Jon Goff and Ferris Valyn have some useful policy suggestions to implement their goal.
9 thoughts on “How To Become Spacefaring”
Comments are closed.
Jon Goff and Ferris Valyn have some useful policy suggestions to implement their goal.
Comments are closed.
As I commented before, I agree with essentially all of Part #1 of this series by Ferris and Jon and I also submit that Obama’s August 2008 space policy paper does not diverge from that essay in all that many significant areas.
Flying orbiter a few more times is one area of disagreement however I believe delivery of AMS to ISS is “worth it” to keep the physics community happy.
Anyway, that August 2008 space policy paper can offer a useful political tool for judging future decisions by Obama’s Administration in the space arena. And for screaming loudly if Obama diverges from that paper.
For example, Obama’s paper says that COTS is a good model for government/industry collaboration.
Bookmark that and hold his feet to the fire.
Also, the paper asserts that “outdated restrictions” have “unduly hampered” the competitiveness of the domestic aerospace industry. ITAR is named by name.
Bookmark that and hold Obama’s feet to the fire.
= = =
I also found Part #2 of Ferris & Jon’s submissions to be very good at describing several of the technologies we need and should developed, but I see a lack of suggestions on how to get from Point A to Point B.
A comment I posted in response proposed that more specific information be provided on:
Who should be writing checks to develop these technologies?
To whom should those checks be written?
What dollar figures are suggested for those checks?
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/1/14/205851/891/23#c23
There are specific propellant transfer projects that have been drawn up and are ready to go, if money is made available. I recall a project based on using propellant remaining in a Centaur after satellite delivery and Jon Goff has mentioned using reusable suborbital vehicles to practice micro-gravity propellant transfer during the weightless portion of the flight profile.
Submit those proposals in well documented format and I will join with others and contact Congress / NASA / Obama’s White House to urge funding.
= = =
FerrisValyn and another poster using the handle “Vladislaw” are doing great work in developing a more pro-space attitude at the “Great Orange Satan”
Liked part two much better than part one which felt very fussy/too general but I also wonder just like Bill White whether more detail isn’t needed (and more hard figures as well).
“FerrisValyn and another poster using the handle “Vladislaw” are doing great work in developing a more pro-space attitude at the “Great Orange Satan””
Kudos to them for it, they even manage to drag people like me who abhor the place in for a visit or two ^_^
P.S. Dibs on “Great Honey Melon Satan”, not sure why… ;>_>
Bill,
We actually had several suggestions on how to get to there from here (they’re on page two of the second proposal).
For the tech development part of it, we suggested restoring funding for something like the H&RT program NASA previously had (Obama’s suggestion of setting aside 10% of exploration budget for future capabilities R&T dovetails nicely with this, though if you could get the DoD space programs to also set aside 5-10% of their budgets for similar R&T it would make an even bigger impact), fully funding prizes to help spur on private investment and demos, further funding of SBIRs for space capabilities, and other similar technology investments.
For propellant depots, a lot of the technology is already there. There are a few blanks to be filled in, that could be done on H&RT project budgets, or even speculatively if there were a sufficiently funded prize or two. But the combo of helping establish transfer standards, followed by mandating their use for government programs is a powerful incentive…
I guess I just don’t get your question–we did say a lot about how to get there from here, and the check writers would be current government space users like NASA and DoD. Those checks wouldn’t be for actually building the infrastructure itself (that would be up to private actors), but for developing the technology. And if the private sector steps up, requiring NASA and the DoD to take the lead in using and encouraging the use of those new technologies.
~Jon
Rand or Jon,
Have either of you looked at the Space Pier concept? I realize it’s more “out there” than anything discussed in the DK article, but just curious if you think it’s tenable or not as a future project. My thought is that a SpaceShip2-like craft could reach orbit that way with a passenger manifest, and then glide back down.
http://autogeny.org/tower/tower.html
Jon – First let me repeat that I think its a great post.
I am merely bringing up questions that came to mind and it is is precisely because I would like to see the deployment of genuine RLVs and fuel depots that I am asking “Now what?”
Anyway, I cannot ascertain from the paper where you (and Ferris) stand on this spectrum:
(a) Since ESAS (Ares 1 & Ares V) consume pretty much all of NASA’s money there is little left over to fund propellant depot development and RLV development.
Therefore, most everyone (including me) believes ESAS should be canceled or radically changed and the Ares 1 program terminated as soon as possible.
(c) On the other extreme, some argue that it is foolish and wasteful to leave LEO before RLVs and propellant depots are deployed. Therefore, cancel everything except depot development and RLV development and don’t even attempt a Moon landing before depots come on-line.
(b) In the middle, I see two sub-groups, EELV-centric and Direct 2.0 –
(b)(1) EELV – get back onto the Moon with EELV only but then look to propellant depots and RLVs to make it all more economically viable; and
(b)(2) Direct 2.0 asserts that the money saved using Jupiter 120 and Jupiter 232 rather than Ares 1 & Ares V is sufficient to human-rate Delta IVH for Orion and fund propellant depot development and do many other good thing.
Ross Tierney (and others) are saying loudly that propellant depots will greatly leverage their architecture and should be deployed promptly (as in being operational by 2019)
But we do not delay returning to the Moon.
Except for ESAS (which we all reject) these other avenues all include propellant depot development and its the propellant depot deployment that is claimed to offer sufficient flight rate demand to achieve viable RLVs.
Therefore, which route do you and Ferris prefer?
I cannot ferret out an answer from the text even though the above scenarios constitute the key decision points Obama’s NASA will be facing.
(b)(1) EELV – get back onto the Moon with EELV only but then look to propellant depots and RLVs to make it all more economically viable;
It’s not really practical to get back to the moon with EELV only. You need depots.
Depots should be the highest priority. Let the launch issues sort themselves out in that context (i.e., use existing vehicles to do as much as you can as soon as you can, and when cheaper systems come on line, expand activity levels). But get NASA out of the launch vehicle business now.
Direct 2.0 asserts that the money saved using Jupiter 120 and Jupiter 232 rather than Ares 1 & Ares V is sufficient to human-rate Delta IVH for Orion and fund propellant depot development and do many other good thing.
Where do you expect to launch those Jupiter XXX rockets from, Bill?
The only realistic option for Jupiter XXX (or any other Shuttle-derived rocket) is Kennedy Space Center. That means keeping KSC open, which means keeping KSC staffed. That effectively prevents any significant cost savings.
Also, NASA is not currently spending any real money on Ares V. Cancelling a program that does not yet exist is not a real “cut.” Building Jupiter XXX won’t save money, it will cost money.
But we do not delay returning to the Moon.
Not true.
If you believe NASA needs to return to the Moon without delay, you should call for NASA to use Delta, Atlas, or even Soyuz. Rockets that can be launched without delay.
Jupiter XXX does not fall into that category. Developing Jupiter XXX will take time. Perhaps as much time as developing a reusable launch vehicle. If it’s acceptable to delay NASA’s return to the Moon for N years to develop a heavy lift vehicle that makes space transportation more expensive, why is it unacceptable to delay it for N years to develop a reusable vehicle that makes space transportation cheaper?
Bill,
I can’t speak for Ferris personally, but here’s my take (which is similar to Rand’s).
1-It isn’t the government’s business to build and operate a new RLV. It could try and encourage one using something like COTS, but quite frankly the best way would be providing a proven, consistent market for them, and maybe pay for some technology demos (small prizes or H&RT sized contracts to demo things like robust reusable TPS). Then let the market take care of things. So, no waiting for RLVs
2-You need depots or at least propellant transfer of some kind for EELVs to really make sense for a lunar mission. You could try the “tinkertoys” approach, but it is suboptimal. However, depot work doesn’t have to be done in series–you could start work on the lunar components (the transfer stage, lander, etc) while a depot is being developed.
3-Like the RLVs, you *really* want the private sector to be the one in charge of instantiating the depot. Government can help fund some of the final tech maturation, and offer prizes to do subscale demos of key things like on-orbit cryogenic propellant storage or transfer, but you want the private sector free to build and operate depots as makes best sense to them. By mandating their adaption on the government side (once available), the government could greatly reduce the technical risk for depots.
4-Let the market do its work. If NASA is buying hundreds of thousands of pounds of propellant every year in orbit, launched by ELVs (US and international), I’m almost positive that this will close the business case enough for RLVs that you’ll start seeing money flow into ventures trying to develop such beasts. Even if the first few years of lunar operations don’t benefit from RLVs, it’s still probably cheaper than holding everything for 12-15 years while NASA fields two new launch vehicles.
~Jon
I have two suggestions, one of which is in my view necessary and the other might help.
Shut down NASA’s space program – right now. And use the money to offer some really significant prizes that might make some people go after significant and useful goals; one might be to deliver 50MW of power from space, with specified reliability, for a longish period of time (perhaps a couple of months) – and let private enterprise have at it.
It might also be necessary to explicitly exclude space launchers from FAA safety requirements; such requirements appear to be the latest way the American government is using to stop private spaceflight development.