George Abbey and Neal Lane have a new white paper on space policy recommendations. I haven’t read it yet, but I expect it to be pretty bad, based on history.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, I skimmed it. Other than the recommendation to cancel Ares 1, almost everything else is wrong. Certainly turning our backs on missions beyond LEO is, as is a focus on energy and the environment. There are other agencies responsible for this. I was amused by this:
It is distressing to observe the current state of the U.S. space program as the nation moves into a new progressive era with the inauguration of President Barack Obama in January 2009.
Emphasis mine. I don’t think that word means what they think it means.
[Mid-afternoon update]
Like one of the commenters over at NASA Watch, I too am shocked, shocked that John Muratore wants to revive X-38 and come back in a lifting body.
Energy and the environment? Christ, Ann Coulter and Vlacal Havel were right, this is the new religion.
It’s a funny thing; I happen to be reading a book on Reconstruction, and, like all scholarly treatments of the Civil War Era, it emphasizes that neither North nor South were, in general, concerned about the fate of black men. A general contempt for them existed broadly.
So one is left to wonder….why fight so hard? Why the fantastic slaughter from Shiloh to Gettysburg? At the beginning, it’s hard to see how people can get so personally worked up as to go a few hundred miles to die miserably over fairly abstract and distant concepts like the theoretical constitutionality of Congress regulating slavery in the Territories.
One might well say the same thing about the 16th and 17th centuries wars of religion in Europe, of course. What would possess German princes to kill off a quarter of the population of middle Europe, and wreck the economy for a century, over whether the Pope is, or is not, infallible in asserting that praying to St. Joseph to heal your ulcer is effective?
And yet, observing the sheer mindless fanaticism with which people approach “energy independence” or “the environment” in the modern era makes it sadly clearer. Human beings have this strange tendency to completely lose perspective sometimes.
I think we need robot overseers.
I think we need robot overseers.
Let me write the code, and we could have a deal here . . .
. . end snark . . .
🙂
“I think we need robot overseers.”
Yea, we already have Obama to be, The One. Maybe, he is just trying to reboot Zion after all.
The X-38 aspect of that report has gotten me thinking.
If an X-38 were deployed at ISS might that make it easier for SpaceX to qualify a Dragon for crew transfer purposes?
Why? On orbit shelf life.
Suppose crew rotation occurs every six months. Unless Dragon has a six month on orbit shelf life it can’t be used and if it does, its more expensive, by definition.
Therefore, deploy an X-38 and when rotating crew via Dragon, the Dragon goes up and drops off crew and promptly comes back down with the previous crew. No need for an extended on-orbit shelf life.
Doesn’t X-38 facilitate a more rapid transition from Orion as CTV to Dragon as CTV?
And over several years the incremental difference in cost between Dragon and Orion will more than pay for X-38.
= = =
All of this is also seems true for a genuine space hotel.
And if genuine RLVs are someday used, leaving an idle RLV attached to a facility as a rescue vehicle seems silly.
Finally, actually using the X-38 would help collect data and push the envelope on building lifting body space vehicles.
Certainly turning our backs on missions beyond LEO is, as is a focus on energy and the environment.
Energy and environment are going to be the big themes in DC for the next four years. Like it or not, anyone who wants to sell a new government program or policy will have to hit those notes.
Also, you didn’t skim far enough. They don’t turn their backs on missions beyond LEO; they’re calling for human missions to an asteroid or comet.
Doing a near-term asteroid mission before the Moon is something I’ve been hearing from engineers and astronauts in and out of NASA for the last two years now. (This is the first time I’ve heard anyone suggest a comet.)
Most of the asteroid talk I’ve heard comes from those who realize Ares V is too expensive to get funded. They’re ooking for missions NASA could do with smaller rockets and Earth Orbit Rendezvous.
The authors of this paper are still pushing for “an Ares V heavyweight launch capability,” however, which pretty much eliminates any cost savings (except for the lunar lander, whose development could be deferred.)
They also call for Orion to be scaled down to a three-person capsule that could be launched on a commercial rocket, which would be a good thing. They’re also enamored with X-38, which is not surprising considering who the authors are.
Unless Dragon has a six month on orbit shelf life it can’t be used and if it does, its more expensive, by definition
Wow, talk about smears.
NASA spent close to $500 million building X-38, which still isn’t even ready to fly. SpaceX hasn’t spent anything like that on Dragon.
As for “on orbit shelf life,” all had to do was check the SpaceX website: “Mission duration: 1 week to 2 years.”
And if genuine RLVs are someday used, leaving an idle RLV attached to a facility as a rescue vehicle seems silly.
Of course, it’s silly. A more sensible approach would be to have rescue vehicles on call. Do you think every facility needs to have its own fleet of ambulances, fire trucks, and rescue vehicles? Does yours?
Finally, actually using the X-38 would help collect data and push the envelope on building lifting body space vehicles.
“Using” the X-38 by having it sit in orbit, powered down, would not produce any useful data on lifting bodies.
If you want useful data on lifting bodies, you ought to be calling for NASA to build a true X-vehicle that flies on a regular basis.
Did none of you guys see the following statement in the paper that Clark Lindsey noticed?
“By not investing in a unique Ares I Earth-to-orbit human launcher, NASA will be positioned to take full advantage of emerging commercial Earth-to-orbit transportation services should they develop in the 2015-2020 fimeframe.”
And on another subject that keeps cropping up here. I agree that Obama adulation sometimes reaches the equivalent of “gag me with a spoon”, but he falls short of being the Antichrist. Many of you go as far overboard in that other direction and it’s just as big of a turn off.
Did none of you guys see the following statement in the paper that Clark Lindsey noticed?
“By not investing in a unique Ares I Earth-to-orbit human launcher, NASA will be positioned to take full advantage of emerging commercial Earth-to-orbit transportation services should they develop in the 2015-2020 fimeframe.”
And should they not develop in that timeframe, NASA would be positioned to end human spaceflight in accordance with the wishes of some on the Obama team.
Agree Obama falls far short of being the Antichrist, but only because the Antichrist died c. 632 AD, although his murderous idealogy lives on. In apocalyptic allegory, Obama appears closer to the figure referred to as the Idol.
Edward, I agree and retract in some respects but not others.
Space station crew need immediate evacuation options, especially given launch window constraints.
Having a means to safely leave a station and return to Earth without waiting for a rescue launch seems blindingly obvious.
That said, if Dragon does have an extended “shelf life” then those concerns have been met and I am pleased that the initial designs are intended for operational durations of up to two years.
Also various accounts exist concerning how close X-38 was to actual flight status but the request for foreign assistance does indicate that the less optimistic accounts are likely more accurate.
If those less optimistic assessments are true, re-starting X-38 makes no sense.
If X-38 was very close to flying then perhaps a different answer, perhaps as a TPS test bed, if nothing else.
Having a means to safely leave a station and return to Earth without waiting for a rescue launch seems blindingly obvious.
It only seems that way to you. It is not only not obvious, it’s not even true. They need to have a lifeboat, yes, but there’s no reason to come all the way back to earth.
Whether they need to come all the way back to Earth or not depends on the circumstances. Consider the case the the fire on Mir. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured but suppose one of the crew had been badly burned. In that case or of other types of serious illness/injury, the ability to rapidly return to Earth is highly desireable.
…suppose one of the crew had been badly burned. In that case or of other types of serious illness/injury, the ability to rapidly return to Earth is highly desireable.
Only for that crewmember. Not the whole crew.
I wrote:Having a means to safely leave a station and return to Earth without waiting for a rescue launch seems blindingly obvious.
To which you replied:It only seems that way to you. It is not only not obvious, it’s not even true. They need to have a lifeboat, yes, but there’s no reason to come all the way back to earth.
Adding heat shields and parachutes to that lifeboat certainly seems less expensive than having a rescue vehicle on permanent stand-by. Given launch window constraints, an immediate re-entry option would also reduce the life support requirements for that lifeboat, compared with waiting for a rescue launch to arrive.
X-38 may very well be a lousy solution (or not, mileage varies) but the incremental cost of adding a heat shield, parachutes and a simple retro rocket to the already needed life boat does not strike me as a significant additional expense.
Adding heat shields and parachutes to that lifeboat certainly seems less expensive than having a rescue vehicle on permanent stand-by. Given launch window constraints, an immediate re-entry option would also reduce the life support requirements for that lifeboat, compared with waiting for a rescue launch to arrive.
Only if it had no other purpose. I actually said nothing about having to stay in a lifeboat. Just put up a Bigelow station in coorbit for them to go to. It would also be a good place for ISS visitors to stay without disrupting ISS operations for their entire trip.
Consider the case the fire on Mir. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured but suppose one of the crew had been badly burned.
Suppose someone gets burned at the South Pole, where evacuation is practically impossible for almost half the year? Or in the Australian Outback? Or on a trip to the Moon or Mars?
Do you think Americans should never go any place where they don’t have an ambulance standing by in case of an accident?
Also, if someone is badly burned, the best place for them to recover is in weightlessness.
Orbital burn treatment wards have been proposed in the past. See http://www.hq.nasa.gov/webaccess/CommSpaceTrans/SpaceCommTransSec37/CommSpacTransSec37.html#Sec37FullIndex
Right now, we have no actual data on how burns heal in space, and we will never have any data until we’ve treated burn patients in space.
Given the choice of spending several hundred million dollars to develop a crew rescue vehicle or developing long-term burn treatment techniques that can be used in space, which would have more long-term benefits?
Fair enough, Rand
Once there are other space stations for lifeboats to head towards, then there is considerably less need for that life boat to have re-entry and landing capabilities.
I concede the point and retract any disagreement.
Also, getting another station up there ASAP (as a destination for tourists and/or non-ISS science missions) would seem to be a useful project.
Me? I’d like to see a Bigelow super-XL habitat for zero-gee sports:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/27/11551/0319/44/689500
Let them bail out in a modernized moose system.
Once there are other space stations for lifeboats to head towards, then there is considerably less need for that life boat to have re-entry and landing capabilities.
Yes, and that’s what a real space-faring civilization looks like. Note that there was no requirement for the Titanic lifeboats to be able to get all the way back to Southampton.
It’s something we could do quickly, and we should. The emphasis has to move away from launch/return systems, and toward building orbital infrastructure.
If ISS gets six regular crew and Russia stops flying tourists there, Space Adventures is going to want to broker a Bigelow based hotel deal, sooner rather than later.
How much might such a hotel cost to deploy?
Can Proton lift a Bigelow BA-330? Atlas V?
It seems to me an X-38 would be a dead-end beyond LEO.
Can you re-enter in one of those when coming back from deep space? Would it be able to handle the thermal shock?
Can you re-enter in one of those when coming back from deep space? Would it be able to handle the thermal shock?
That would depend on the TPS, obviously.
What makes you think it wouldn’t be able to? The USAF wanted to send a lifting body to the Moon in Luxex (and there was also a lunar Dyna-Soar), NASA wanted to use Orbital Space Plane as a return vehicle for manned Mars missions, and Lockheed originally proposed a lifting body for VSE.
I know that it must pose some additional mass penalty for the round-trip, but can someone who’s got real experience (more than just “took a class”) in this please tell me why one wouldn’t reorbit before returning from points outward of LEO? One would think that there’d be a design point for mass of the reduced TPS required, vs mass of reorbiting (mostly fuel I’d expect), but I’ve never heard of it discussed in a serious manner. Is it really that much cheaper to burn in at high speed, regardless of what that requires for a heat shield – against a same-sized same-shaped RV that goes into LEO first, if only briefly?
Thanks in advance.
Anderson, I don’t qualify, but you are describing aerocapture not aerobraking. Aerocapture to my understanding (which fits with the Wikipedia articles above) has only been tried with respect to the Apollo program and some other lunar missions. Aerobraking slows enough to enter elongated orbits. You can either circularize that orbit with a burn, or you can continue to pass through the atmosphere, slowing down more with each pass until entry occurs.
If your mission is carrying humans, then there are two big, related problems with aerobraking. First, it takes a while. Aerocapture means you are down in a matter of at most a few hours from the moment you enter atmosphere. Aerobraking takes much longer (weeks, if you’re not very aggressive or have a lot of velocity to shed), It also means multiple passes through the van Allen belts. So astronauts get a much greater radiation dose.
Growing up, I heard how the Soviet Union put no value on human life. There was ample evidence of this, especially from their “Great Patriotic War”. However, even the evil Soviet Union never operated a space station without a lifeboat Soyuz attached so the crew could return in an emergency. Turns out they also make some really good ejection seats for their military aircraft. Apparently, the evil old Soviet Union cared more about their cosmonauts than Ed Wright does about ours.
Until there are other places to evacuate to, having some sort of emergency return capability seems fairly reasonable from LEO. Once you go beyond LEO, you’re on your own.
However, even the evil Soviet Union never operated a space station without a lifeboat Soyuz attached so the crew could return in an emergency. Turns out they also make some really good ejection seats for their military aircraft. Apparently, the evil old Soviet Union cared more about their cosmonauts than Ed Wright does about ours.
LOL. The Soviet Union operated all through World War II without a single ejection seat in their aircraft. As did the British and the Americans. The Nazis were the only ones to develop an ejection seat during WW II.
I guess you consider the USAAF and RAF to be pure evil because every plane wasn’t equipped with an X-38 escape system?
For your edification, Larry, my aircraft uses those “really good Russian ejection seats.” I don’t get all my information from comic books. If you had first-hand experience, you would know that ejecting from any aircraft is a highly dangerous procedure, likely to result in a broken back or worse. Flying is not like sitting in mission control with a cup of coffee.
Ejection seats aren’t designed to fly all the way back to base like X-38. The Air Force did design a seat that could do that, back in the 1970’s. It was abandoned because it was not cost-effective, and the Air Force cares about cost-effectiveness even if you think it’s “evil.”
If you believe the taxpayers should spend any sum of money just to show how much they “care,” why not revive that Ryan ejection seat? Flawed as it was, it would probably save more lives than X-38.
The taxpayers could spend $1 billion on X-38 and save six lives (at most), or they could spend the same $1 billion on medical research, emergency medical services, or improved public sanitation, which would save thousands of lives.
One billion dollars would pay for a lot of Army field hospitals, for example.
Why should the taxpayers “care” more about six astronauts than 6000 soldiers/civilians?
Until there are other places to evacuate to, having some sort of emergency return capability seems fairly reasonable from LEO. Once you go beyond LEO, you’re on your own.
So, all your compassion for astronauts begins and ends at LEO???
An astronaut’s life is priceless at 300 nautical miles but expendable at higher altitudes???
The greatest risk astronauts face is when they’re blasted into space on an expendable missile that has an alarming tendency to blow up and kill astronauts. If you really care about astronaut lives, you should support the development of safe, reusable vehicles — not overpriced lifeboats that will probably never be used.
If you regard the Soviet space program as a role model, please stop talking fantasies about sending astronauts beyond LEO. Because in case you didn’t notice, the Soviet Union failed to do that.
Thanks, Karl. I hadn’t meant passing through the atmosphere before re-orbiting, but I suppose that’d probably make the duration spent in the Van Allen belts that much worse. Which we can protect against that too, but the mass penalties involved would presumably kill any benefit from a reduced TPS requirement.
Back to the books (and drawing board)…
LOL. The Soviet Union operated all through World War II without a single ejection seat in their aircraft. As did the British and the Americans. The Nazis were the only ones to develop an ejection seat during WW II.
LOL indeed. Ever heard of a parachute?
Do you think every facility needs to have its own fleet of ambulances, fire trucks, and rescue vehicles? Does yours?
Most airports do. Most government facilities do. Every military base does. Many industrial plants have them. For certain, JSC, KSC, MSFC, DFRC, and ARC all have their own. Do they need them, that’s arguable, but lets not pretend that a precedent wasn’t set a long time ago.
The taxpayers could spend $1 billion on X-38 and save six lives (at most), or they could spend the same $1 billion on medical research, emergency medical services, or improved public sanitation, which would save thousands of lives.
Yeah. Obama suggested giving that money to education. It could be a start to bailing out California. It’s not enough to save Chrysler. If you think this rebuttal is silly, you ought to reread your comments, Ed. They’re far worse.
If you want useful data on lifting bodies, you ought to be calling for NASA to build a true X-vehicle that flies on a regular basis.
Wow, that’s a pretty good argument. NASA would be better served building a vehicle that could reach space on demand. Such an effort would also require proving that demand could be met by actually flying to and from space more often the 2 to 4 times a year. I like the idea, and would prefer an ambulance to a life boat. Sadly, to find this argument, one has to shift through a bunch of non-sequiturs that are truly absurd.
> Wow, that’s a pretty good argument. NASA would
> be better served building a vehicle that could reach
> space on demand.
Two cavets. Just because you can reach space on demand, doesn’t mean you can reach the station on demand. Dependnig where it is in its orbit, you might need to wait for most of aday to do your emergency rescue.
As for lifeboats that can’t get you down. The emergency might be you need to get out of space due to a solar flare (no you can’t wait, and generally folks don’t shield stations) or as is currently commno, the launch vehicle might not be able to launch.
Designing emergency systems to fit political goals is rather nasty. Excuses about since we can’t offer escape on a lunar or Mars trip, we shouldn’t offer it in LEO because it might set a precident that we shouldn’t ever go where we can’t rescue; are political posturing. Its the NASA dark path of trading lives for agency image. Been there, done that, don’t recomend it.
Design to maximize the likelyhood of recovering and keeping the crew alive, with whats practically avalible. If it advances or doesn’t advance other agendas shouldn’t be a high priority.