President Obama is currently in India, where he is expected to formally announce on Monday the removal of the Indian space agency ISRO from a US list that restricts exports of some sensitive technologies. The Entity List, as it is formally known, specifies additional requirements for items beyond what’s already required under export control regulations. Currently ISRO and four organizations within it are on the list, requiring a “case-by-case review” for any item on the Commerce Control List for export to those organizations. That restriction dates back to sanctions placed on India and Pakistan for their nuclear tests in the late 1990s.
That move isn’t unexpected: it had been anticipated for weeks in both the US and India. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Thursday, former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, writing with another former State Department official, R. Nicholas Burns, called on both the White House and Congress to “liberalize U.S. export controls that have an impact on India, including by removing the Indian Space Research Organization (the Indian equivalent to NASA) from the U.S. ‘Entity List.'” However, that appears to be the limit of space-related progress in the president’s visit: Indian media reported last week that it’s unlikely a commercial satellite launch agreement will be completed in time. Such an agreement would make it easier for US-built commercial satellites, or satellites with US-built components, to be launched on Indian vehicles.
A few people, though, are seeking much grander visions of US-Indian cooperation in space. At a press conference in Washington on Thursday, American and Indian officials announced the creation of Kalam-NSS Energy Initiative to promote the development of space-based solar power (SBSP) in the two nations. The near-term goal of the initiative is to arrange a bilateral meeting of Indian and American experts on the topic in May in Huntsville, Alabama, in conjunction with the International Space Development Conference (ISDC), the annual conference of the National Space Society (NSS).
The effort might be dismissed as a minor effort of a few people to promote what’s widely considered a fringe topic, but it does have the backing of a prominent individual on the Indian side: former president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who participated in Thursday’s press conference by phone from India. Kalam spoke of the need to increase energy production to meet the needs of a modernizing India, without going into details about how the two countries might cooperation in SBSP beyond holding a joint meeting. Asked if the topic might come up in the meeting between President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Singh in New Delhi, Kalam suggested that it should instead be presented at a future meeting of G8 or G20 nations.
Also unclear is what India would bring to the table in terms of its role in developing a SBSP system. Asked what unique capabilities India could offer, Kalam discussed the development of what he called a “hyperplane”, a reusable spaceplane concept, something he said India could cooperate with the US and other nations on. (Given the difficulties any nation has had in developing RLVs, and the challenges India has faced in even building a cryogenic upper stage for its GSLV expendable rocket, jumping ahead to a “hyperplane” may seem a bit of a stretch.) T.K. Alex, director of the ISRO Satellite Centre and the Indian lead of the Kalam-NSS Energy Initiative, said later at the press conference that India could also contribute in the development of high-efficiency and lightweight solar cells. NSS CEO Mark Hopkins suggested a different role for India, saying that “a combination of American technology and the ability of India to do a lot of low-cost manufacturing” could be essential to any future success of SBSP.
On the radio program the SpaceShow, there was a program about space based solar power and the number of launches needed to build a meaningful solar array in space. The numbers were staggering and the damage to the atmosphere for that enormous number of launches made it pretty clear it wasn’t doable until the bulk of it could come from offworld and shipped from space to earth orbit.
Although I am pro SBSP I do not really see it happening until we industrialize Luna during this century.
On what basis does Obama offer such a gratuity? The US balance of trade with India stinks even though India is a rapidly growing economy. They don’t buy a lot of US weapons. Why hand them technological cherries and do more damage to domestic launch providers.
As for space based solar power. LOL! The equivalent of ‘windmills in space’. Perhaps India should build themselves a domestic sewage system first.
amightywind wrote:
“Why hand them technological cherries and do more damage to domestic launch providers”
I would have to see some actual numbers first, if the US makes more on the sat sales over the launch sales than do it. If all it does is adds more to the balance of trade deficit it would seem to be a bad deal.
Let’s see you don’t want America doing anything with the communist China, you are against working with the Russia… now you are against the US strengthing ties with the world’s largest democracy… just exactly who should America be alighned with .. I would hazard a guess and say France wouldn’t be on the top of your list either .. or do you believe America should be more isolationist and go it alone?
“You’re either with us or against us” – President G. Bush
Unfortunately, I suspect that, fundamentally, SBSP is nothing less than a scam. These are a few small companies with limited expertise and no money who are trying to milk taxpayers.
Solar radiant energy from LEO is, at best, only slightly better (2x) compared to low-rainfall locations such as the US southwest. On the other hand, the installation and operating cost of a LEO solar power station would be astronomically greater by a factor of 1000x.
Do the math! It doesn’t take a genius.
“You’re either with us or against us†– President G. Bush
He never said that. If you’re going to misquote someone, you shouldn’t put it in quote marks.
“On what basis does Obama offer such a gratuity?”
India is the biggest democracy in the world and the second largest regional power in Asia.
India is our largest ally and hedge against China.
The U.S. will need India’s cooperation/help to pick up the pieces if Pakistan goes south.
Multiple U.S./multinational companies rely on the Indian workforce.
With a 1.1+ billion population, increasing per capita wealth, and an economy growing at 8% per annum, India is a huge and rapidly growing potential market for U.S. products.
Etc., etc.
Space Solar Power makes little sense as a source of cheap electricity but it is the ultimate key to the human race colonizing the solar system. The only viable replacement for Rockets as launch vehicles are beam powered craft.
And that takes space solar power.
As for damaging the atmosphere; that is not necessarily so. While present SRB’s are nasty, there are replacement fuels ahead such as ALICE and by converting empty stages into structure instead of discarding them the number of HLV launches goes down.
It is very exciting news.
“Why hand them technological cherries and do more damage to domestic launch providers.”
India doesn’t really compete in the international launch market. India’s PSLV has only had one commercial primary payload, and GSLV has had none. GSLV’s throw weight is about a fifth that of the Atlas V/Delta IV/Falcon 9 fleets. It’s a non-issue.
> “You’re either with us or against us†– President G. Bush
>> He never said that. If you’re going to misquote someone, you shouldn’t put it in quote marks.
True. What he actually said was,
“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
Nelsoln Bridwell, who precisely are you accusing of this “scam”?
“Nelsoln Bridwell, who precisely are you accusing of this “scamâ€?”
Aside from who he is, do you have an argument with what he (rather clearly) said? The electrical generating advantage of space solar power for terrestrial use over ground solar power doesn’t obviously offset the huge difference in cost. I too have never seen a sensible argument about such an offset even if materials are launched from some preexisting refinery/factory on the Moon.
That there are people trying to convince people to invest in something for which the return is not at all obvious sure smells like a scam to me. But say it ain’t so … and say why. I’m willing to be convinced.
Cooperating with India is a good idea.
The xenophobia or perhaps ethnocentrism on the left in regard to India might cause a little blowback. It certainly is interesting after 10 years of demonizing India for taking our jobs (insert your best south park impersonation here) that Obama now wants to cooperate with them.
History is full of investments that didn’t make sense in terms of ROI. Yet they’ve been done for a number of quite valid reasons and some govt somewhere has picked up the tab.
The Panama Canal springs to mind.
Many railways in various countries,
To go further back: the initial settlements in America.
The settlement of Australia.
Some investments seemed worthwhile in pure economic terms (Columbus) but didn’t work out exactly as planned. Columbus didn’t find China. In that sense his voyage was a dead loss. Instead he found America. Pure serendipity, but it seemed a failure at the time.
So there is a great case for SBSP. It would kick start Commercial space in a big way. More importantly it would give the country that ndertook to do it an enormous lead in space transportation, ISRU, and a dozer other fields. Sure it would cost a packet, sort of like building Boulder dam in todays dollars. Wait…
Doug, Nelsoln, if you’re saying it’s a scam, I’d like to you say who it is you are leveling this accusation at.
That there are people trying to convince people to invest in something for which the return is not at all obvious sure smells like a scam to me.
Who are these “people” you speak of. Do they exist solely in your mind?
Scam might be too strong of a word for SBSP but survival of the concept is indicative of the fuzzy thinking that often pervades the space fanboy community. SPSP will not make sense until the cost of shipping solar power generators in orbit is much smaller per kg than the cost of manufacturing the generators themselves per kg. That date is a long, long way off so there is no point in spending federal dollars on this.
Maybe these guys are the ones “running the scam”
They don’t sound like con artists to me. The regulars here are the ones trying to blow smoke up peoples dresses.
Dr. T. K. Alex, who will be available to answer questions at this press conference, is the Director of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) Satellite Centre, Bangalore. He led the Chandrayaan-1 project, the first Indian mission to the Moon, which resulted in the discovery of water on the Moon’s surface. Now he is guiding and directing the development of Chandrayaan-2 and sixteen new Indian satellites. John Mankins, who will also be available, is a 25-year NASA veteran who ran NASA’s most recent multi-million dollar study of space solar power.
For more information, please contact Gary Barnhard at 202-420-1600 or gary.barnhard@nss.org
Fred Willett wrote @ November 7th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
nicely done. I was working up a list, but you nailed it
Robert G. Oler
“The electrical generating advantage of space solar power for terrestrial use over ground solar power doesn’t obviously offset the huge difference in cost.”
First you would have to know what all costs are. If you are just comparing costs of materials, transportation and labor then yes a huge disparity in costs. What are the enviromental costs of shading that much land? Is the loss of one species of bug a fair trade? What are the savings in health care costs as cities eliminate automobile exhaust and other air pollutants from traditional fossil fuel electrical generation sources? The rise of health problems can be tracked with the increase in auto exhaust. You also have to include the loss in productivity relating to health issues. Even if we switch to electric cars if the electrical generation is polluting there is still an environmental cost.
If you add in all those intangables the costs start to narrow but for me, still not enough to justify it at this time. Developing nuclear power plants, and developing the technology for reusing the fuel to reduce the waste would appear to be the best interm solution until earth can import energy from non terrestrial sources in space.
“Space Solar Power makes little sense as a source of cheap electricity but it is the ultimate key to the human race colonizing the solar system.” – MichaelC
I agree with MichaelC. Please remember that this is a great unsolved problem that is almost solvable by today’s technology. In that past, when American engineers (which includes quite a few Indian transplants to the US) set their mind to space programs, we’ve been able to develop new technologies which get applied to every day life (think The Internet). I believe that this kind of project will benefit space exploration and ground based solar power. Also, American and Indian engineers work well together; we have similar mindsets and values. I say we find some way to start a Proof of Concept (POC). We can leave something very useful for our children’s children.
There are many proponents of space solar power. The Space Frontier folks seem sold on it. I have a lot of respect for John Mankins, but he seems unusually wedded to the idea. Now, they have no obvious financial incentives. True, “scam” is a strong word, and implies fiscal deceit by design. But there are companies out there that are seeking SSP investment dollars for what, to me, doesn’t look like something that will pay off, and looks a lot like a fiscal black hole. Perhaps not outright deceit, but maybe strong “spin”.
As to investments that didn’t make sense in terms of ROI but turned out to be highly profitable, sure, you can find a few. But you can find vastly more that didn’t turn out to be highly profitable, and justified the initial skepticism about them. You don’t hear a lot about those.
MichaelC wrote @ November 7th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
“ While present SRB’s are nasty, there are replacement fuels ahead such as ALICE and by converting empty stages into structure instead of discarding them the number of HLV launches goes down.”
Considering that after 30 years, ATK is just now perfecting the current Shuttle SRB design, I can’t imagine how long it would take them to come up with a completely new SRB design, and get it right. Remember, ALICE (ALuminum ICE rocket propellant) requires something like 1,000,000 lbs of fuel to be frozen when each segment is filled, kept frozen during transportation and assembly, and not melt while sitting in the hot Florida sun waiting for the OK to launch. I assume, using the commercial crew funding logic some have, that ATK will be expected to fund this entirely in-house?
Regarding converting empty stages into usable structures in space, I assume you’re talking about SRB’s? I never heard that, and I find that hard to believe for a couple of reasons: 1. SRB’s never make it to space, 2. They are only about 12 ft in diameter, and 3. They each weigh 200,000 lbs (25% of the ISS). Unless you’re building meteor-proof bunkers in space, what would you use them for?
SRB’s are just a motor, and like all transportation applications, you choose the motor that meets your overall requirements. What we have learned with the Shuttle program, is that SRB’s are very expensive, require far more touch-labor than alternatives, require far more infrastructure than alternatives, and are potentially far more dangerous in vehicle assembly than alternatives. I don’t think they add enough value for their total overall costs.
My $0.02
SPSP will not make sense until the cost of shipping solar power generators in orbit is much smaller per kg than the cost of manufacturing the generators themselves per kg. That date is a long, long way off so there is no point in spending federal dollars on this.
Ahem. ITER ? Fusion, anyone ?
Scam is defined by the action, rather than the actor.
Oxford Dictionary:
noun (informal) – a dishonest scheme; a fraud;
Example: an insurance scam
verb – swindle
Example: a guy that swindles the elderly out of their savings
The simple fact is that SBSP would provide tons of money to the promoters. One specific proposal floated by that group would spend $10 E+10 dollars to put a puny solar power satellite into orbit that would (in theory) satisfy the energy needs of perhaps 1000 households.
To suggest to people that this technology is going to solve real problems anytime soon is fundamentally dishonest.
@ Trent Waddington,
If those figures for energy generation in LEO are as bad as suggested, then there isn’t a “scam”, per se. The problem is a group-think that assumes the existence of an advantage to placing solar power gathering apparatus in LEO where no such advantage exists.
For me, the only reason for orbital solar power is an issue of where to put these things. Every acre of land set aside for solar power generation on Earth is an acre not being used for something else. So, or so the reasoning goes, why not put square mile solar arrays into orbit where there isn’t any farm land or towns to build over?
FWIW, the counter-point is that the best location for ground-based solar arrays is equatorial areas where there is little or no cloud-cover or rain, i.e. hot, dry deserts. There isn’t much there either, except notoriously prickly and banditry-prone locals. That could make erecting several square miles of photovoltaic arrays a difficult endeavour and one would have to budget for a certain level of sabotage and thievery of equipment every year.
It’s all a cost/benefit trade thing in the end. How much to launch/erect? How much to maintain (security must be an issue for any ground-based solar power station)?
Pull out your sliderules and do the math:
The installation cost of that SBSP system comes to 10 million dollars per consumer household. A terrestrial solar system with equivalent power output would cost 10 thousand dollars per household.
I don’t hear them telling potential customers that with the energy savings they will see a break-even in 30,000 years. Talk about a long-term investment! (Those are more the types of numbers used when talking about residual nuclear waste disposal.)
To throw even more cold water on this dream, Burt Rutan recently estimated that with 100% reusability, using airline fuel economics at some time in the future, the cost to put people in LEO would in theory come down to about $15,000. Depending on what you count as your payload, that comes to $50-100 per pound. For SBSP to break even, it would need launch cost more like $10 per pound. This is sounding more like some totally new technology. Electromagnetic catipults? Space elevators?
The SFF needs to find a real market where it’s members can make an honest living, instead of continually dipping into the pockets of taxpayers. They might be able to pull a fast one for a year or two, but people will catch on before too long…
“FWIW, the counter-point is that the best location for ground-based solar arrays is equatorial areas where there is little or no cloud-cover or rain, i.e. hot, dry deserts. There isn’t much there either, except notoriously prickly and banditry-prone locals. That could make erecting several square miles of photovoltaic arrays a difficult endeavour and one would have to budget for a certain level of sabotage and thievery of equipment every year.”
FWIW, the best location for ground-based wind power turbines is where the wind blows hard over cheap flat land that has notably prickly if not banditry-prone locals. These are hugely successful, covering thousands of square miles and expanding rapidly. I’m not aware of any serious issues with sabotage and thievery at these sites. Like solar power farms, these wind farms are generally not in areas that need large amounts of power, such that transmission loss can be an issue, but they are successful nonetheless.
The SFF needs to find a real market where it’s members can make an honest living, instead of continually dipping into the pockets of taxpayers.
So do people who want the taxpayers to spend tens of billions of dollars on new exclusive NASA rockets to deliver a few civil servants to the moon a couple times a year at a cost of billions per flight.
Cite your sources, Nelson.
Here are some I’ve found on the economics of space-based solar power and it’s not anywhere near as bleak as you make it out to be. A challenge, yes. A scam, no.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/07/running-the-numbers-on-space-based-solar.ars
http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/IAC-10.E6.3.11_present.pdf
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf
There was also an ESA-sponsored study a little while back that found an SPS system could recoup its energy costs within a year of operation, but I’m having trouble finding it again. If anyone else remembers this study, feel free to post the link and/or attribution.
Nelsoln Bridwell wrote @ November 8th, 2010 at 3:56 am
The SFF needs to find a real market where it’s members can make an honest living, instead of continually dipping into the pockets of taxpayers. They might be able to pull a fast one for a year or two, but people will catch on before too long…..
the entire post is a good sentiment…and I concur in it, particularly the last point.
HSF needs to find a real market…or its toast.
The post Apollo model, thousands of people supporting a few mythic heroes who fly in space for billions a pop…is finished, thanks to the economy in The Republic which is going to do nothing but get worse.
Robert G. Oler
To Ron: SRB’s do not go into orbit and the rest of your post is just plain spin and arguing for the sake of arguing. Give me a break. Converting empty stages into structure means using machinery in space to cut, bend, stir weld, and whatever process is needed to form the all important trusses for reflector concentrators and antennae arrays.
Stop guessing about what I am talking about- if you want more info ask me, do not…….make things up. (that is the second time I have said those god cursed words this month and it makes me a little nauseous)
To MikeSR: If you are going to quote me please quote accurately. You make it sound like I support space solar power- I do not. I support solar power in the mojave desert but not in orbit.
What I am talking about is beam propulsion, and that will require space solar power stations.
To Bridwell: I understand your skepticism because I feel exactly the same about new space and space tourism- it has got to be a scam.
I know I am connecting two dots that no one else is talking about- space solar power and beam propulsion.
It is what it is, I cannot explain exactly why this connection is not being discussed but I think it is important.
Rand:
I personally view the goal of NASA as space exploration. It’s product is scientific knowledge and engineering know-how. It has a large, but limited budget.
Commercial space, on the other hand, has to make a profit in order to survive. The size of it’s market is potentially astronomical. However, like climbing a steep mountain, the problem is how to gain a toe-hold. Commercial satellites are a foundation. I am willing to believe that within 25 years LEO tourism could become very big. However, in each instance a sober assesment of the economics needs to be performed, and no amount of emotional excitement about “cool” ideas will be able to prop up any untra-expensive endeavor that is doomed from the beginning.
If I were directing the SFF, I would suggest directing energy into dramatically lowering launch costs as much as possible. I respect what Elon Musk has actually accomplished, but we need to move towards low-maintenance 100% reusability in order to significantly improve the balance sheets for commercial space.
To Bridwell:
I think you may be overestimating the cost of space solar power. I read aluminum once cost 50 dollars a pound or some similar ridiculous figure. Processes and technology may make it much cheaper. I am not saying it will make it cheap enough to compete with ground based solar power- I am saying it may make beam propulsion the holy grail of space exploration and colonization; cheap access to LEO orbit. Maybe even cheap escape velocity from earth orbit.
The major advantage of space solar power over terrestrial solar is that space solar can provide 24 hour power without need for power storage. Power storage is difficult and expensive.
While currently space solar power is too expensive, government investment in engineering research to bring down the cost of space solar would be money well spent. Presently several governments are funding the development of space solar power. Unfortunately the US government is not one of them. In fact no government agency considers space solar power to be within its domain of responsibility.
The US government spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on fusion has for decades and has not plans to slow its spending. Space solar is certainly more promising than fusion since it can clearly produce energy, as right now the communication, navigation and weather forecasting industries are all dependent on power produced in space.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 8th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Rand:
I personally view the goal of NASA as space exploration…
the problem is that this is not the agency’s charter nor is it any mission that produces anything of value commensurate with its cost…
and that is why the American people have canned the human side of the equation.
For about 1/2 of the 10 billion that was spent on Cx to almost no end the US could have the entire Moon well catagorized in terms of resources…thats exploration that has value.
Robert G. Oler
Karen Cramer Shea wrote @ November 8th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
The US government spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year on fusion has for decades and has not plans to slow its spending. Space solar is certainly more promising than fusion..
I dont know about that. The first country that gets the science and technology to have sustained positive energy fusion reactors will dominate the worlds energy scene.
Robert G. Oler
Now that’s comical Oler.
Fusion research has always been a cover for weapons research. There are only two places fusion will ever work- inside a star and inside an H-bomb.
“I cannot explain exactly why this connection is not being discussed but I think it is important.”
Because it isn’t viable. Simple as that.
MichaelC wrote @ November 8th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
says you…but some good people think otherwise…and when we get it then which ever nation gets it…will have solved for several generations the energy equation.
Robert G. Oler
If I were directing the SFF, I would suggest directing energy into dramatically lowering launch costs as much as possible.
They are doing that. The way to do that is by expanding the market. You, on the other hand, direct all your energy into keeping it expensive and unaffordable.
“Because it isn’t viable. Simple as that.”
Uh-huh. Sure.
“-will have solved for several generations the energy equation.”
The energy equation has been solved already. Any one of half a dozen large deserts on planet earth could supply all the energy civilization requires. Then solar energy raining down on these deserts and the conversion percentage of solar thermal or other technologies are well known. The numbers do not lie.
What is stopping this from happening is a world economy controlled by a handful of corporations who do not want anything to change. They will spend billions- and do- to preserve the status quo because it is what corporations do by law; maximize profits.
Even Rand understands this- what is your problem Oler?
I know some folks are looking at power beaming for distributed microsatellite constellations (and we may even do a testbed on the Station for it), but beamed propulsion is another kettle of fish.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/25701/
No it is not. It is energy being transmitted and converted into useful work. Simple.
MichaelC, it’s not quite as simple as you make it out to be.
Your link is for a ground-based launch system that vaporizes the air in what is effectively an expansion nozzle. If you concede that ground-based solar power may be better for surface applications, that would hold true for the system described in your link, as well. Only if space-based solar power has superior economics would you use it to supply power to a ground-based beam launch system.
Beamed propulsion in space would still require a propellant of some kind for reaction mass (perhaps an ablative material that is ejected upon flash vaporization) or a light sail for the beam to impart a force to. Both such technologies are still in their infancy.
I would caution you against overselling the concept.
“I would caution you against overselling the concept.”
I would caution you against underselling it.
Rand:
I don’t understand how “opening up the markets” is going to work where expendable commercial boosters are 10X-100X too expensive.
I think that it would be reasonable to ask NASA to set aside a small (1%) part of it’s budget for commecial technology development, which should be possible without jepordizing it’s science/exploration mission.
For an annual outlay of $180 million I would think that it could perform basic research on a number of practical ways to dramatically reduce launch costs (100% reusability, TSTO, low maintenance…Scaled Composes/XCOR sorts of approaches).
The argument to use in front of Congress is: Do we want the US to capture this large future market, or are we going to let other contries take it away from us, as has already happened in consumer electronics and automobiles?
I see that as something that can work. If I had a personal axe to grind, I suppose I might consider declaring war against NASA’s manned space program, but since I don’t, that doesn’t sound like the most constructive approach.
Justin:
I have to agree with what you say about beamed propulsion, since you (and Rand) probably know a lot more about the engineering side than the rest of us, combined…
Nelson
“The Congress in turn passed a resolution requiring the President, who they did not know would be Democrat or Republican, to set up a Planetary Protection Coordination Office by October 15, 2010. The President has dispatched the required response to the Congress, for their consideration.”
The above graciously provided by E.P. Grondine in another post
Would you guys like to go in and get a letter signed or start a letter writing campaign of some kind to the P.P.C. concerning getting funding for planetary defense?
It might make you grind your teeth a little but the perfect component for a Heavy Lift Cargo Vehicle is a pair of 5 segment SRB’s. That is as much as it needs to be as far as shuttle derived. The liquid engines can be up for grabs (But the RS-68 will probably be the first stage and maybe first and second stage with some other liquid engine in the upper stages. I would concede that liquid oxygen is much easier to store for long periods than liquid hydrogen so smaller kerosene engines would have applications in deep space or Luna.
Just do it all unmanned at first to set up a basic detection system of telescopes. Take robotics as far as it can go to build what needs to be built to build space power stations in orbit to allow the Holy Grail: cheap access to orbit airliner style. Except these airliners would never come back. They would be converted into space ships by factories in orbit.
When you think about what we did in the space race with what technology there was, and what we could do now in the same space of time with modest funding- consider just the funding for the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft over the last ten years.
Can someone look that number up for me and tell me what the DOD spent on that monstrosity over the last ten years?
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 8th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
For an annual outlay of $180 million
thats a joke. NASA HSF has proven that on several times 180 million dollars it can barely keep the lights on on a project much less build something or test something or really do anything but turn money into jobs.
Robert G. Oler
MichaelC wrote @ November 8th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
The energy equation has been solved already. Any one of half a dozen large deserts on planet earth could supply all the energy civilization requires
we do not solve civilizations energy problems, I really dont care about anyone’s energy problems outside of those for The Republic.
Robert G. Oler
Nelson–
If, in your ignorance of economics in general, and the economics of launch and space technology development in particular, you are going to simply pull numbers out of some orifice, absent any substantiation whatsoever, it would at least behoove you to not compound the demonstration of your foolishness in public by putting an inappropriate amount of precision on them.
$180M? Really?
Is $170M too little, and $190M too much? Are you sure it’s not $183.53M?
Do you even know the difference between “M” and “B”?
It might make you grind your teeth a little but the perfect component for a Heavy Lift Cargo Vehicle is a pair of 5 segment SRB’s.
“Perfect”?
A solid motor that requires the investment in a completely new and very expensive crawler and crawlway, for expensive boosters that are hard to turn around, is “perfect”?
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Well Rand, I am very willing to listen.
The 7.2 million pounds of thrust these two boosters produce is not a great deal heavier than the 4 Segment.
If a 150 ton lift vehicle could not be handled by the crawlers, how big a payload would the vehicle be limited to? 110 tons? 130 tons?
“-we do not solve civilizations energy problems, I really dont care about anyone’s energy problems outside of those for The Republic.”
You mean outside of those for the big corporations.
You ARE the problem and you are unconscious of the fact. I was not making that up about the deserts supplying the entire energy needs of the planet. It is true- with todays technology right now.
People just do not care to find out the truth. Too much trouble.
I know there are some pretty credentialed people posting here. There seems to be. Who would be the most qualified of all the regulars here to sign at the head of a letter with potentially tens of thousands of names of the countries space industry experts.
Maybe an exaggeration. Are there even twenty or thirty thousand aerospace engineers with masters degrees in this country anymore?
A solid motor that requires the investment in a completely new and very expensive crawler and crawlway, for expensive boosters that are hard to turn around, is “perfect�
When you look at the trade off’s between an SRB and a liquid fuel booster equivalent, in terms of size, thrust, and complexity in the high drag/low speed regime of atmospheric flight, you cannot beat solid fuel boosters. All major US launchers use them and will continue to use them for that reason. Now you are carping because an SRB based launcher will need modifications to a launch platform. You have a strange set of requirements.
Mr Oler:
I take it that you think that NASA is expensive. Well, surprise, it is!
So are you also against CCDev, which was only $50 million in 2010?
Or all space science missions (Mars Exploration Rover) that happen to have an annual budget less than $200 million???
MichaelC wrote @ November 8th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
“Can someone look that number up for me and tell me what the DOD spent on that monstrosity over the last ten years?”
If you’re not willing to do your own research, then how do you know when you have a valid argument?
I think this puts your other conclusions (like 5 segment SRB’s) in a new light…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSTKbXb4WFI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtMikSnR9Hw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_d-gs0WoUw
“Now you are carping because an SRB based launcher will need modifications to a launch platform.”
You’re missing the point. The MLPs can’t handle the weight of fueled five-segment SRBs in combination with the mass of many SDHLV designs. Going to five segments necessitates an expensive MLP replacement program — a couple billion dollars, minimum.
Although small solid rocket boosters are used to augment many LVs, trades to avoid heavy SRBs in favor of liquid rockets that can be fueled at the pad — or avoiding inflexible and incredibly expensive Shuttle elements and infrastructure altogether — are worth pursuing.
Hopefully these kinds of options will be studied in NASA’s ongoing HLV study and followed by ESMD:
nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_10-292_Heavy_Lift.html
Windy, you are wrong again. No other large US launch vehicle uses SRM’s as a first stage. They are use as thrust augmentation.
“When you look at the trade off’s between an SRB and a liquid fuel booster equivalent, in terms of size, thrust, and complexity in the high drag/low speed regime of atmospheric flight,”
Liquid boosters win hands down. See the first stages of Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, Taurus II, etc, all have liquid first stages.
So what? We’ve seen the SRM horizontal tests before, and all it “proves” is that ATK can make some really big SRMs. It doesn’t “prove” that the expense of these things is in any way a “better deal” for the American Taxpayer than liquid fueled engines.
amightywind,
Life cycle costs must be included in any analysis. That’s what ate the Shuttle program alive and it was going to do the same to Constellation. There’s nothing “strange” about it.
“People just do not care to find out the truth. Too much trouble.”
That is typical of HLV nuts and their ignorance of better and cheaper non HLV architectures.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 8th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Mr Oler:
I take it that you think that NASA is expensive. Well, surprise, it is!..
expensive is a relative term…the question is in any federal or other spending…is there value for the cost.
In some parts of NASA there is incredible value. The Boeing 787 is a direct result of some dollars spent on taking first NASA’s 737-100 and then the 757 and testing new technologies (PACKS, electric motors for flight controls etc).
The uncrewed exploration vehicles are good return on money. From Pioneer V to the Rovers on Mars…the bytes that have come back have rewritten the text books and infinitely increased our knowledge all for a pittance.
HSF has value but right now its cost is way out of proportion to the value we receive and any “exploration” is going to add to the cost with little evidence that at this stage…it bring additional value.
You and others doubtless find “value” in the “excitement” of the effort or some chest thumping pride in the notion that “its Team USA” that is doing it…all I can say to that is “grow up”.
Robert G. Oler
“That is typical of HLV nuts and their ignorance of better and cheaper non HLV architectures.”
You need to seek help. I was talking about beam propulsion.
“-how do you know when you have a valid argument?”
I just know.
Anyway:
The V-22’s development process has been long and controversial, partly due to its large cost increases.[40] The V-22’s development budget was first planned for $2.5 billion in 1986, then increased to a projected $30 billion in 1988.[24] As of 2008, $27 billion have been spent on the Osprey program and another $27.2 billion will be required to complete planned production numbers by the end of the program.[2]
Mr Oler:
I will never fault those who question the relative merit of manned vs unmanned missions. That is a very legit debate.
In fact, my personal take on HSF is that we should focus on unmanned to maximize our scientific return, but also augment that with manned servicing/exploration capabilities.
Steven Squyres commented that one astronaut on the surface of Mars could have accomplished as much in a few days as the MERs have done in years. But for most space missions unmanned is the better way to go.
And yes, there is some real value in excitement, as has been pointed out so well by Neal Degrass Tyson. Most of our engineers and scientists were specifically inspired by NASA’s accomplishments (and also science fiction).
I personally think that we should do lots of Apollo-style exploratoin missions to discovere as much as possible about the geology and resources, in conjunction with LOTS of unmanned rovers. I do not see much point in a permanent manned base at this point, other than for studies of the long-term effects of 1/6 g.
I personally think that we should delay people to Mars while we are looking for life, because they will be spreading bacteria and viruses that will contaminate the search.
I personally think that the ISS should not need to be permanently manned. Periodic visits to set up or service experiments should suffice.
And we really need something simple in oribt that can spin so that we can test the long-term effects of 1/6 g (Moon) or 1/3 g (Mars) on humans.
Rand:
It appears that my reply, in which I accused you of resorting to grammar-school insults, and included a link to a Monty Python skit, has been deleted!!! I didn’t realize that profanity is a requirement in order to post here…
But to specifically address your question about my proposed annual $180 million funding for commercial space research, which is 1% of NASA’s total budget, no, that is not as estimated cost for any specific research program.
It is more akin to the $50 million CCDev budget. It is a case of “This is how much you get. Make the most of it.” Not an unrealistic $10 billion to play around with SPSP. Not an unrealistic request for an additional $6 billion while the US is undergoing the worst economic recession in the last 50 years. It is something that would work, and would require commercial space to focus on finding real markets, rather than becoming financial dependants of Uncle Sam.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Mr Oler:
I will never fault those who question the relative merit of manned vs unmanned missions.
that is a silly debate that became tiresome a few decades ago and is irrelevant today. It is like saying “we have to use crewed airplanes to attack all targets because the crews on them are so much more versatile” or the statement by one of a Major airlines chief pilots regarding the 777 “I dont like the automation and prefer to hand fly the plane”…the plane is a FBW airplane, the automation is in force all the time. (or the astronauts needing to handfly the last couple of hundred feet of a shuttle mission)…
We live in an era where thanks to several “revolutions” (more correctly “increases in capability”) machines are now longer “tools” rather they are really “interfaces” that humans use much as we use our hands or any other part of our body.
Where one puts humans in that loop is a function of mostly communications systems AND the capability of the machines that we can deliver…yes it is accurate that a person on Mars could do in a few minutes what the little rovers could do in months…but 1) the human would cost far more then the Rovers do and 2) if we spent 1/10th of the money to send humans to Mars we could send far more capable machines (and far more of them) which would do far more…
the reality is that the Rovers are affordable and the humans on the surface are not.
If people were on Mars…they would use machines to do most of the heavy exploration…they would just have a communication advantage (cant do a lot about the light barrier)…but they would use machines.
I dont think that NASA should be doing a lot of Apollo like stuff…and while you might, the reality is that most Americans agree with me…so thats where the politics of the money are.
NASA in large part has itself to blame for this state of affairs. HSF has gotten so expensive and so “trivial” under the system of 1 person in space for several thousand on earth…that what is done by that 1 person has no chance of having any value that justifies the cost.
Robert G. Oler
sorry…an edit point got off I wrote
“NASA in large part has itself to blame for this state of affairs. HSF has gotten so expensive and so “trivial†under the system of 1 person in space for several thousand on earth…that what is done by that 1 person has no chance of having any value that justifies the cost.”
I would add.
Cassini is no more uncrewed then the shuttle is crewed. It takes humans on Earth to run Cassini and give its capabilities meaning and virtue. The reality is that the folks who actually ride on the shuttle cost so much that whatever they do in space cannot pay for the thousands of people it takes on earth to put and keep them there…thats why CAssini has far more value to cost then any shuttle flight.
until that changes, ie less people on earth and more people in space…HSF is going on a dead in street.
Robert G. Oler
It is something that would work, and would require commercial space to focus on finding real markets, rather than becoming financial dependants of Uncle Sam.
Boeing, SpaceX and ULA all have “real markets,” and are in no danger of becoming “financial dependents” of Uncle Sam. Or are you saying that ULA should no longer accept government payloads? Or what?
MichaelC wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 11:40 am
““-how do you know when you have a valid argument?â€
I just know.”
MichaelC wrote @ November 8th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
“People just do not care to find out the truth. Too much trouble.”
MichaelC wrote @ November 8th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
“Can someone look that number up for me and tell me what the DOD spent on that monstrosity over the last ten years?”
Let us know when you’re done debating yourself…
I like to look at the issues NASA faces from a financial perspective – what can they afford, and what is their mission (not always the same).
Keeping in mind that current programs have political inertia, the ISS has a firm need for crew transportation from 2016 thru 2020 (maybe longer). We can all have opinions about the best way to get crew to/from the ISS, but if we don’t do something, then Russia will continue to get over $300M/year from the American Taxpayer.
On another blog post (the 11/5 Fox News topic), I showed where providing SpaceX with the $300M they need to “man-rate” Falcon 9/Dragon would end up saving the U.S. money after 2020 (and probably before), and because that would be money spent in the U.S., it would be a great value for NASA, and good for the U.S. economy.
Now some people may not want SpaceX to get the business, and I would certainly want more than one provider (no monopolies like Shuttle was), but the math does show that commercial crew is not a “subsidy”, but a smart infrastructure investment.
If you disagree, I would hope you could show the math that supports your viewpoint.
What is needed for rovers to be more productive is a higher output power source. The 140 watt solar panels resulted in a top speed over level ground of 0.1 MPH. For comparision, an electric car running at 60 mph consumes about 20 kW.
Because of the time delay, the rover also needs greater autonomy. NASA needs to come up with software that will allow the rover to operate un-supervised, with high-level supervision from JPL, just as the head of an archaeological dig provides general guidelines to the laborers. Automated navigation and preliminary evaluation of geological features on Mars is something that could be within the scope of our current capabilities.
Rand:
The way that NASA/DOD works (you know this more than us, since you used to work there) is that they define an exploration mission that they want to accomplish, and then look for contractors who can design and build the needed components.
Obama instead tried to redefine NASA as a customer who will buy whatever NewSpace makes, whether or not it needs it:
The payload of a Falcon 9 is too tiny to mount serious space exploration missions, so NASA will pay billions to create a kludge (LEO fuel depots) to allow it to fly longer missions using small SpaceX rockets.
SpaceX does not have an HLV rocket motor, or even a medium-lift motor for that matter, and NASA does, so NASA will throw away it’s working designs and wait 5 years while it pays SpaceX to catch up with everyone else.
There are loiter/endurance limitations to the Dragon capsule at the ISS, so NASA will handicap Orion and park it at the ISS so that SpaceX does not need to invest in Dragon long-duratoin capabilities.
To me this sounds a lot like the JSF second engine nonsense. NASA must buy things that it doesn’t need and scrap development of things that are better.
Which is not to say that everything that commercial space does is junk or useless, or that commercial competition could someday result lower cost access to space. Or that NASA is not frequenly much more expensive than it should be.
What bothers me is the blatantly dishonest way that the Obama administration has tried to push this through, even resorting to the ADA to fire NASA contract engineers.
Is this any way to run a space agency?
Obama instead tried to redefine NASA as a customer who will buy whatever NewSpace makes, whether or not it needs it:
That is blanatly wrong like the rest of your pots
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
What is needed for rovers to be more productive is a higher output power source. The 140 watt solar panels resulted in a top speed over level ground of 0.1 MPH. For comparision, an electric car running at 60 mph consumes about 20 kW.
Because of the time delay, the rover also needs greater autonomy. …
all of those things are available NOW for quite a bit less then the cost of a human going to Mars…
NASA really doesnt need to invent anything. The DoE has autonomous rovers that actually do important things (like guard nuclear facilities…) and are doing it now.
The military has them as well…they have already killed the enemy. Robert G. Oler
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
all wrong. there is no real exploration mission for humans…
Robert G. Oler
The payload of a Falcon 9 is too tiny to mount serious space exploration missions, so NASA will pay billions to create a kludge (LEO fuel depots) to allow it to fly longer missions using small SpaceX rockets.
Absent any quantitative analysis to support it, which people who oppose this position have provided, this statement is kind of insane.
We will not do serious exploration of the solar system absent propellant depots. HLVs, on the other hand, are completely optional. And at the current level of activity, unaffordable.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
“Obama instead tried to redefine NASA as a customer who will buy whatever NewSpace makes, whether or not it needs it:”
That’s an unsupportable assertion. In what way does NASA defining a service contract (crew to the ISS) constitute NASA being forced to buy something they don’t need? Weird.
“The payload of a Falcon 9 is too tiny to mount serious space exploration missions…”
Why are you fixated on SpaceX, and where in the NASA Launch Services II contract does it say that NASA can only use SpaceX? To date, NASA has used ULA (and it’s parents) to launch all of it’s big missions, and NASA will continue to use them as long as they meet their needs. Weird again.
“SpaceX does not have an HLV rocket motor, or even a medium-lift motor for that matter, and NASA does…”
There’s that fixation with SpaceX again – you should really see someone about that.
ULA does the heavy lifting for NASA, and as along as Delta IV Heavy can handle it, there is no need for an HLV. If they need more lift, then Atlas V Heavy is 30 months away from launch, and has 28% more mass capability. So far, Delta IV Heavy is all the U.S. has needed, and it’s not even in that much demand.
“There are loiter/endurance limitations to the Dragon capsule at the ISS…”
I’m beginning to wonder about your ability to read and comprehend. Orion was supposed to have an endurance of up to 210 days, which is same as the proposed CST-100 when docked at the ISS, and a little better than Soyuz (6 months). Dragon can stay docked at the ISS for up to two years, so I don’t understand what “limitations” you’re referring to. Oh, and there are no requirements for anything other than ISS crew rotation, so where are you getting these imaginary requirements?
“What bothers me is the blatantly dishonest way that the Obama administration has tried to push this through, even resorting to the ADA to fire NASA contract engineers.”
I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to, but if they are contractors, then what’s the big deal with cutting them off when you don’t need them? Being in management, I don’t have a problem with this. I hope you’re not implying that NASA should pay people for not doing anything?
First the U.S. prohibits transferring certain technologies to India, so Russia cannot not sell its cryogenic engine, and India have to spend tons of money on creating an indigenous one. Suddenly, when the U.S. wants to work closer with India, the restrictions are lifted. Fair play, because the U.S. cannot play unfair.
even resorting to the ADA to fire NASA contract engineers
Aha, that was the poodle’s core! You’re angry about the job losses.
Coastal Ron, we already send our money to China as they seem to be supplying us now adays with all of our needs. Why shouldnt Russia get some of the pie as well. Id rather see Space X or Boeing CST-100 get the boost in money instead of them. What can you do when the government keeps wanting to send jobs overseas?
Dennis Berube wrote @ November 10th, 2010 at 8:52 am
“What can you do when the government keeps wanting to send jobs overseas?”
Think Dennis – why would any government want to ship jobs overseas? They don’t.
It’s you that keeps shipping jobs overseas! Every time you shop at Walmart, Kmart, Sears, Home Depot, Lowes, and any of the other mass marketers, you are supporting jobs overseas, and not at home.
Every time you made the choice to buy based on price, you supported shipping someones job overseas. Just look around your house, and check how many “Made in America” tags there are, or are not. The monitor you’re staring at was not made in America.
But don’t worry. You are just being a good capitalist. But what you have to realize is that capitalism knows no borders, and it is the reason why we not only “won” the cold war, it’s also the reason why Japan no longer has a low cost labor market, and at some point, neither will China.
The challenge is how to thrive in a competitive marketplace, and that’s where the government can use some gentle market incentives to encourage domestic supply for worldwide demand (commercial crew to LEO).
One of the additional limitations of space solar power is that putting your satellite in LEO isn’t sufficient, because it will be on the night side 50% of the time, and beaming the power back to a few ground station locations will be challenging because it will pass out of range of any one station within a few minutes. In addition, it would be unable to beam power to ground stations on the night side.
To get this to work, the satellites would need to be located at geostationary locations, which means a substantially greater launch cost to climb further out of earth’s gravity well. This would more than double the already astronomical launch cost.
One has to also wonder how much interference to satellite communication (goodbye Direct TV!!!) would be created by all the sidelobes of those ultra high-power transmissions. The radio astronomers would just love it!!!
Rand:
“We will not do serious exploration of the solar system absent propellant depots. HLVs, on the other hand, are completely optional. And at the current level of activity, unaffordable.”
I have yet to hear to clear justification for propellant depots, other than as an excuse for using undersized rockets, and I am not the only one who does not see the utility. NASA’s recent HEFT report page 5 states:
“Inâ€space propulsion technology advances and high system reusability did not obviate need for higher capacity launcher.
Commercial onâ€orbit refueling did not obviate need for higher capacity launcher.
Commercial launch rate available for exploration missions significantly limited by costs of infrastructure expansion.”
http://www.nasawatch.com/images/heft2.pdf
I have yet to hear to clear justification for propellant depots
To provide a commercial market for propellant launches, which will lead to a reduction in commercial launch prices by at least one order of magnitude. And note that you’re looking at this backwards, the onus is on HLV proponents to justify developing an HLV when existing commercial launchers are sufficient.
I have yet to hear to clear justification for propellant depots, other than as an excuse for using undersized rockets, and I am not the only one who does not see the utility. NASA’s recent HEFT report page 5 states
The HEFT report is useless as a guideline to serious space exploration. It is not possible to build a big enough rocket to do a Mars mission in a single launch, even if it wasn’t economically insane. Therefore, in-space fueling is essential. The notion that we’re going to be a serious space-faring nation without the ability to store and transfer propellants off planet is completely nuts.
“It is not possible to build a big enough rocket to do a Mars mission in a single launch, even if it wasn’t economically insane. Therefore, in-space fueling is essential. The notion that we’re going to be a serious space-faring nation without the ability to store and transfer propellants off planet is completely nuts.”
I have to disagree. I single launch godzilla is possible, even doable, but not practical given the current political climate.
A single launch mission is not practical and neither is a 70 launch mission. You are polarized in your thought processes. What is required is the fewest number of launches by the biggest practical vehicle.
In-space fueling is not essential when nuclear propulsion is used for EDS. Since the math on chemical propulsion for BEO is well known and should be what is considered “completely nuts.”
Storing liquid oxygen (for the months or even years required?) might be doable. Transferring it will be more difficult. LH2 might not work at all except as an upper stage or earth departure stage.
If you are going to pursue journalism Rand, you might want to tone down the hyperbole.
“One of the additional limitations of space solar power is that putting your satellite in LEO isn’t sufficient, because it will be on the night side 50% of the time, and beaming the power back to a few ground station locations will be challenging because it will pass out of range of any one station within a few minutes. In addition, it would be unable to beam power to ground stations on the night side.”
I do not believe that is correct Nelson. The beauty of transmitting power is that you can……transmit power.
From station to station. And yes geostationary orbit might be required. That is not a show stopper- just more expensive.
You know my opinion on space solar as it relates to beam propulsion; if you can spend trillions on a “highway to heaven” then it will be worth it. Consider launching hundreds of “airliners to space” every day, year after year.
But for running my clothes dryer space solar is ridiculous. I would be better off hanging my clothes outside- in the sun. Fusion power.
What is required is the fewest number of launches by the biggest practical vehicle.
Q. Required for what?
A. For locking in SDLV
I would suggest that what we should strive for instead is the lowest possible launch cost/kg, so that we may finally see economic development of space. This has long been believed to be possible, on plausible grounds, but Big Government is unable to achieve it.
“And note that you’re looking at this backwards, the onus is on HLV proponents to justify developing an HLV when existing commercial launchers are sufficient.”
You wish.
Backwards is relative I guess, depending which end of the horse you are.
If you are going to pursue journalism Rand, you might want to tone down the hyperbole.
I’m don’t “pursue journalism.” I’m an engineer who has done this stuff for a living. Both hydrogen and oxygen can be stored indefinitely on orbit, with passive and active cooling. ULA has developed designs to do so, which can be demonstrated in the next three years, if funded, and the demonstrations would cost orders of magnitude less than a heavy-lift vehicle. Insisting that we not have the capability to fuel in space is like insisting that we build a big enough car to drive across country without having any gas stations. It’s ridiculous.
LH2 might not work at all except as an upper stage or earth departure stage.
And that’s more than enough.
“To provide a commercial market for propellant launches, which will lead to a reduction in commercial launch prices by at least one order of magnitude.”
You have just stated the argument that I most flawed and objectionable.
What you are saying is that NASA must stop exploring space, which is it’s primary mission, and instead become a customer for services that it does not need, in order to create an artificial market that will keep several small new companies from going out of business, all in the hopes that the cost of access to space will somehow magically be reduced.
The commercial market has been launching satellites for the past 50 years, and the cost per pound has not gone down at all. SpaceX is asking the same thousands of dollars per pound. In fact, a spokesman for commercial space recently stated in a TWIS interview that we should not expect costs to go down.
You have just stated the argument that I most flawed and objectionable.
Well, that’s progress, now we’re at least discussing the argument.
What you are saying is that NASA must stop exploring space, which is it’s primary mission, and instead become a customer for services that it does not need, in order to create an artificial market that will keep several small new companies from going out of business, all in the hopes that the cost of access to space will somehow magically be reduced.
No, that’s no what I’m saying.
1. NASA cannot stop exploring space if it isn’t currently exploring space (other than with robots) to begin with
2. Exploration isn’t in fact NASA’s primary mission (look up the Space Act), even though some of us might think it ought to be
3. I’m arguing for NASA to start exploring as soon as possible, instead of developing an unneeded launch vehicle first
4. NASA will need propellant in orbit, one way or another, if it is to do exploration, so it is untrue were talking about unneeded services
In fact, a spokesman for commercial space recently stated in a TWIS interview that we should not expect costs to go down.
We shouldn’t expect that to happen until there is a major increase in demand for launch services. And that is exactly what an exploration program could provide. There is no doubt as to the technical feasibility of RLVs or even their commercial viability, except (and crucially) for recouping development costs.
You wish.
Backwards is relative I guess, depending which end of the horse you are.
Nope, it is required for responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds. It’s also the law. Don’t build anything that isn’t needed using taxpayers money. Procure necessary services competitively wherever practical instead of channeling it to preferred zip code areas.
“Insisting that we not have the capability to fuel in space is like insisting that we build a big enough car to drive across country without having any gas stations. It’s ridiculous.”
It is not like driving a car across country. As an engineer you should know that. You should not make such statements as an engineer or a journalist unless you are willing to hear about how wrong you were for the rest of your life.
It took them a long time and a tremendous amount of money to make centaur behave for a couple hours; and they did not even have to transfer any propellants. They have never, I REPEAT NEVER transferred any cryogenic propellants in space, let alone hundreds of tons of it.
It will be a mess.
“Don’t build anything that isn’t needed using taxpayers money.”
When did you become disconnected from reality?
Ever been in the military?
They have never, I REPEAT NEVER transferred any cryogenic propellants in space, let alone hundreds of tons of it.
Nor do they have to, although it would certainly be desirable.
When did you become disconnected from reality?
To put this in the appropriate context: you asked for evidence we don’t need an HLV, I pointed out the onus was on you, you denied that and I explained it was required by good stewardship of taxpayers’ money. That politicians aren’t good stewards of the public purse is not an excuse for an HLV. The onus is on HLV proponents to show it is not merely desirable, but vastly superior than the alternatives. And at best they have been able to show minor advantages, which are meaningless since all systems have aspects in which they outperform others.
Ever been in the military?
Heh, I got a deferment from military service, honestly (and stupidly) intending to do the Academically Trained Reserve Officer course after university. I had to get an official letter from a university official one year later but after that they never bothered me again because they already intended to suspend conscription within a year or two.
MichaelC wrote @ November 10th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
“It took them a long time and a tremendous amount of money to make centaur behave for a couple hours…
You’re beginning to sound like DCSCA, especially since he justified the future by what happened 50 years ago.
Maybe you could enlighten us as to why Boeing & Lockheed Martin aerospace engineers are wrong, and you are right?
What are the physics or conditions that will make any attempt at liquified fuel transfers in space difficult or impossible?
If you want to be believed, then you have to have more than hubris.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 10th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
“The commercial market has been launching satellites for the past 50 years, and the cost per pound has not gone down at all. SpaceX is asking the same thousands of dollars per pound.”
Paul Spudis asserted this on his Air & Space Moon blog, and I debunked that quite easily, so I guess I’ll do it again here.
To truly understand the economic forces involved, you have to be able to determine certain standards of need, or fungibility, so let’s look at payloads in the range of 21,000 kg to LEO.
By one measure, the actual cost of each Shuttle flight has been around $1.5B, or $71,000/kg. For Titan IV (now retired), it was around $20,000/kg. For Delta IV Heavy, which replaced Titan IV, the cost is about $14,000/kg. SpaceX is advertising their Falcon 9 Heavy for $95M, which would bring down the cost to $4,524/kg. I don’t know about you, but these are significant reductions in cost over time.
For medium class launchers, Atlas V and Falcon 9 are essentially interchangeable, since they can both launch the CST-100 (and probably Dragon). Atlas is supposed to cost $130M/flight after being man-rated, and Falcon 9 currently costs $56M. The trend is clear – going down over time.
If you disagree, maybe you provide data to back up your assertion?
You should not make such statements as an engineer or a journalist unless you are willing to hear about how wrong you were for the rest of your life.
Hilarious.
MichaelC fancies himself an expert on cryo storage and transfer, but the people who do it for a living don’t know anything about it.
“-why Boeing & Lockheed Martin aerospace engineers are wrong, and you are right? What are the physics or conditions that will make any attempt at liquified fuel transfers in space difficult or impossible?”
http://www.mae.ufl.edu/NasaHydrogenResearch/h2webcourse/L11-liquefaction2.pdf
All you have to do is read- even jump ahead to page 12 of the PDF and you will find it is not as easy as the Boeing and Lockheed Martin guys want you to believe. Remember their paychecks depend on convincing you they can “easily” do what nobody has been able to do before.
For more interesting reading on what a major pain in the ass just storing, let alone transferring LH-2 is:
history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf
“When did you become disconnected from reality?”
MichaelC looking in a mirror
“it is not as easy as the Boeing and Lockheed Martin guys”
it is and only an idiot would think that Boeing and LM don’t know about ortho and para hydrogen.
“it took them a long time and a tremendous amount of money ”
It did neither. Its development was not as long as other vehicles.
Also, every time an LH2 engine restarts in space, it is “transferring “LH2, the same processes are involved.
MichaelC, don’t post unless you know something.
MichaelC wrote @ November 11th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
“All you have to do is read- even jump ahead to page 12 of the PDF and you will find it is not as easy as the Boeing and Lockheed Martin guys want you to believe.”
Well it’s nice that you provided the link, but page 12 doesn’t prove anything – all they are doing is explaining the physics of hydrogen, not the limitations of storage or transfer in space.
For instance:
“Hydrogen molecules exist in two forms, Para and Ortho, depending on the electron configurations”
Obviously a smoking gun…
“For more interesting reading on what a major pain in the ass just storing, let alone transferring LH-2 is:”
And yet the title of the article start with “Taming Hydrogen”. Considering that Centaur has been flying for over 45 years, I’d say they know what’s possible and what’s not. Certainly the couple of dozen cryogenic specialist’s that ULA employs would know what is worth trying and what is not. They have history and experience on their side – you don’t.
“If Ortho-hydrogen remains after liquefaction, heat of
transformation described previously will slowly be
released as the conversion proceeds
This results in the evaporation of as much as 50% of
the liquid hydrogen over about 10 days
Long-term storage of hydrogen requires that the
hydrogen be converted from its Ortho form to its Para
form to minimize boil-off lossesâ€
In Zero G, liquid hydrogen and gaseous hydrogen mix and are bombarded with radiation. The conversion might not go so well under these conditions. Try pumping LH2 anywhere and where it is going much be pre-cooled with liquid Nitrogen and then Hydrogen and the coolant hydrogen has to be converted from Ortho to Para equilibrium.
“They have history and experience on their side – you don’t.â€
No cryogenic propellants have ever been transferred in space- they have no experience. And obviously you have no knowledge.
-â€it is and only an idiot would think that Boeing and LM don’t know about ortho and para hydrogen.â€
Well, you said it, I did not
In Zero G, liquid hydrogen and gaseous hydrogen mix and are bombarded with radiation.
Gravity level has nothing to do with radiation.
No cryogenic propellants have ever been transferred in space- they have no experience.
They do it every time a Centaur delivers a satellite to GEO. And even if it were true, it’s a stupid argument. It implies that nothing can ever be done for a first time.
“In Zero G, liquid hydrogen and gaseous hydrogen mix .’
You don’t even know the first thing about propellant management. They don’t mix, ever hear of propellant settling thrusters. You just discredited yourself with the lack of basic spaceflight knowledge
“You just discredited yourself with the lack of basic spaceflight knowledge”
Looks like the other way around to me. You depot nuts ignore the basic problems with storing hundreds of tons of Liquid Hydrogen in space. It takes time to convert ortho form to Para form; the more liquid the more the stuff changes when disturbed and the more conversion is required. In orbit the cosmic radiation is cut in half and comes in one direction mostly (that’s what a gravity well has to do with it) but is space it is doubled and comes in from all directions making it more difficult in terms of generating gaseous hydrogen- and converting the resulting ortho form back to Para form. Anytime hydrogen is transferred to another tank that tank must be pre-cooled first with liquid nitrogen and then with liquid hydrogen and then these coolants must be recovered and the ortho form generated in both the tank and the coolant must be converted.
You depot proponents do not want this discussed.
but is space it is doubled and comes in from all directions
You again demonstrate that you don’t know what you’re talking about. At a Lagrange point the thermal environment is better than in LEO.
In orbit the cosmic radiation is cut in half
Cosmic radiation is irrelevant to the functioning of depots, they have to deal with radiation from the Sun and Earth, which is much higher in LEO.
In Zero G, liquid hydrogen and gaseous hydrogen mix and are bombarded with radiation. The conversion might not go so well under these conditions.
The hydrogen that has been sent into space is already in ortho/para equilibrium for its storage temperature. There is no need to convert it; it’s already converted. The concern occurs when hydrogen is being liquefied from gas at room temperature. The liquefaction process does not necessarily remove energy from the nuclear spin degrees of freedom, so care must be taken to ensure to ensure this happens (for example, by passing cooled materials over substances that catalyze the exchange of energy with these states).
In space, if the propellant depot has an active cooling system that re-liquefies warm hydrogen, that system will need to include just such a catalyst. Similarly, if hydrogen is produced from lunar volatiles, the cryo plant that liquefies it also need to do this.
Liquid hydrogen, sitting by itself in a tank, will not suddenly acquire significant nonequilibrium amounts of ortho hydrogen. This would require non-thermal energy input; where do you propose this energy comes from? Certainly not cosmic radiation; the energy density of that would be far too low to be a significant problem (think: the efficiency by which such energy input could produce o-H2 would be lousy, so if it were a concern it would be for boiling the LH2 away rather than subtly charging it with extra o-LH2.)
MichealC see above. And once again
“You just discredited yourself with the lack of basic spaceflight knowledgeâ€
We may be depot nuts but you are just plain nuts and don’t what you are talking about. There is no need to precool a tank. The tanks will always have some LH2 in them.
byeman: even if a tank has to be precooled, this could be done by admitting some cold hydrogen gas, allowing the tank to cool, then venting it to space.
I would only point out that most of the problems the Shuttle has had are with LH2, and although it has major advantages in the Saturn V the lower density greatly increases tank volume. Where it is generated and used continuously, as on the ISS, there is no need to liquify it. For reusable TSTO shuttles hydrocarbon fuels may be more practical as the larger LH2 tank adds a lot of weight and volume to fly back.
As to the original topic of space solar power, the SPS concept was created is yet another instance of the failed search for the “killer app” that would pay for human spaceflight. Space Solar Power is predicated on three assumptions, 1) fossil fuels can’t be used because of carbon dioxide, oil depletion, etc. 2) nuclear power can’t be used because people are afraid of it, 3) alternatives (ground-based solar, wind) can’t be used because they are variable and power cannot be stored. That made cost almost irrelevant.
Unfortunately, none of these assumptions are true. India is investing massively in new reactors, including the thorium-U233 breeder cycle, which eliminates the need for isotopic enrichment. Wind and ground-based solar are growing exponentially, and although intermittent they reduce fossil fuel use. Ground-based power storage and transport as hydrogen are probably much cheaper than SPS. Even fossil has gained many years with a combination of natural gas, CO2 sequestration, and politics.
Earlier SPS studies were based on huge TSTO fully reusable shuttles that reduced cost. These would still be a good idea. But ground-based energy technology is a moving target. The problems of energy storage are minor compared to the problem of the cost of spaceflight. Unfortunately, no unbiased study has yet shown that Space Solar Power is economically feasible.