You’ve probably heard that Orion lives. But not as the CEV — as a crew rescue vehicle (itself a nonsensical requirement). I can live with this. It will give JSC (and to a lesser extent KSC) something to do, and keep them out of commercial’s hair to a degree. And it will buy off some of the whiners about the new policy. The good thing is that Ares remains dead. But it would be nice to get a wooden stake for the Stick.
[Wednesday morning update]
OSTP has released a fact sheet on the new plans. The bad news — they’re still talking heavy lift, but that’s probably politically necessary right now, because so many of the cargo cultists will believe that it’s necessary for BEO trips. The good news — the decision on what it will look like is five years off, which is plenty of time to educate the public (and politicians) on the lack of need for it. And even if we go forward with it, as the fact sheet notes, 2015 is at least two years earlier than work would have started on Ares V.
What it looks to me like is that they want to develop a home-grown version of the RD-80 so that we’re not dependent on the Russians for them. The problem with that is the vast increase in cost, not just for development, but for production. We’re buying them from the Russians now for about ten million each, and a domestic version is likely to cost several times that.
There’s no discussion of propellant depots per se, but they’re implied by this:
The new rocket also will benefit from the budget’s proposed R&D on other breakthrough technologies in our new strategy for human exploration (such as in- space refueling), which should make possible a more cost-effective and optimized heavy lift capability as part of future exploration architectures.
You don’t do “in-space refueling” without a depot, and if they’re looking into this, it implies tech demos much sooner. There’s no reason that we can’t elevate the technology readiness of this to an eight or nine in the next five years with an intelligent development program.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jeff Foust has more on the fact sheet.
[Bumped]
googaw, I usually agree with you, but spending $3B a year to prove how absurd human spaceflight is is a terribly bad idea. You’ve said it yourself–governments need to get over their archaic astronaut fantasies and send the right machines out there to do the job. The US military figured this out by the late 1960s when they cancelled MOL, but NASA’s still stuck in the trap of manned spaceflight.
This has some interesting potential. With NASA running a ‘rescue service’, it would put them into a role which is typically in the government sphere.
Heavy lift is less definitive, though if it’s kept at about shuttle class masswise the need for depot operations/more flights will still exist and could drive flight rates up for everything but the HLV.
Trent, I’m only reporting what SpaceX has stated about their Dragon design. I’m not saying it will have sufficient consumables to support a crew for six months. I’m saying it is being designed to stay docked to the station for six months. It is also being designed to fly free for nine months in its unmanned DragonLab configuration. Of course, if Orion becomes a CRV they won’t need to design it to stay docked to ISS for extended periods. But since they’ve already committed to DragonLab I’m not sure how much they would save by relaxing the ISS requirement.
The point is that SpaceX wasn’t assuming there would be a separate CRV at the ISS, so they already incorporated that requirement into the design of Dragon. Which makes the Orion CRV technically superfluous, at least as far as SpaceX is concerned. Politically, I think it may be a reasonable compromise.
SpaceX could have a Dragon lifeboat on station in less than 3 years.
Certainly since it doesn’t need a launch escape system to go up empty.
Dragon may have sufficient ECLSS for a trip to the station and back down but it won’t be functioning while it is connected to the station
Why not?
“How much will this “lifeboat” cost?”
At least twice it’s currently projected price.
Probably more.
googaw, I usually agree with you, but spending $3B a year to prove how absurd human spaceflight is is a terribly bad idea. You’ve said it yourself–governments need to get over their archaic astronaut fantasies and send the right machines out there to do the job. The US military figured this out by the late 1960s when they cancelled MOL, but NASA’s still stuck in the trap of manned spaceflight.
Keep in mind that humans are the right machines for a number of jobs. You want to do some surface geology (or other complex research involving manipulation and/or selection of material) on Mars or the Moon? You want a nearby controller for your expensive robotic probes to get around a communication delay that can range from minutes to hours because that would speed up the work your probe can do by orders of magnitude? You need repair capability? You need a solid legal claim to some exotic real estate or have a colony? Humans.
Mind you, NASA hasn’t shown much inclination to use humans appropriately, but these are situations where one would use humans.
As to your example, the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), it’s worth noting here that the purpose more or less was to create a manned reconnaissance satellite. That turns out to be more effective unmanned than manned. The analogues to this in NASA’s program work quite well (most space probes are remote imaging/sensor probes. Just because some applications work better as unmanned, doesn’t mean that all applications are better unmanned.
In other news: [sarcasm]
The F-22 production line will be reopen to produce fighter pilot “rescue vehicles”. The new aircraft will be transported directly to Davis-Monthan airbase in Tuscon via commercial 18 wheelers where they will be immediately “mothballed”.
A huge standing army of production workers, “maintenance” workers, and trained pilots will be drawing tax-payer funded salaries, prepared to provide productive efforts if it is ever deemed necessary.
SEIU and other union ‘organizers’ hailed the political compromise as “brilliant” resulting in 1 million “jobs” created, saved or redefined.
Famous pilot Bill Whittle could not be reached for comment. He was suspected to be recovering from a severe case of vomiting.
[/sarc]
Karl Hallowell, you’re right. Humans are the right machines for all kinds of jobs. All of those are found on a planet with 1g gravity, nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere, and radiation protection.
But in space, the job is better fulfilled by a machine that doesn’t care about vacuum, doesn’t need to be rescued at a moment’s notice, doesn’t have feelings, and can “eat” ambient electromagnetic radiation via a solar panel.
Even if you did want to promote the HSF fantasy, the JSC approach to manned spaceflight is exactly the wrong way to go. With their layers upon layers of “safety” they’ll insure that the flight rules get written for time immemorial that will make beyond-LEO exploration impossible, “by the rules.”
Kirk,
I’m disappointed to hear of your loathing of human spaceflight. That’s your choice, but 15 years in the aerospace industry has not killed my enthusiasm for human spaceflight, though it has tempered my expectations. I still expect that most of this solar system will be settled with people someday. I still hope to vacation in LEO someday (after I retire at least). I’m less than thrilled with NASA’s ultra-expensive ways, but I am happy to keep ISS around for a few more decades of research. It is an excellent place to test out and demonstrate technology for long-duration human spaceflight. At the very least it is actually flying, now.
I simply do not believe that space is just for robots any more than diving is just for fish or flying is just for birds. For what it’s worth, I consider human spaceflight much more entertaining than pro sports.
I am pleased with this apparent compromise. A bone has been thrown to Orion and Ares is still dead. Hopefully, Ares will stay dead long enough for shuttle-derived HLV to disappear for good. The apparent transfer of a lot of work from JSC to KSC seems a bit strange since it is likely that the folks being laid off of Shuttle won’t have the skills needed for it. Will they just be administering the programs from Florida and have most of the work done elsewhere?
There is some ambiguity in the term “heavy lift”. This category can be interpreted to include a Delta IV Heavy or Falcon 9 Heavy, for example, whereas the economically preposterous vehicles of Ares V size are often now dubbed “super heavy.” So the decision in five years will I hope just be a decision to choose between the then-existing heavy versions of standard launchers for each specific mission that might need such a thing. Alas however, the emphasis on heavy lift in the new new policy reflects a continued emphasis in the Exploration Directorate and by its fans on custom-built rockets far too large for real markets but rather serving as make-work programs catered to sci-fi fantasies very far divorced from what we need to compete in the world’s economy.
So the decision in five years will I hope just be a decision to choose between the then-existing heavy versions of standard launchers for each specific mission that might need such a thing.
Heheh, I like the way you’re thinking. The truth is that ULA and Arianespace do call their largest vehicles heavy lifters. It’s not a strange thing given that they are the largest launch vehicles for which commercial payloads exist.
Roga, you make a good point about lifeboats’ testing requirements – and potential to ‘grow’ into beyond LEO return vehicles – vs. short duration capsules.
One thing pointed out has been that the interior of Orion is huge. That’s rationalized as a vehicle carrying Apollo type living space for a Lunar mission as well as acting as a return vehicle. But for anything beyond Apollo-type flights it becomes ludicrous not to separate living and return vehicle volumes. Similarly, with Orion as lifeboat for a quick return there’s no reason not to reduce the volume of it.
Yes, I think it likely that some subtle thought went into the lifeboat option. If that extends into the realm of the politics as thoughtfully, then we might just escape with a largely intact change of direction. Which doesn’t mean that the NASA internal culture (for example) might not turn out to be as big an obstacle, or worse, than Congress.
But look, what’s this? Raytheon is joining the Commercial Spaceflight Federation? Is this more of the traditional industry dropping away from conventional NASA? Yet another arena where traditions need to be eroded.
We’ll see.
Tom D, I loathe the fact that such a disproportionate amount of money is spent on HSF for no discernable return. As I have stated many times, I would personally love to travel in space or walk on the Moon. But I don’t expect others to pay for it, and if I pay for it myself I don’t have to explain to anyone else why I did it.
Kirk,
Notice that no one is debating the robotic exploration side of the President’s proposed policy. Indeed I doubt if anyone outside the small planetary science community, even cares about it…
So the big question for you is who would care about funding NASA and space exploration if its only robotic? Would the public care as much about the rovers on Mars if there was zero expectation that someday they will be joined by humans? Would Star Trek be such a hit if it was only about robots with no humans in the show?
I suspect not. Look at SETI. They lost touch with the public’s need to connect and now they depend on donations from the wealthy to survive. The same will happen with the rest of robotic space exploration without humans in the equation.
Space exploration is all about humans going boldly to settle new lands and develop their resources. Not about just collecting science facts for some astronomy textbook. The expansion of humanity beyond the Earth is what it has always been about, from Jules Verne who first inspired Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Robert Goddard and Herman Orberth to consider space:
[[[In spite of the opinions of certain narrow-minded people, who would shut up the human race upon this globe, as within some magic circle which it must never outstep, we shall one day travel to the moon, the planets, and the stars, with the same facility, rapidity, and certainty as we now make the voyage from Liverpool to New York.]]]
Jules Verne, From the Earth to the Moon, 1865
to Carl Sagen who finally realized his robots only views were wrong.
[[[Since, in the long run, every planetary civilization will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring–not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive… If our long-term survival is at stake, we have a basic responsibility to our species to venture to other worlds.]]]
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994
to Stephen Hawking
[[[I don’t think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I’m an optimist. We will reach out to the stars.]]]
Stephen Hawking, interview with Daily Telegraph, 2001
So really the reason for the focus on HSF is simple. Its about advocating for the survival of the species versus its extinction.
So the question is not about the need for the human settlement of space, unless you believe in the voluntary human extinction movement, its about how best to advance it. That needs to be the central basis for evaluating this or any space policy.
So the big question for you is who would care about funding NASA and space exploration if its only robotic? Would the public care as much about the rovers on Mars if there was zero expectation that someday they will be joined by humans? Would Star Trek be such a hit if it was only about robots with no humans in the show?
They already care more. I’ll bet that more young people can name the two rovers on Mars than could name a single NASA astronaut (Lisa Nowak doesn’t count).
Space colonization isn’t going to save humanity. Even right after an asteroid strike, the Earth is still (by far) the most hospitable body for human life in the solar system.
Even right after an asteroid strike, the Earth is still (by far) the most hospitable body for human life in the solar system.
I’m glad to see this argument being repeated. 🙂 One could imagine scenarios where colonization would save humanity (a “12 Monkeys” plague, say), but even then it’s a stretch.
You don’t do “in-space refueling” without a depot..
Sure you can and all in space refueling to date has been done without a depot. Just launch a spacecraft which arrives in orbit with empty or partially empty tanks. Launch a succession of tankers to refuel the spacecraft. The spacecraft can then reignite its engine(s) when enough propellant is on board to continue or complete its mission.
Think Progress spacecraft refueling a succession of space stations. No depot, just a succession of tankers.
From the fact sheet Rand links to
After these initial missions, our long-duration human spaceflight technologies will enable human explorers to conduct the first-ever crewed mission into deep space to an asteroid, thereby achieving an historical first; venture into deep space locations such as the Lagrange points (potential sites of fuel depots that would enable more capable future missions to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations); and then send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth.
Lagrange point depots?
Yep, I’d support that.
Sure you can and all in space refueling to date has been done without a depot.
Agreed, but in-flight refueling as a precursor to full depots may be more practical for storable propellant than for for cryogenic propellant, or at least LH2 given its low density and thus relatively heavy insulation. I’m strongly in favour of starting with storable propellant transfer (restricted to landers and their orbital precursors with wet-launched EDSs for TLI), but not in favour of stopping there…
…in-flight refueling as a precursor to full depots may be more practical for storable propellant than for for cryogenic propellant, or at least LH2 given its low density and thus relatively heavy insulation.
I would thought just the reverse. Indeed, the Apollo EOR plan involved cryogenic propellant transfer albeit from a single tanker (two Saturn V launches total).
Hmm, I suppose you could use a jettisonable loiter skirt. But would that be simpler than a small reusable depot?
Kirk,
[[[I’ll bet that more young people can name the two rovers on Mars than could name a single NASA astronaut (Lisa Nowak doesn’t count).]]]
Evidence? And survey results?
Kirk,
Of course its better not to have the strike in the first place. That would be one of the side benefits of NEO mining.
But then some people would prefer to see humanity stagnate and go extinct. As I said before, that explains Fermi Paradox. Where are the ET’s – all playing their video games and living in happy isolation on their own planet.
Thomas said of unmanned science probes that they are ” about just collecting science facts for some astronomy textbook….”
Thomas, Martijn Meijering said something wise to Googaw that I believe I applies to you: “You make good points, but like others you harm your case by overstating it.”
Some Nasa missions, like IBEX, might appear to just be one for the astronomy textbooks(*), but others, such as Cassini, charted our neighborhood (useful for future exploitation) and, to pick one science goal particularly compelling to the public, are steps toward discovering whether life has evolved elsewhere. Cassini has encouraged researchers who think Enceladus might be a place to go looking for life, while Cassini/Huygens has done the same for Titan. Follow-on missions to Enceladus and Titan may be very exciting indeed. So I have two points: first “just collecting science facts”, including astronomy facts, has done wonders for humanity’s lot in life in the last three hundred years. And regarding science probes to the Saturn system in particular, while actually finding life appears to be a longshot, if you think the search for it is boring and is “just collecting science facts”, you must not have a soul!
Thank you for what I hope was an entirely unnecessary pro-astronomy and astrobiology rant. Please return to pontificating on HSF policy!
(*) The first interstellar mission planners will be greatful for IBEX…
Thomas said of unmanned science probes that they are ” about just collecting science facts for some astronomy textbook….”
Thomas, Martijn Meijering said something wise to Googaw that I believe I applies to you: “You make good points, but like others you harm your case by overstating it.”
Some Nasa missions, like IBEX, might appear to just be one for the astronomy textbooks(*), but others, such as Cassini, charted our neighborhood (useful for future exploitation) and, to pick one science goal particularly compelling to the public, are steps toward discovering whether life has evolved elsewhere. Cassini has encouraged researchers who think Enceladus might be a place to go looking for life, while Cassini/Huygens has done the same for Titan. Follow-on missions to Enceladus and Titan may be very exciting indeed. So I have two points: first “just collecting science facts”, including astronomy facts, has done wonders for humanity’s lot in life in the last three hundred years. And regarding science probes to the Saturn system in particular, while actually finding life appears to be a longshot, if you think the search for it is boring and is “just collecting science facts”, you must not have a soul!
Thank you for what I hope was an entirely unnecessary pro-astronomy and astrobiology rant. Please return to pontificating on HSF policy!
(*) The first interstellar mission planners will be grateful for IBEX…
But would that be simpler than a small reusable depot?
At current traffic levels I don’t see how it could not be. But that starts up the whole “so and so says a depot can be done really cheaply” argument.
But then some people would prefer to see humanity stagnate and go extinct.
So that’s the choice, is it? Do what Thomas Matula says or face stagnation and extinction? Do you think martial law is warranted since the stakes are so high? Perhaps the dissidents should be rounded up?
These claims of omniscience undermine the legitimate arguments you make, Thomas.
John Young just received a lifetime achievement award at NSS. In his brief acceptance, he declared that we need to go back to the moon and industrialize it, then on to Mars and industrialize it, because “if history has shown us anything, it’s that single-planet species don’t survive.”. A lot of people are chuckling about it, thinking evidently that he is befuddled. I think he had the dinosaurs in mind…
“if history has shown us anything, it’s that single-planet species don’t survive.”
With all due respect to John Young (and I have the greatest of respect for him, having met him personally on several occasions) I don’t think such a statement can be made since we know of no other species and our sample size is exactly one. We are a single-planet species and we’re still here.
Mfk, no need to invoke the dinosaurs — Young is right, as over 99% all the species which ever lived on Earth have gone extinct. Intelligence may not quite be enough: Homo rudolfensis, H. ergaster, H. georgicus, H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, H. rhodesiensis and H. floresiensis, H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis all went extinct too! 🙂
So really the reason for the focus on HSF is simple. Its about advocating for the survival of the species versus its extinction. So the question is not about the need for the human settlement of space, unless you believe in the voluntary human extinction movement, its about how best to advance it.
Well who could possibly oppose such a tight argument? It would be worse than opposing Mom, baseball, or apple pie! Anyone opposed to HSF must hate humanity and want us all to die!
You make things so clear, Thomas Matula. Ten years at NASA might darken your clarity.
I’m not taking sides here, just want to point out that a counterargument to “We’re buying them from the Russians now for about ten million each, and a domestic version is likely to cost several times that” would be “yes, but in the latter, we are paying it to ourselves.”
I’m not taking sides here, just want to point out that a counterargument to “We’re buying them from the Russians now for about ten million each, and a domestic version is likely to cost several times that” would be “yes, but in the latter, we are paying it to ourselves.”
Speaking as a taxpayer, it’s a very ineffective counterargument. We aren’t “paying it to ourselves.” We (the taxpayers) are paying a lot more than we need to to an American aerospace contractor. That’s an argument for not buying anything from China, because they aren’t “us.” It’s a recipe for poverty.
Is there reason to believe ULA would even want to use those engines, other than perhaps as a lever to get a better price from the Russians? Of course if they get to build a super-HLV with taxpayers’ money they’ll happily accept a US engine I assume. That will then have raised cost/kg…
Regarding Orion: What will it be capable of that a Dragon capsule wouldn’t be?
Surviving the ISS MMOD environment for 6 months. It has been designed with a launch abort system. Being capable of a quick upgrade to carrying crew if Falcon goes boom. Deep space missions.
The first justification for Human Space Flight is, “I want to go”. That sentence can be by any one of us that does actually want to go, but does not justify extorting from others for the purpose. If I want to go, then I should have to pay to go, same as if I want to go to Tahiti or Disney World.
The only reason the pay for the go should come from others is if they benifit from their pay in a manner that is satisfactory to them. National backing might be satisfactory to 50%+1, which leaves 50%-1 of us unhappy. While I disagree with Kirk about colonization ever happening, I don’t see solid answers here to his objections. He doesn’t want to pay excessive amounts for someone else to go and do nothing useful, and neither do I.
I want to see space opened up as a new frontier and economic benifit to the race. It probably won’t happen by government push, or by waiting for the One Killer App. I expect it to happen incrementally in smaller doses that most here want to settle for, by people and organizations doing each step for their own tangible benifit.
Kirk,
[[[You make things so clear, Thomas Matula. Ten years at NASA might darken your clarity.]]]
You just made the best argument I have heard so far for shutting NASA down. If it has lost sight of the vision, a vision shared from Verne, to Sagan to Young, of why go into space then there is little hope the POR, Obama’s new Policy or any other will move us forward.
If the purpose of NASA is just planetary science and the technology to enable it NASA doesn’t need 20 billion budget, astronauts or 10 centers. You could just reduce it to JPL and Goddard with a $3 billion budget, put it under the NSF and accomplish the same thing. Better to spend the rest on planetary engineering so we will be comfortable on Earth.
Rand, for me the argument for designing and building a US native engine in the RD-180 class is strategic. The US presently has good relations with Russia but politics change easily. Also, depending on a single source provider for a strategic resource is a bad move.
I know there is the Delta IV with RS-68. However it really is not in the same payload class. Also the US has no native staged combustion kerolox experience which means if it was required to actually build an engine, even with the design documents for RD-180, there would probably not be enough experience to actually build a replacement in any expedient fashion. FWIW I would personally fund something larger in the RD-171/F-1 class instead. Plus do it with western design tools and methods. Manufacturing tools and salaries are different in the west and a different design is warranted if it is to be manufactured here. Zenit was one of the cheapest launchers in the market and used this technology. IMO RD-171 engine issues are related to the current financial situation in Ukraine. There were similar problems with the Proton’s engines not so long ago.
Kirk, I agree that there is no desirable real estate anywhere in the Solar System. Yet.
Space colonisation (which necessarily involves mining space resources, eventually) is essentially a way of creating the real estate. There are quite a lot of designs but they all include spreading dirt (moon rock or asteroidal rubble) over the inside of a metal cylinder, to enough depth that the dirt provides radiation protection equal to that of Earth’s atmosphere. Of course, we are going to have to transport an ecology to colonise that dirt; strangely enough, Heinlein had the answer to that sixty years ago – simply dump some of Earth’s soil over the top of it and mix it in – if life can colonise barren lava fields down here, it can manage ground-up rock.
Of course, some of the colonies are going to go wrong and often in unforeseen ways, and some of those ways are going to be lethal and some of them nightmarish. In other words, people are going to die colonising the new frontier. So what? If that had been able to stop people, then there wouldn’t be an America.
I don’t know about 2100. But IMHO by 2200 there will be either very many fewer people (and possibly none) or very, very many more – and 1% or less of humanity will live on Earth, in the latter case. And all of them will be richer than Americans are now.
And the stay-at-homes will be much safer. There are many failure modes for Earth as far as human civilisation is concerned – spreading out prevents some of them and makes some others not matter. Sure, if the entire Sol system is hit by a wandering black hole or a GRB then we are all toast in either case. Again, so what?
Bob-1,
[[[Some Nasa missions, like IBEX, might appear to just be one for the astronomy textbooks(*), but others, such as Cassini, charted our neighborhood (useful for future exploitation)]]]
But if humans are going to stay on Earth then there will be no future exploitation. Its merely a data point of no economic value.
That is the point. sending robots out to explore is fine, if they are followed by humans that will put the resources to work for the benefit of humanity. But if there are no humans following them the data they produce is of no value beyond textbooks.
The discovery of lunar water is great news because of its potential role in the development and industrialization of the Moon for the benefit of humanity. But if humanity is not going to develop the Moon, or even return there, it just become another astronomical data point.
Thomas, science textbooks aren’t stamp collections — they are useful! I’m sure you agree that technological advancement makes life better. Do I really need to make an argument for why and how scientific knowledge enables technological advancement?
Regarding space science: we’ve learned a lot about life on Earth just using telescopes, let alone using probes. Ok, lets be Earth-centric: there is this thing called the sun that has various important impacts on us. The STEREO mission is studying it in a way that can only be done from space. Want to be ready for blackouts? Set up a solar observer. Want to prove those anthrocentric climate change guys wrong? Study the sun (and study the weather on other planets as well.) Want to find asteroids that threaten Earth from a sunward direction? You know what to do. That’s prosaic – now lets get crazy: do you think finding life-as-we-don’t-know-it on Titan won’t be helpful for us back on Earth, even if we never visit Titan in person? Do you think that learning how life adapts to Titan’s extreme conditions won’t end up being useful to us back on Earth? And that’s just the spin-off argument — there is also the romantic search for knowledge: is life unique to Earth is a question that provokes many people, even if it doesn’t seem to interest you. I’m all for settling the solar system, but I’m eager to learn about the world around me regardless of where I live. (I have doubts that we’ll ever set up colonies in the center of the Earth, but I think it should be studied as well!)
“The bad news — they’re still talking heavy lift, but that’s probably politically necessary right now, because so many of the cargo cultists will believe that it’s necessary for BEO trips. The good news — the decision on what it will look like is five years off, which is plenty of time to educate the public (and politicians) on the lack of need for it. And even if we go forward with it, as the fact sheet notes, 2015 is at least two years earlier than work would have started on Ares V.”
That is incredibly wishful thinking. The fact is, NASA is still stuck on HLV. Bolden frequently says HLV is essential. Is Bolden lying?
Secondly, this new HLV plan is not an acceleration over the Ares V schedule, I don’t know how anyone can say so. One of the tricks of the Constellation plan was to have Ares I subsidize the development costs of Ares V. Hence the 5 segment SRB and J-2X projects.
The reality of Ares V, was that essential components were already being developed and tested right now. Not after 2015, as under the new HLV plan of Bolden/Obama. The new HLV plan is not an acceleration of two years, it is a delay of more than a decade.
IE Orion v Dragon.
Anon: Surviving the ISS MMOD environment for 6 months.
For a fraction of the sort of money NASA is going to spend on building this lifeboat version of Orion I’m certain that Dragon could be upgraded to be able to survive that environment as well. That is assuming you are correct in your assumption that Dragon isn’t already designed for such durations in orbit, I’m not at all sure that is a correct assumption.
Anon: It has been designed with a launch abort system.
Dragon is also intended to have an abort system for manned launches, but we’re not talking about manned launches we’re talking about an unmanned launch to the station and then remaining there for use as a lifeboat if needed.
Per the OP: “It will be launched unmanned and remain docked at the ISS as an emergency return vehicle, according to the reports”
Being capable of a quick upgrade to carrying crew if Falcon goes boom.
Deep space missions.
If you want an RD-180 class engine, why not finish the RS-84?
Isn’t is an O2 rich engine that would fill the same niche?
Much work has already been done on it.
Karl Hallowell, you’re right. Humans are the right machines for all kinds of jobs. All of those are found in any environment with sufficient gravity, nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere, and radiation protection.
Fixed it for you. Humans have overhead. If you can afford it, then you can reap the benefits. We don’t need to bring Earth along, we just need to bring a piece of Earth-like environment.
Second, I read through the risk arguments about Earth with interest. I think the diversification argument is stronger than it first appears. In investment, diversification doesn’t protect against the complete loss of an investment. It also protects against underperformance of an investment. For example, we’d have a little more cushion in this current global recession, if there were a larger space economy to generate some wealth.
As we well know, a common analogy to space exploration is the development of the New World. Here’s something to consider about long term consequences. How would the Second World War or its aftermath have turned out, if the development of the New World hadn’t occurred? A key aspect of the Second World War was the considerable industrial might of the US and Canada and that this industrial might survived the war untouched.
Even if you ignore the war itself and just look at the rebuilding, it remains that the US was instrumental in reconstructing Europe after a nasty war. That allowed for a much faster recovery than if Europe had to do it alone (even if we assume the USSR or an analogue wouldn’t have interfered).
This is a strong point for space colonization. While Earth may remain a nicer environment than space (at least the parts of space that don’t have comfortable colonies established), it can still suffer destructive setbacks. You could have nuclear wars, supervolcano eruptions, mass famine or plague (possibly induced by humans), cultural stagnation, etc. A partially independent and economically substantial space presence helps insure you against such problems.
Mmmmmm… inadvertently clicked “submit” prematurely.
Last points:
Anon: Being capable of a quick upgrade to carrying crew if Falcon goes boom.
Yeah, we all know how “quick” NASA is. And what if Falcon goes boom, we were talking Dragon not Falcon. Sure it is probable that Dragon would be launched on Falcon, but what is going to be launching the Orion lifeboat? Atlas? Delta? Those could be used to launch Dragon as well if Falcon went boom.
Anon: Deep space missions.
Just how “deep space” capable is a craft that is designed to sit dormant for months on end and then if used only be so for a short trip from ISS orbit altitude to earth, going to be?
“The good news — the decision on what it will look like is five years off, which is plenty of time to educate the public (and politicians) on the lack of need for it.”
One thing is certain. If the decision on what it will look like is made 5 years from now, it will not have RSRMs. The manufacturing capability will no longer exist, either the physical plant or the people. Those will disappear forever in less than a year.
Those will disappear forever in less than a year.
Even if Athena IIc flies?