to see all of these options fly. The quicker the better. I do think that SpaceX should push their manned program closer to the front of the pack and fly people sooner rather than later.

  • Dennis Berube

    A question of LEO transfers! What is the life expectancy of all these ships? Is Dragon a 1 time use only vehicle, is the CST-100, etc.? I understand Orion is still a reusable vehicle, at least to some degree. What makes these vehicles reusable, just changing out the heat shield and life support consumables?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Scott Bass wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 8:10 am

    “With everyone looking for a role for sls perhaps now would be a good time for proposals for multiple space based power stations. I am unversed in the feasibility of space based collection and beam down however I am familiar with how much a single Nuclear reactor cost”

    Sadly under current cost structures a nuclear plant is well far less expensive then solar power.

    It will be interesting to see how the situation in Japan plays out…it might be that we are going to see the first city in our modern age in some difficulty.

    The situation with the reactors in Japan seems to be spinning out of control.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis Berube wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 8:50 am

    “this whole business of astronauts being killed, gets me. If anyone here really believes that commercial will never kill astronauts, then you are looking reality in the face. ”

    I cannot imagine anyone who believes that there will not be people killed in the future in spaceflight. The question is as always is it due to incompetence. Amazing you defend NASA on this

    Robert G. Oler

  • Egad

    > NASA should focus its energies—and funding—on building the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lifter and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) spacecraft,

    Ah. That means that SLS + MPCV, unlike Ares V, needs to be man/human/crew-rated, doesn’t it? How is that going to be done?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 9:11 am

    “It’s beginning to dawn on me that Administrator Bolden and the politicians seem to inhabit very different universes with few common features. For example, in Rep Hall’s universe, commercial crew is not an option;”

    Hall doesnt care about spaceflight, all he cares about is the pork for his and other districts.

    Robert G. Oler

  • While Windy blows rhetoric about Rep. Hall being a friend to NASA by ignoring a whole sector of our economy, we are providing funds for Roscosmos, who despite more rhetoric is simply a contractor for NASA.

    Without NASA the Russian manned program is nothing. Ask yourselves this; Wouldn’t we be paying the Russians anyway if we went full bore building SLS/MPCV and not funding commercial crew? What makes anyone think SLS/MPCV will get built faster, given NASA’s recent history with cost-plus contracts?

    This is just political theater, the kind that entertains folks like Windy.

  • Bennett

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote It described SLS/MPCV as “a lack of faith-based initiative”.

    I believe the credit goes to Rand for that one.

    I think that Hall’s position is an intentional blindness brought on by campaign contributions. The HLV concept being pushed by congressional porkers is based on ATK solid boosters, and I think it’s a simple as that.

    This makes windy’s claims of NewSpace favoritism (based on contributions) all the more amusing. I’d love to see a list of political contributions/gifts/favors given by ATK to our congresscritters. Even a straight up list would speak volumes.

    A real accounting of the graft would be actionable, imo.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis Berube wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 8:50 am
    ” Wait a min. didnt Boeing build Apollo, and three astronauts died aboard Apollo 1? ”

    no Boeing did not build Apollo.

    Robert

  • PT

    Another effect of the admitted (by Bolden during the CNN interview) failure to our nation of the administrator and the president.

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote-

    “Since I cannot believe that a person canny enough to be elected to national office is so ignorant”

    Remember, if candidates had to take a test to be president,
    the government would require that an ‘F’ be considered a passing
    grade.

  • VirgilSamms

    “MPCV is the only other crew vehicle apart from Shuttle and Soyuz on the table. All the others (even Boeing’s CST-100) are fantasies that will never fly and”

    He is right. Dragon- which everyone seems to think is ready to fly people, has no escape system or life support yet. The “hypergolic pusher” escape system sounds like fantasy. Does not make any sense payload wise when you can just use a tower and jettison it. Life support is a big deal when you have to keep so many people alive for two days chasing down the ISS. They are packed in tight- are they going to wear daipers?

    I think Nelson has someone telling him the truth; SpaceX is a VERY risky proposition to rely on as the only provider that can meet the deadline. I never liked that clusters last stand rocket with obsolete propellants- it seems like a cheap and nasty millionaire hobby rocket to me and maybe to alot of other people who do not idolize Musk.

    MCPV on the other hand- has an escape system ready to go and plenty of proprietary life support technology. It also has the Sidemount option. Sidemount is not the monster it is made out to be; the capsule is high up on the tank and the heat shield is protected from damage and the SRB’s are as safe as anything can be after 200+ in a row.

    Sidemount was the best option in the middle of 2009 and it still is the only vehicle that will get the U.S. back in the HSF business by 2016.

    Putting a capsule on top of Delta IV heavy; better start pouring hundreds of millions into that right now- today- if you want that to be a possibility.

    And then there is Liberty. Which could probably fly before 2016 easily. Flight data from Ares lx and the first and second stage with a “flight heritage” that nothing else in the running can come anywhere close to; besides Sidemount it is the best option.

    I would bet money that SpaceX will go belly up if they keep trying to fly astronauts. They don’t have the money and space flight is inherently expensive- there is no cheap.

  • The Russian

    The whole scary Russians arguement is overplayed by both sides. We would do doing it if we funded nothing but commercial crew, and still doing it if we funded nothing but sls.

    Its a fear tactic both sides are using and both should just stop.

    Some people here are looking silly. Windy, kugler, oler are all the same.

  • “Failure to do so will result in continued reliance on the Russians’ Soyuz to transport astronauts to the International Space Station.”

    He can’t claim ignorance for such a patently untrue statement.

    Atlas, Delta, or Falcon will be making trips to ISS long before any heavy lift.

    Meanwhile, every other space program will suffer for his vision if he’s successful. Bad political theater.

  • common sense

    Dennis, Dennis, still not doing your due diligence. All these opinions of yours and you do not even know whether this or that vehicle is designed to be reusable???? And you think you are a good supporter of NASA when you don’t know your facts?

    I’d like to see that we send SLS/Orion to ISS for crew rotation. That’d be something else. The $67M on Soyuz will look like a great deal. What is SLS $2B per launch. Assuming a crew of 6 you get the price per seat. And in the end we will have the greatest useless launchers of all, right net to Ares-1X.

    Anyway. How do you outfox people like Hall is more like what we need. And in the end I think Bolden is just doing that. He’s already told them to come back with cash if they want SLS. Let’s see next round of theater. In the mean time Russia increases their price, if they become sole provider why not? ATK did just that to us on Ares did not they? I think Russia ought to bring the price to $200M just for fun. Or maybe just under $300M. At least Congress would get used to the cost of SLS/Orion. See what Hall would say then…

  • Doug Lassiter

    amightywind wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 8:32 am

    “Classic Obama/Bolden politics. Use a bad deal with Russia (which they negotiated!) as justification to plunge ahead with Newspace.”

    I’m not sure how “classic” it is, but I think this analysis is exactly right. What better way to encourage Congress to pony up for commercial than to clearly show what we’re forced into without it. Congress has to understand that SpaceX or even ULA will get US astronauts to ISS before this notional SLV will. I don’t think this has anything to do with waning presidential influence.

  • tps

    VirgilSamms

    How is LOX/RP-1 “obsolete” propellants? Just curious…

  • Justin Kugler

    Dennis,
    My problem as an aerospace professional is that people like windy deliberately and repeatedly perpetrate falsehoods and false dichotomies. We will send crew to the ISS on an American vehicle faster with public-private partnerships, not slower. We will enable BEO exploration sooner with public-private partnerships, not later. It is grossly irresponsible for Congress to mandate that NASA build a heavy-lift rocket without a mission.

  • Vladislaw

    Dennis Berube wrote:

    “A question of LEO transfers! What is the life expectancy of all these ships? Is Dragon a 1 time use only vehicle, is the CST-100, etc”

    SpaceX has said they believe the Dragon would be reusable for about 10 flights, they are going over the data from the first one to see if that still stands.

    It looks like NASA wanted and are paying for a new Dragon for each cargo flight. This will leave SpaceX with 12 dragons paid for that they can use for either more cargo flights to a Bigelow Station or outfitted for commercial crew flights. It was a good deal for SpaceX. I have not seen anything about Boeings, but I can not imagine they would toss them away after one flight. They could be used for cargo at the very least.

  • Vladislaw

    VirgilSamms wrote:

    “He is right. Dragon- which everyone seems to think is ready to fly people, has no escape system or life support yet. The “hypergolic pusher” escape system sounds like fantasy. Does not make any sense payload wise when you can just use a tower and jettison it.”

    Actually you are the one that doesn’t make sense, explain to me how jettisoning a chunk of your space craft for a single use makes sense?

    SpaceX has said they want to do thrustered landings of dragon. If you do not have an event at launch where you have to use the pusher plate escape you now have that fuel available for powering your thrusters.

    If you use the pusher plate escape at launch you will not need landing fuel so you utilize that fuel then. NASA explored this tech before. But sense they were not going to reusing any capsule there was no need to design a reusable system. NASA prefers to throw as much of the craft away as possible it keeps more jobs in place and keeps the funding high.

  • He’s lying, to cater to a constituency who expect lifelong government jobs with high salaries and good benefits regardless of whether their skills are required any more.

    Of course he is, he has to let his voters know he’s on the job! *retch*

    Then again, how long can the Congress-critters keep from paying out the $200 million for CCDev 2? How long can the CR game last?

    The GOPer House has nothing but obstructionism, like they always have.

  • amightywind

    The whole scary Russians arguement is overplayed by both sides. We would do doing it if we funded nothing but commercial crew, and still doing it if we funded nothing but sls.

    Russia is backsliding into despotism. They have already used natural gas supplies as a weapon of statecraft in Ukraine. They occupy parts of Georgia and Japan. They have screwed foreign investors and capriciously jailed opponents of Putin. They do not belong on ISS. The US should be embarrassed about buying rides to space from them.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    “Russia is backsliding into despotism. They have already used natural gas supplies as a weapon of statecraft in Ukraine. They occupy parts of Georgia and Japan. They have screwed foreign investors and capriciously jailed opponents of Putin.”

    all these things are bad of course, but none of them are unique…and none of them are “unique” among nations we consider as “good friends”.

    (well OK “occupy parts of Georgia and Japan” might be specifically unique but occupying other people’s countries is not a unique thing…even “The US” is trying it)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Does not make any sense payload wise when you can just use a tower and jettison it.

    Except when it fails to jettison, in which case it kills you. The Orion LAS had dozens of hazards, half of which could give you a bad day on an otherwise nominal mission.

  • VirgilSamms

    “SpaceX has said they want to do thrustered landings of dragon”

    I am sure they do. And Musk wants to retire on Mars and Bigelow wants to meet the aliens. All are about as likely as anti-gravity.

  • Dennis Berube

    Wow Dragon has no launch escape system, how long has the shuttle not had one? Mr. Oler, was Russia neglect when their cosmonauts died? Accidents happen, due to whatever causes them. No doubt some of it was neglect, but it was system failures that brought these flights to an end. The shuttle O rings were known to be troublesome, yet how many astronauts chose to ride them anyway? Let me ask you, would youhave boarded Challenger that fateful morning? I think any space buff would have, if they had the opportunity. As to who built Apollo, well if I made a mistake shame on me. I couldnt remember who it was and thought it was Boeing that had a hand in our Moon program. Beleive me Im not for sending people aboard Dragon without a launch escape system, but it serves to show the risk peple will take. The constant blamingof NASA for astronaut death rates, just falls into percentages, when viewing the whole of the programs. Look at Apollo 13, a near disaster, yet NASA pulled off the rescue and no one else. My point too, is once a commercial craft leads to the crew dying, will everyone then start pointing fingers at them and say NASA is the way to go. Will the death of a crew, affect business?

  • Michael from Iowa

    They do not belong on ISS.

    Yeah, it’s not like they built two-fifths of the station or anything.

  • Egad

    > I’d like to see that we send SLS/Orion to ISS for crew rotation.

    What I’d like to see is what an SLS/Orion stack would look like if the mission were ISS crew rotation. Kinda like an Apollo-configured Saturn V without the S-IVB and LEM?

    And, by the way, I still haven’t been able to find any indication that the Orion service module is being built/designed/funded. Maybe it is, but it certainly isn’t conspicuous.

  • Dennis Berube

    Mr. Kugler, I agree with you 100%, except the government will do what it wants to. Commercial should work close to NASA, as NASA has the experience under its belt, with both its successes and failures. I hope Musk is totally successful in his bid to lower to orbit pricing, although that remains to be seen. Developing life support systems will not be cheap either. Im sure there are many sound designs on tap to be utilized at some future date. I cant see giving the Russians 60+ per seat for a trip to the ISS. That astounds me! If Musk can do it for 20 mil. lets get going. I keep seeing where he is signing contracts for spaceflights, well when is he going to start? With Russia upgrading their Soyuz, its safety has even been brought into question here of late. With the developers of the Delta and Atlas heavies, willing to man rate them, NASA should look at this option as well. Whatever gets us off the ground.

  • Dennis Berube

    Remember the X-33, again no launch escape system. It was cancelled, for what reason I dont know. If we had stayed that course, we probably would still be flying..

  • Martijn Meijering

    Then Bolden can get a basic DIRECT 70 ton lift rocket built by 2017.

    Even if that’s true, it would still be pure pork. And an SDLV that flies is more harmful to commercial manned spaceflight than one that doesn’t.

  • pathfinder_01

    Virgil:

    A life support system is available: http://www.paragonsdc.com/docs/CCT-ARS%20Press%20Release.pdf

    Also you don’t have to spend 2 days chasing down the ISS. It is possible to do same day docking. The shuttle takes 2 days because it gives more launch windows and because the shuttle has other things to do before docking to the ISS.

    Boeing is planning same day docking and I can see space X doing the same. Apollo did same day with Skylab.

    Denis:

    Orion is disposable. They had planned to be reusable but mass problems with the ARES 1 along with lunar requirements caused them to drop reusability. Also Orion seems to be down to just carring 4 now due to parachute problems .

    Space X dragon is planned to be reusable 10 times. CST100 planned to be reusable 10 times. Dream chaser reusable 20 times. Blue Origin and others unknown. Dragon, CST100 and Dream chaser all carry 7.

  • They have already used natural gas supplies as a weapon of statecraft in Ukraine.

    Why wouldn’t they? Without a world-class military anymore, any club is a good club.

    They occupy parts of Georgia and Japan. They have screwed foreign investors and capriciously jailed opponents of Putin.

    Grasping for any straw for that scarecrow Windy? LOL. You’re reaching.

    Having the Russians as ISS partners has been good policy for almost twenty years and these Soyuz as taxis treaties have been in place for just as long. These weren’t thought of over-night.

    This is just as bad as the Chinese taking over the Moon. As Oler would say “goofy.”

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Does not make any sense payload wise when you can just use a tower and jettison it.

    Except that you lose that amount of payload capability, and towers are jettisoned before orbit, so they don’t protect you through 100% of ascent – pusher-type LAS systems protect during 100% of ascent, and don’t impact payload capacity as much. Boeing just finished testing theirs, and the tests went well.

    Life support is a big deal when you have to keep so many people alive for two days chasing down the ISS.

    SpaceX has contracted with Paragon SDC to build the Dragon ECLSS, and they have already tested a high fidelity prototype of part of the system. The development will match up with the crew needs in the 2015 timeframe or so.

    MCPV on the other hand- has an escape system ready to go and plenty of proprietary life support technology.

    Orion had it’s LAS tested, but the MPCV has not been defined enough to know if the Orion LAS will be usable as-is.

    And curious enough, Paragon SDC was also making the ECLSS for Orion.

    SpaceX is a VERY risky proposition to rely on as the only provider that can meet the deadline.

    No one wants only one provider, because that would put us in the same position as depending on just SLS/MPCV – a single-point-of-failure (SPOF) situation. Everyone I know of advocates for at least two, and more funded beyond that. Try to keep the hysteria down.

    And then there is Liberty. Which could probably fly before 2016 easily.

    Delta IV Heavy is flying today, and it provides a much nicer ride for passengers. The crew upgrade option is only $1.3B, which is far less than what Liberty will spend just to create a 2nd stage using the Vulcain engine.

    I would bet money that SpaceX will go belly up if they keep trying to fly astronauts.

    That’s a wager I’ll take.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Orion LAS had dozens of hazards,”

    I don’t know what to say about someone who argues against an escape system.

    The only similar type of arguments I have heard are the people who argue about turning on their lights in the daytime on particularly dangerous roads. Or the Alaska fishermen who argued about mandatory safety equipment back in the eighties.

    It is all about having to do something you are too lazy to bother with or not wanting to spend money on. Which is exactly what you are doing.

  • VirgilSamms

    “-tested a
    high fidelity prototype of the
    core of the spacecraft’s
    Environmental Control and
    Life Support System in less
    than 10 months and with less
    than $1.5M”

    I take it back. Dragon has a life support system.

    “Orion is disposable.”
    I need a source on that please. People post alot of old info or hearsay.

  • Then Bolden can get a basic DIRECT 70 ton lift rocket built by 2017.

    Even if that’s true, it would still be pure pork. And an SDLV that flies is more harmful to commercial manned spaceflight than one that doesn’t.

    Never said it wasn’t MM, one is just a sooner type of pork to pull, lol.

  • VirgilSamms

    “an SDLV that flies is more harmful to commercial manned spaceflight than one that doesn’t.”

    Harmful? You are letting it show. Better hide that angst.

  • amightywind

    This new approach in getting our crews and cargo into orbit will create good jobs and expand opportunities for our American economy

    It is surprising statists like Bolden are so anxious to expand an economy they so readily gored after the stimulus and Obamacare. I am sure CEOs all over America are thrilled for the ‘help’ of these astute socialists businessmen. Most of us would rather see Bolden faithfully carrying out the will of congress with whom accountability for employment really lies. COTS/ISS are the high speed rail of space. No one wants them and they are a waste of money but they seemed to be a good idea at the time.

  • Bennett

    By the way, yet another member of the NewSpace/CommSpace cabal – Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne – have successfully fired the thrusters for the Boeing CST100’s Pusher Type Launch Abort System.

    http://www.pw.utc.com/Media+Center/Press+Releases/Pratt+%26+Whitney+Rocketdyne+Successfully+Hot-Fire+Tests+Launch+Abort+Demonstration+Engine+for+Boeing%27s+CST-100+Spacecraft

    So gee and wow, Dennis, I guess it’s not only possible, it’s happening as we type.

  • Egad

    > It is possible to do same day docking.

    Indeed, single/first-orbit:

    http://www.earthtothemoon.com/gemini_titan_11.html

    IIRC one of the ca. 1970 design reference missions for the Shuttle was a single-orbit rendezvous, grab and return of a satellite from polar orbit. (Obviously some sort of military mission.)

  • Martijn Meijering

    Harmful? You are letting it show. Better hide that angst.

    Harmful in that it would suck up all payloads, not harmful because it would be technically or economically superior. This is my main objection to SDLV and I have no intention of hiding it.

  • VirgilSamms

    “The engine performance was stable during the full-duration tests, achieving 52,000 to 54,000 pounds of thrust, and the hardware was in excellent condition after the tests,”

    I have to take it back. Boeing has a pusher launch abort system. I seem to be eating alot of crow all of a sudden.

  • I don’t know what to say about someone who argues against an escape system.

    And I don’t know what to say about someone who is too dim to figure out what my argument is. I am arguing against *that* escape system, not escape systems in general. Each one has to be evaluated separately.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Delta IV Heavy is flying today, and it provides a much nicer ride for passengers. The crew upgrade option is only $1.3B”

    Unfortunately the hobby rocket is getting the money, not Delta IV, which, I cannot argue, is a pretty hot bird I admire greatly.

  • common sense

    @ VirgilSamms wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    “I don’t know what to say about someone who argues against an escape system.”

    You don’t know because you don’t have the slightest idea how those things actually work and the added risk of higher complexity to a system. No you don’t indeed.

    “The only similar type of arguments I have heard are the people who argue about turning on their lights in the daytime on particularly dangerous roads. Or the Alaska fishermen who argued about mandatory safety equipment back in the eighties.”

    Well at least you honestly say this time that your reference points for a space system are “daytime running lights” and the “Alaska fishermen”. How’s this 1000 ton spaceship coming?

    “It is all about having to do something you are too lazy to bother with or not wanting to spend money on. Which is exactly what you are doing.”

    It’s about understanding or trying to understand how things work. Not reading too many Buck Rogers or Heinlein or whatever your Sci-Fi du jour.

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    “Most of us would rather see Bolden faithfully carrying out the will of congress with whom accountability for employment really lies. ”

    Yeah except for one little tiny detail. You know. Bolden works for the WH, NOT Congress.

  • John Malkin

    Has NASA changed its approach to HSF? I guess NASA hadn’t anticipated Orion/Ares I being too costly and underfunded.

    A major endeavor in the Constellation Program, is the COTS effort to spur parallel development of a cost-effective, commercial capability to carry cargo to the ISS, with future options for transporting crew. While the projects funded in the COTS budget are high risk, they represent NASA’s preferred servicing approach. Should these systems prove to be unreliable or too costly, NASA will rely on Orion and purchase of space transportation services from International Partners to meet obligations to the ISS.

    — FY08 Budget Request

  • “I don’t know what to say about someone who argues against an escape system.”

    He is not arguing against having a launch escape system. He is arguing against a top tower mounted launch escape system. A pusher system that can be used as a final deceleration before landing makes more sense. The pusher type would be used every launch, either for escape or at landing, and with a reusable capsule there would be incremental improvement in the thrusters and all other systems over time.

  • Egad

    > Pusher Type Launch Abort System

    FWIW, some of the many designs proposed for Kliper used a pusher escape system which, if not needed for escape, would have been used for orbital insertion:

    http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper_history.html

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis Berube wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    “Wow Dragon has no launch escape system, how long has the shuttle not had one? Mr. Oler, was Russia neglect when their cosmonauts died? Accidents happen, due to whatever causes them. No doubt some of it was neglect, but it was system failures that brought these flights to an end. The shuttle O rings were known to be troublesome, yet how many astronauts chose to ride them anyway? Let me ask you, would youhave boarded Challenger that fateful morning? I think any space buff would have, if they had the opportunity.”

    Dragon will have a launch escape system. As for the Russians, I dont know that “neglect” was the primary cause of any of their fatalities…

    now to the shuttle.

    You are probably correct, any space “buff” would have gotten on Challenger that January morning. But I am pretty sure I would not have.

    My illusions of how “safely” the shuttle system was being operated back in the 80’s existed because I was pretty “new” to the aviation profession then…and completely vanished in late 1985.

    My “then boss” and I had flown down from Norfolk to do aircap for the shuttle launch…it scrubbed quite a few times and we were at one of the local watering holes when my boss met his old Trade School classmate…John Young. Listening to that conversation was quite well amazing to me. the O rings even came up… As Young left my boss looked over at me and said “They are lucky that they havent killed someone yet and their luck cant last forever”.

    I was sort of astonished and a really eye opening conversation followed after which I became determined to learn why complex systems for the most part operate very safely and what separates those that do from those that dont.

    Negligence and faulty management know no excuse…space “buffs” probably dont have enough knowledge to know what is safe and what is not…but professionals do…and one assumes the thunderheads at NASA should be “professionals”.

    When I was in SAudi Arabia and the Challenger went “bang” it came as no surprise to me while reading the details of the launch, including the temperature. I kind of had a flashback to that conversation at the Cape…and even called my old boss and as the Rogers Commission worked its way through the list, you kind of had a sinking feeling that the genius at NASA would never quite figure it out.

    They never did, and still have not.

    Safety is not an accident…sounds trite and is but really it comes from hard working people who try to fly safe…and put a system in place that encourages people to do that…not babbles along with “When do you expect me to launch” or “Well we cant do anything about the damage to the orbiter anyway”.

    Bud light men (and women) Of genius

    Robert G. Oler

    Robert G. Oler

  • pathfinder_01

    Closest I could find online:

    http://www.space.com/4764-water-land-nasa-weighs-landing-options-orion-spacecraft.html

    I think it was in congressional testimony that one manner stated that it would no longer be reusable. Parts maybe reused but the capsule as a whole not.

  • pathfinder_01

    Also note that all of the latest info on Orion never metions reuablity:

    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ssc/Orion/Toolkit/LMOrionWhitePaperforAugustineCommittee6.25.09.pdf

    If ever there was a place to hawk Orion’s capabilities that PDF would be it.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    I need a source on that please. People post alot of old info or hearsay.

    It’s nice that you ask – are you going to reciprocate in kind? Provide sources for your claims?

  • VirgilSamms

    “$1.3B, which is far less than what Liberty will spend just to create a 2nd stage using the Vulcain engine”

    How about a source on that one Ron?

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    Unfortunately the hobby rocket is getting the money, not Delta IV, which, I cannot argue, is a pretty hot bird I admire greatly.

    I don’t know what “hobby rocket” you’re referring to, since no one has received any money from NASA for crew. The CCDev program was for technologies that would be use on crew systems, but there is no full-up crew contract out there.

    And if you are pointing at SpaceX when you say “hobby rocket”, keep in mind that Bush/Griffin gave them their COTS/CRS contract while the Constellation program was going full throttle, so SpaceX has not inhibited or interfered with any of your favorite aerospace contractors (like ATK).

    Also, in case you missed it, Lockheed Martin said they were going to use their own money to put a deposit down on a Delta IV Heavy flight to test the MPCV. And since it would be an unmanned flight, no changes need to be made to Delta IV Heavy, so it’s a fairly inexpensive way to test the MPCV, and it can be ready before Liberty makes it the pad for it’s first test flight, whenever that will be.

    Besides, no astronaut is going to want to fly on a Liberty launcher, since it shakes way more than the Shuttle (the ET mitigates the vibration), and the LAS accelerates at something like 15G’s – you might survive, but not without serious internal injuries. Why take the risk when Delta IV Heavy has a much more survivable failure mode?

  • VirgilSamms

    This is the original soyuz escape tower system used way back when. Saved two cosmonauts in 83. You will never ever get this kind of performance with a hypergolic pusher. Talk about dangerous. Why have it at all? Throw a futon and some scuba tanks in there and just go. Right Rand?

    Escape altitude (in case of failure on the launch pad) No less than 850 meters
    Range of escape (in case of failure on the launch pad) No less than 110 meters
    G-loads on the crew (in case of failure on the launch pad) No more than 10
    G-loads on the crew (in case of failure at T+400 seconds in flight) Up to 21
    Maximum thrust of the escape system 76 tonnes
    Total mass of the escape module 7,635 kilogramms

  • VirgilSamms

    ” I am arguing against *that* escape system, not escape systems in general. Each one has to be evaluated separately.”

    What is your evaluation of the Boeing hypergolic pusher?

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Bennett –

    “A real accounting of the graft would be actionable, imo”

    IMO no it wouldn’t. These are professionals, you know.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    “Dragon will have a launch escape system.”

    And accordingly, it will never carry crew.

  • What is your evaluation of the Boeing hypergolic pusher?

    I haven’t analyzed it.

  • Frank Glover

    “I truly dread the day people die aboard commercial spacecraft. Wait a min. didnt Boeing build Apollo, and three astronauts died aboard Apollo 1?”

    Not Boeing. North American Aviation, at the time Command Module, and Saturn-5 second stage:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

    Boeing did the first stage.

    “My point too, is once a commercial craft leads to the crew dying, will everyone then start pointing fingers at them…”

    They may point fingers at that *particular* launch provider. This is why you have more than one.

    “…and say NASA is the way to go.”

    Why, necessarily? How does that follow? Challenger and Columbia won’t have been forgotten. You remember Apollo-1 (albeit inaccurately) yourself. NASA has already been on the wrong end of ‘fingers.’ And the way to go…where? If that accident is on the way to/from a manned facility other than ISS, not involving a NASA crew, would you have NASA turn *itself* into a commercial flight service as well?

    And yes, statistically, someone *is* going to die aboard a spacecraft again at *some* time in the future, commercial or otherwise. Safety is about managing and minimizing risk, not perfection.

    “Mr. kugler, we are not your enemies. We simply want NASA to continue with deep space exploration, getting us out of LEO for a change. I want commercial to succeed, believe me, but not at the expense of NASA.”

    What does that last sentence mean? If commercial can take over getting humans to LEO and back, NASA can concentrate on going beyond. If commercial can make a case for sending humans beyond LEO (which is the rest of the Solar System / Universe…there’s room for everybody) as well, they can do that, too.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    You will never ever…

    On another thread you were chastising someone for not providing supporting links for their assertions. How about walkin the talk?

    Try using the compare & contrast method to outline your point of view, and back it up with some level of facts – doesn’t have to be a Phd dissertation, but just something so that we can understand your point of view.

  • Bennett

    Hey E.P.,

    You’re probably right. ATK has beaucoups graft experience.

    Sorry to hear of your neural setback. I hope you manage to see things as (at least) half full despite the challenge.

    Cheers!

  • pathfinder_01

    In terms of crew only ULA has gotten money for Atlas and Delta and even then it was for a emergancy detection system that would be useful for both rockets.

    Faclon 9 got cargo money. However space X built Falcon 9 with plans that it would be able to carry people(i.e. using as many NASA standards as they could).

    CST100 and Dream Chaser are set to launch on Atlas. Dragon can launch on Atlas but Space X is planning to launch on Falcon 9. Orion could be launched to LEO on Detla IV heavy if needed.

    In terms of escape systems Orion was going to have a pusher style escape system but mass issuses drove them back to puller style. Beoing and others are using that investment to go for the pusher style escape system.

    The problem with puller style in terms of safety is that if the escape tower does not jetison when planned it will prevent the spacecraft from being able to dock or even reenter properly. This could be a fatal problem.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    “Unfortunately the hobby rocket is getting the money, not Delta IV, which, I cannot argue, is a pretty hot bird I admire greatly.”

    Hi Virgil. Look the ‘hobby rocket’ reference to SpaceX boosters is getting a bit thin. How about some due diligence as to the actual processes and systems and flight testing that has gone into both the F1 and F9 and now Dragon.
    To be fair, when you properly investigate those and look at their program objectively, you will come to the conclusion that they are anythng but ‘hobby’. Perhaps your perspective has been coloured by how ‘out there’ they are. But perhaps that’s just ’cause they’re a bit enthusiastic about their work.
    From an evidence viewpoint, I would like to advance the notion that satellites are pretty expensive beasts. It’s surely unlikely that satellite companies, whose business depends on getting their birds to orbit, would trust their expensive hardware to a ‘hobby’ company. In this respect, let me provide you with this latest contract information: http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/5226

    In addition, SpaceX has tendered for, and won, a $1.6 billion plus contract to provide cargo services to and from the ISS. Again, this is pretty important stuff and doubtful that NASA who awarded this contract, would do so to a company which they believed would not fufil those obligations.
    Just a few observations.
    Cheers.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
    ” I am arguing against *that* escape system, not escape systems in general. Each one has to be evaluated separately.”

    What is your evaluation of the Boeing hypergolic pusher?

    My evaluation is that if they are going for it then it will work. They’re not the first to investigate pusher options and it’s surely more logical than having another failure point in your lauch sequence.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    FWIW, Boeing’s hypergolic pusher LAS is the least problematic of all of the LAS systems, including the SRM tractor for Orion. It is a rocket that fires once. That’s it. It doesn’t have to generate dangerous g-loadings and then perform a mid-air turn like the Orion’s, it doesn’t have to run dual duty as a landing propulsion system like Dragon’s and it doesn’t need a minimum air speed and a very limited set of weather conditions like any of the glide-return vehicles. If I were asked, I’d say that CST-100 on a crew-rated Atlas-V-502 is the minimum-risk option for US indigenous crew launch.

  • Das Boese

    DCSCA wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ March 15th, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    “Dragon will have a launch escape system.”

    And accordingly, it will never carry crew.

    Care to explain the logic behind that conclusion?

  • Das Boese

    Also, I just caught this little SpaceX newsbit

    SpaceX Expanding Texas Operations

    Ironic, isn’t it. Texas representative continues to marginalize commercial space while it’s creating jobs right in his own state.

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 4:51 am

    Good points all however the Dragon landing propulsion system is an evolution of the proposed pusher LAS. It may be designed to ultimately fill the powered landing scenerio however initially it’s going to act simply as an LAS engine with parachute landing. Whether SpaceX make it all the way to powered landings is speculative. The only thing for certain at the moment is that they are designing and plan to implement a pusher escape system only.

  • Egad

    > Orion could be launched to LEO on Detla IV heavy if needed.

    But it’s becoming increasingly clear, IMO, that the relevant congresscreatures think that Orion is going to be launched on SLS and will be very unhappy if that turns out not to be the case. As it will.

  • Care to explain the logic behind that conclusion?

    Logic is not DCSCA’s strong suit.

  • The problem with puller style in terms of safety is that if the escape tower does not jetison when planned it will prevent the spacecraft from being able to dock or even reenter properly.

    It wouldn’t even get to orbit.

  • A_M_Swallow

    Egad wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 10:08 am

    But it’s becoming increasingly clear, IMO, that the relevant congresscreatures think that Orion is going to be launched on SLS and will be very unhappy if that turns out not to be the case. As it will.

    The Orion could take regular trips on the SLS. The ISS is too close for an expensive rocket like the SLS when there are cheaper alternatives. However the SLS with an upper stage can get Orion to a proposed spacestation at Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1. This spacestation will be a good place for the astronauts to change to specialist spaceships like lunar landers and Mars transfer vehicles.

  • MrEarl

    First:
    Whenever Oler or others of like mind on this site have a weak argument the “bloody shirt” of the astronaut lives lost on the shuttle are brought out and blamed on the incompetence of NASA personnel with the implication being, thou unstated, that this would not happen in commercial HSF because “killing astronauts is bad for business”. The vast majority of technological catastrophes involving the loss of life have human incompetence / neglect as a major component. To imply, as many on here do, that it is confined to NASA or would not happen under commercial HSF is naive in the extreme.
    Second:
    While it is true that the existing cargo capacities of the EELV’s could get manned missions to the moon, most experts on the subject of what to do on the moon, and other targets of exploration beyond LEO, agree a heavy lifting capability is necessary to do the most exploration, most efficiently.

    Third:
    One thing windy is right about, the administration and NASA agreed to the compromise set down in the authorization bill passed during the last congress. For the administration to deliberately ignore that authorization when putting together the FY2012 budget and NASA to refuse to live by the terms of that agreement by refusing to develop the SLS highlights the arrogance at play here.

    Fourth:
    Development of Orion/MPCV as a cis-lunar exploration vehicle with the capability to perform taxi service to the ISS if commercial services are not available is a reasonable and wise move. It’s not certain, and I think very unlikely, that demand for manned transportation to LEO will be able to support more than one carrier.
    Fifth:
    What I, and others, have said is the most disappointing part of this administrations treatment of NASA is the true lack of vision and direction in human space flight. While the implementation of Vision for Space Exploration under the Constellation program was deeply flawed, the vision of a stepping stone, measured progression of increasing capabilities as outlined in the VSE is a much preferable plan that the wishful quest for “transformative technologies that this administration holds up as a “plan”.

  • Coastal Ron

    A_M_Swallow wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 11:55 am

    However the SLS with an upper stage can get Orion to a proposed spacestation at Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1.

    And maybe that will be exactly what the MPCV will be used for. But as of today it has no mission, and no need other than to get built by 2016 so it can be a shining example of spending precious NASA funds to get built in a hurry. Hence the Administration wanting to devote more attention to a more immediate need, which is supporting the ISS with crew transportation.

    Seems to me the Congress would love to stop being beholden to Russia for this need, but you know Congress – pork is more important than logic, or dependence on foreign interests.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Boeing’s hypergolic pusher LAS is the least problematic”

    I disagree, it is the most troubling development in my opinion. It is not as powerful as a tower so it is not as effective as an escape system. Contrary to Ron’s ridiculous statement that 15 G’s would cause internal injuries, the human body can withstand momentary and short term extreme G loads with minor injury. Ever seen the guy on the rocket sled? And that kind of acceleration is exactly what is needed to escape an exploding rocket. Trying to make an escape system serve other purposes besides escape and thus reducing it’s effectiveness goes back the multi-purpose concept of the shuttle. A hypergolic pusher sounds about as effective as sliding down the pole out the side of the shuttle. As for these mass arguments, the part of the launch that is most mass sensitive is the last several thousand miles per hour to reach escape velocity. Which is why there is no substitue for hydrogen upper stages. The escape tower is jettisoned before this and thus relieves the vehicle of this ball and chain. Unlike the pusher which has to carry it into orbit. Using it for landing means it has to carry it down, which is not really a good thing for a capsule re-entering. Soyuz uses a solid rocket system for landing.

    The escape tower is a much more effective system and mass efficient and can be made reusable by dropping it in the ocean with a parachute like the shuttle SRB’s. The pusher is a safety compromise in the interest of increased performance- which is not a philosophy that space flight should return to.

  • Egad

    > However the SLS with an upper stage can get Orion to a proposed spacestation at Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1. This spacestation will be a good place for the astronauts to change to specialist spaceships like lunar landers and Mars transfer vehicles.

    True enough, given 1) an upper stage, 2) an EML space station and 3) specialist space ships. None of which exist, are in development or have been even penciled into any budget that I know of.

  • pathfinder_01

    Virgil Escape systems are never dropped into the Ocean. Unlike the SRB it would be dropped too far away to be effective to recover. Also the BOEING system is for escape only. The propellant can be used for other purposes. How much g force you can withstand depends on how long you need to pull it.

    Orion’s escape system was tuned to out run the SRB(which can not be shut down in an emergency). No other Escape system would cause 15G.

    As for hydrogen upper stages, cst100 and dream chaser will use centaur(a hydrogen upper stage). Soyuz, Gemini, Mercury did not or do not have hydrogen upper stages.

    It is just that CST and dream chaser being LEO only can afford more mass for fetuares that help reuse than Orion.

  • pathfinder_01

    Basically for CST100 if it does not use the propellant to escape it could use the propellant for other purposes like re boosting the station and not having to replace/recover the escape tower saves money.

    CST100, Dragon, Dream chaser, and New Shepard are all going for pusher style escape systems.

    Orion would have gone for an phuser style one but two problems prevented it.

    1. Solid rockets are not a good idea for the 1st stage of a manned rocket. They can be very safe in general, but if they malfunction there is no way to shut them down and they can explode very violently under the right circumstances. Ares 1 was more about politics (keep all the old shuttle companies working) than about choosing what was best for NASA. This cause Orion to need the beefiest escape system ever designed.

    2. Orion is/was to be a lunar spacecraft. Using a lunar spacecraft to go to the ISS is like driving an RV to work. You don’t need a spacecraft capable of supporting a crew for 21 days to get to the ISS. The lunar requirements made Orion much heavier than a LEO only spacecraft.

    There were plans back in the 70ies to redesign Apollo as a cheaper, lighter LEO only spacecraft. Orion likewise costs much more than needed to do LEO taxi work.

  • Martijn Meijering

    While it is true that the existing cargo capacities of the EELV’s could get manned missions to the moon, most experts on the subject of what to do on the moon, and other targets of exploration beyond LEO, agree a heavy lifting capability is necessary to do the most exploration, most efficiently.

    These experts don’t say this based on their expertise, but based on their place of employment. You can put payloads bigger on the moon than Constellation could with existing EELVs, EOR and propellant transfer (even if just for hypergolics).

  • Martijn Meijering

    True enough, given 1) an upper stage, 2) an EML space station and 3) specialist space ships. None of which exist, are in development or have been even penciled into any budget that I know of.

    The upper stage could be a Centaur or a DCSS, but then the SLS first stages + SRBs are not necessary, since you could do something very similar with EELVs. The spaceship could be a kitted commercial crew taxi, which makes Orion superfluous. And if they didn’t (pretend to) develop Orion and SLS, they might have enough money for a Bigelow station at L1/L2.

  • Vladislaw

    ” Trying to make an escape system serve other purposes besides escape”

    Correct me if I am wrong but the escape system does not serve other purposes. The FUEL for the escape system is what is dual use. If you do not use the fuel for an escape you can utilize the fuel for slowing a parachute landing or for boosting the ISS.

  • pathfinder_01

    Even with Orion, two Delta IV heavy launches could send it to L1/L2. A much better use of funds would be just upgrading the EELV than SLS.

    As for commmercail BEO maybe/maybe not. The only commercail craft with BEO potential is Dragon. CST100 is being built for LEO only.

  • To imply, as many on here do, that it is confined to NASA or would not happen under commercial HSF is naive in the extreme.

    No one has implied that. People have simply pointed out that defenders of NASA have no leg to stand on when complaining about “hobbyists in garages.”

  • Martijn Meijering

    CST100 is being built for LEO only.

    Once built, wouldn’t it be much easier to develop a beyond LEO version compared to starting from scratch?

  • Egad

    > A much better use of funds would be just upgrading the EELV than SLS.

    You’d have to figure out a way to upgrade it with ATK(tm) five-segment solids to keep the porkulent congresscreatures happy.

    But that said, here’s a question: since the SRBs are mostly a Utah concern, would the Florida, Alabama and Texas porksters accept a non-SRB SLS if it kept their own constituents and contributors fed? I.e., sayonara Utah, but them’s the breaks?

  • pathfinder_01

    In theory yes, but the other big problem is that EELV would reduce the Alabama work force on the whole.(both the shuttle’s external tank and the EELV are built in Alabama).

    Florida would loose jobs too becuase the EELV require much fewer people to launch than shuttle, but as the shuttle dies down and SLS get further and further away from possible I expect them to be the first to cave.

    Texas, I don’t understand why they care which rocket it rides on.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    First: …the “bloody shirt” of the astronaut lives lost on the shuttle are brought out and blamed on the incompetence of NASA personnel…

    Actually what people are doing is refuting the idea that NASA is perfect, which is part of the argument for why commercial companies can never succeed.

    Second: …most experts on the subject of what to do on the moon, and other targets of exploration beyond LEO, agree a heavy lifting capability is necessary to do the most exploration, most efficiently.

    Maybe, but we don’t have a funded mission to the Moon, or anywhere out of LEO, so spending money before you have defined the mission is pretty stupid. What if it turns out that the “experts” are wrong? Then you have wasted $Billions that could have been used for real exploration. Define the mission, fund it, then build what you need.

    Third: For the administration to deliberately ignore that authorization when putting together the FY2012 budget…

    Let’s throw rocks in the right direction. Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act, but has yet to fund it.

    Instead of waiting, the Administration provided Congress with what they wanted NASA to do in 2012 & beyond – WHICH IS WHAT EVERY ADMINISTRATION DOES, THEY PROPOSE. To think this administration is different than any other in that regard, is being ignorant of the process.

    Fourth: Development of Orion/MPCV as a cis-lunar exploration vehicle … that demand for manned transportation to LEO will be able to support more than one carrier.

    For the cost of using the MPCV as an LEO taxi, NASA could pay for three or more commercial crew providers. That is the real issue, the cost trade-off. Remember that the GAO has said that the MPCV alone will take $20-29B to finish, and it would likely take less than $3B to get two commercial providers going. The operative phrase here is “penny wise, but pound foolish”.

    Fifth: …true lack of vision and direction in human space flight …the vision of a stepping stone, measured progression of increasing capabilities as outlined in the VSE…

    We have a stepping stone, measured progression of increasing capabilities, that do support the VSE, but what is truly lacking is FUNDING to do anything more than what the current NASA plan is. And even that is doubtful, what with the possibility of funding cuts from Congress, and the $Billions that the SLS/MPCV will suck up for NO FUNDED MISSION.

    If you want NASA to get more hardware out into space, then you have to focus the budget on things that will get into space quickly. Even if the SLS/MPCV get built some time this decade (are you willing to wager money on that?), Congress has allocated ZERO DOLLARS TO USE THEM. That is why the VSE is not moving forward fast enough, because of a lack of funds, and the misdirection of available funds.

    Recognize the theme? Lack of money. Reduce the cost to access space or get more funding from Congress (or both), and you can leave LEO again. Otherwise, get used to disappointment.

  • common sense

    @Martijn Meijering wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    “Once built, wouldn’t it be much easier to develop a beyond LEO version compared to starting from scratch?”

    Of course. Especially if the LEO design is for a 7 crew vehicle. Assume you want to make it a lunar return vehicle you’d have to put consumables onboard. You’d have to have a SM as well and one can imagine a “large” SM which would have all needed. I assume you could even dock on orbit a very large “SM” separately launched. You would then turn the SM as the habitation module en route to the Moon and only use the CST for reentry. I am sure there are many different ways to do this. The real question is “why”? Rather than “how”. If there is reason enough there will be a budget and therefore there will be means. Do you have to travel inside CST for BEO? Why would you? However I even suspect that for a round-the-Moon trip a beefed up CST would just do. I believe Boeing had the contract to develop the TPS for Orion.

    In any case, much easier than from scratch. Once you’ve addressed consumables, ECLSS, CG, radiation and MMODS. It’s a capsule, a blob.

  • pathfinder_01

    Only reason why I support Orion is because it is closer to BEO than anything else. For CST you could very well be starting from scratch.

    You would need a new heat shield, stronger structure, and a totally different service module(which could cause you to need a totally different launch escape system). Those changes would be pretty extreme.

    As it stands now cst100 is built to hold 7 people for 2 days rather than 4 people for 21 days. That makes a huge difference in terms of type of life support system needed.CST100 probably uses lithium cartages. I know Orion has a regenerative CO2 removal system.

    CST100 uses batteries. To macth Orion you would need bigger batteries and solar panels not to mention consumables for the crew. Orion for instance has a water tank in the service module. Even the electronics would have to be upgraded to be more radiation resistant. Plus adding radation shielding. Once you add all that stuff you now have a heavier capsule which will effect the EDL systems.i.e. May need bigger/different parachutes. Airbag landing system might need upgrades.

    It might cost less than Orion but is won’t be cheap and it would take more time to do it than just finishing Orion.

  • since the SRBs are mostly a Utah concern, would the Florida, Alabama and Texas porksters accept a non-SRB SLS if it kept their own constituents and contributors fed? I.e., sayonara Utah, but them’s the breaks?

    Are you saying it’s time for them to vote ATK off the island?

  • Frank Glover

    “However the SLS with an upper stage can get Orion to a proposed spacestation at Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1.”

    Perhaps, but so could Orion/Delta IV plus orbital refueling…a refueling capacity that would serve other kinds of operations.

    “This spacestation will be a good place for the astronauts to change to specialist spaceships like lunar landers and Mars transfer vehicles.”

    Why any more of a good place for that than LEO? And if EML-1 has special value (and I realize many believe it does) again, why go directly there from the surface in one costly, heavy launch?

    I’m reminded of the Agena-assisted Gemini missions that went to higher orbits (and back to low orbit) than a Gemini/Titan II alone could, setting altitude records that weren’t surpassed until Apollo-8.They didn’t develop a whole new launcher to do that, either…

    Of course, that was less ‘refueling,’ than it was a crude ‘space tug.’ But if the transfer stage itself is reusable/refuelable for other operations, that’s a valid way to go, as well. And still cheaper and more flexible than developing a limited-use, larger launcher.

  • common sense

    @pathfinder_01 wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    “Only reason why I support Orion is because it is closer to BEO than anything else. ”

    There is no BEO Orion being developed at this time whatsoever.

    “For CST you could very well be starting from scratch.”

    Absolutely untrue.

    “You would need a new heat shield, stronger structure, and a totally different service module(which could cause you to need a totally different launch escape system). Those changes would be pretty extreme.”

    The heatshield would be new as far as TPS goes. If the TPS is not part of the “supporting” structure but only “supported” by the structure as it would seem reasonable then the issue is mass and CG. The SM does not require a redesign of CST. It would require though proper ascent aero and structural analysis. You do not pull or push the SM in case of an abort therefore the mods to the escape system are small. The changes will NOT be pretty “extreme”.

    “As it stands now cst100 is built to hold 7 people for 2 days rather than 4 people for 21 days. That makes a huge difference in terms of type of life support system needed.CST100 probably uses lithium cartages. I know Orion has a regenerative CO2 removal system.”

    Now where is the number 4 coming from for a BEO mission? But I agree with the different, possibly, ECLSS and consumables.

    “CST100 uses batteries. To macth Orion you would need bigger batteries and solar panels not to mention consumables for the crew. Orion for instance has a water tank in the service module.”

    This is all related to the SM again not the CST vehicle. Orion does NOT have solar panels the SM does. Same for CST if needed.

    ” Even the electronics would have to be upgraded to be more radiation resistant. Plus adding radation shielding. Once you add all that stuff you now have a heavier capsule which will effect the EDL systems.i.e. May need bigger/different parachutes. Airbag landing system might need upgrades.”

    Well this is all about mass. If you reduce the crew size you may be able to mitigate those issues.

    “It might cost less than Orion but is won’t be cheap and it would take more time to do it than just finishing Orion.”

    It will cost MUCH less than Orion. Orion will NEVER be finished. Orion does NOT have requirements for anything at this time. Orion’s mission may change again in 2 months or 2 weeks. Orion will NEVER be “cheap”.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Only reason why I support Orion is because it is closer to BEO than anything else.

    Closer even than Dragon? As an aside, it’s closer to beyond LEO, not closer to BEO. For that you’d need something like Nautilus.

    My main worry about Orion is that using it as a “backup” to commercial space really means using LEO and ISS crew rotation as a backup to missions beyond LEO. I suspect most of its proponents actually consider that more likely than the official scenario. Similarly, talk of Orion “preserving the option to go beyond LEO” really means preserving the option to save the Shuttle political industrial complex thorugh missions beyond LEO.

    I’d rather see money spent on a reusable in-space spacecraft, on a Nautilus precursor. I’d want to see something really, really incremental so that we could see results soon with the direction chosen to minimise time to commercial propellant flights. They could start with a storable propulsion module based on the Orion SM + avionics. That could even absorb a sizeable chunk of the Orion workforce and allow for involvement of MSFC propulsion people if that’s desired. Neither of that would be necessary of course, but it wouldn’t be harmful either. We could have substantial numbers of commercial propellant flights within three to five years. Much more useful than a redundant and oversized capsule with a bloated workforce.

  • Egad

    > Are you saying it’s time for them to vote ATK off the island?

    Well, it would be amusing if it happened. As for me, I advocate nothing, as the whole SLS/Orion business is still way off in fantasyland.

    Let’s see what NASA comes in with in a few months. If they have a non-SRB SLS design that looks fastercheaperbetter than one that needs ATK’s products, then we might see fracture lines develop in the pork coalition. Or not — NASA may accept that the laws of nature require SRBs, for values of “nature” in the vicinity of “Congress.”

  • A_M_Swallow

    Frank Glover wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    “However the SLS with an upper stage can get Orion to a proposed spacestation at Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1.”

    Perhaps, but so could Orion/Delta IV plus orbital refueling…a refueling capacity that would serve other kinds of operations.

    They are two rival architectures both of which can get you to EML-1/2. The strategic decision about which one to build is a bit off topic for this thread. Personally I am fan of propellant depots.

    When planning a practical BLEO space flight you use what ever infrastructure has been constructed.

  • A_M_Swallow

    Frank Glover wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    “This spacestation will be a good place for the astronauts to change to specialist spaceships like lunar landers and Mars transfer vehicles.”

    Why any more of a good place for that than LEO? …

    There is a delta-v of 3.77 km/s between LEO and EML-1. This is about the same as EML-2 to low Mars Orbit. Consequently there is a large propellant saving if the Mars Transfer Vehicle returns to EML-1/2 rather than to LEO.

    The fuel requirement is so high that any vehicle trying to return to LEO will be discarded after a single journey. A Moon or Mars vehicle returning to EML-1 can be refurnished at the spacestation and reused. This is likely to save money after the third or fourth trip.

Leave a 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>