24 thoughts on “The NASA Budget”

1. While we currently have the ability to conduct long term deep space missions using storable hypergolic propellants, their relatively low performance is a critical limiting factor in both robotic and crewed space missions.

   An issue near and dear to my heart… While I agree this is bad, I think it is factually false to say the performance of hypergolics is a critical limiting factor. Youve heard me say this before, but the reason I keep coming back to this is because I believe the overriding priority should be to create a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market. That belief is uncontroversial here (I think), but I’m baffled as to why people disagree with me that depots are not strictly necessary and that therefore insisting on them first is counterproductive. I’ll be happy to give my opinion for a better one, but so far I’ve never seen anyone address this specific argument.

   Anyway, back to whether the performance of hypergolics is a critical limitation. I contend they’re not, for the following reasons:

   Firstly, the performance of hypergolics is basically identical to that of kerolox, which is a plausible propellant combination for a FH-based EDS.

   We also already have the technology to launch fully loaded hydrolox upper stages and to keep them in orbit for a couple of days without excessive boil-off, which is good enough to allow for two launch transfer of 20mT payloads to L1/L2, which is all we need. Smaller payloads (propellant tankers) can be launched straight to L1/L2 with a hydrolox upper stage in one launch. You could also use SEP to move hypergolic propellant from LEO to L1/L2. This means that even without cryo depots, and using only mature technology, we’re not limited to hypergolics or kerolox for LEO to L1/L2. It’s even possible that using off-the-shelf space-qualified cryocoolers we could keep stages in orbit for longer than that, but I’ve seen conflicting stories about that.

   Thirdly, hydrolox doesn’t give you all that much of a performance boost, especially from L1/L2 onward. That’s not to say we wouldn’t want to make use of it, since every bit of performance is welcome, but it’s not a critical improvement. SEP could make a much bigger impact, especially for prepositioning propellant, which makes up most of the mass that needs to be launched. The combination of prefueled hydrolox / kerolox upper stages for transport to L1/L2, hypergolics for in-space propulsion of heavy payloads and SEP for in-space propulsion of propellant could be a very cost-effective first step.

   I realise the bigger point that’s being made is that SLS/Orion are harmful while cryo depots would be very useful, so money should be spent on the latter, not the former, and I agree with that. But I think the insistence on depots first is also unhelpful. I say unhelpful, because I’m not questioning the goals and bona fides of those proposing them, but disagreeing about practicalities. It seems to me that insisting on propellant transfer as soon as possible (likely but not necessarily with hypergolics) would in fact be more conducive to development of depots as soon as possible. After all, if it’s really more efficient, you’d expect market forces to take care of it given enough competitively procured launch services.

   1. AFAIK no one is interested in having propellant depots for storing LOX/Kerosene. All the proposals seem to use LOX/LH2 or LOX/LCH4. The advantages include easier manufacturing, including using ISRU, and handling. LOX/LH2 has more Isp than hypergolic fuel. You can make an expander cycle engine run on LOX/LH2 or LOX/LCH4. Expander cycle engines, such as the RL-10, not only have good Isp but can be restarted easily and tend to have good reliability.

      You can relatively easily mine LOX on the Moon. The Moon also has water so you can get hydrogen that way. Even if the depots only had Lunar manufactured LOX in them that would be a lot of mass you would not require to launch from Earth’s gravity well in the long run.

   2. “We also already have the technology to launch fully loaded hydrolox upper stages and to keep them in orbit for a couple of days without excessive boil-off..”

      Perhaps you could clarify when this technology was demonstrated? AFAIK, the duration record for upper stages is 9 hr (and those are experiments after the main payload has been deployed). At least that is what NASA has been selling OMB and Congress.

2. That one was right on the ‘Money’.

   Never read articles on that web site before but that article was remarkably well put together. SLS and James Webb Space Telescope will eat the NASA budget. Cost effective space launch? Does not provide enough jobs in enough districts. Propellant depots? Same. Extrasolar planet hunting? Irrelevant. What matters is seeing the infrared in places too far away to visit with achievable propulsion technology.

   1. What matters is seeing the infrared in places too far away to visit with achievable propulsion technology.

      Not even that. The European Extremely Large Telescope will have six times the resolution of JWST at mid-IR wavelengths, for 1/6 the cost. Not to mention having a longer useful lifetime and being easily upgradable as technology for new instruments is developed.

3. What I find most perplexing is the dichotomy. On one hand, it’s true that with prop depots, you don’t need a high-price-per-pound heavy lifter like SLS to do missions beyond earth orbit.

   However, even *with* SLS, you *still* need depots to do missions beyond earth orbit. SLS, even block II, can’t even do a lunar landing in a single launch scenario. Even NASA admits this, though it took ’em a while.

   So, all you can really do with SLS single launch (and no prop depots) is their absurd grab-a-pebble and tow-it-to-the-moon project, and then send a mission to it there.

   Multi-launch SLS missions? That won’t work for several reasons, one of which is the down time between launches it’d cause (due to low production rates).

   So, really, either with or without SLS, you need prop depots to do anything useful. (and without it, you’d actually have the budget to actually do something useful).

   But, of course, SLS has never been about space, but about pork, so they’ll ax the payloads and missions for it without much concern.

4. No.

   Launch a storable propellant Earth Departure Stage to LEO. Fill it with multiple launches. The automated rendezvous and docking issues are already hard enough without having to rush to avoid boiloff. We still have a lot to learn. Concepts like Jon’s Stickyboom, which could increase fuel delivery by over a ton per flight, need to be tested. Is there a need for orbital tugs? Is SEP valuable?

   Be humble.

5. “For a nation and an agency serious about exploring space,…………….”

   Which, of course, does not exist…….

6. Rand,
   Another factor to keep in mind was that the existing Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer demo wasn’t going particularly well as of the time of cancellation. I’ve heard from three or four sources now that while several groups proposed very low cost flight demo concepts, NASA Glenn decided to run the project in-house, because they wanted to keep their own people busy (one person I spoke with recently mentioned they had over 500 people on the project). Basically it bloated and crashed, and was mercifully put out its misery.

   I think I can say I’m a bona fide fan of propellant depots, but killing CPST isn’t defunding depots, it was defunding a NASA in-house project that was overbudget and struggling. We need cryo depot related demos, but I’d prefer to see something done that is both a lot more modest, and preferably not run as a NASA in-house project.

   Not saying that Glenn doesn’t have some really talented people in the cryo technology area, but it sounds like someone tried to turn it into a make-work project in order to get more political support for STMD’s budget.

   As I like to point out to progressives, having the government spend money on a problem is only loosely correlated with actually solving said problem.

   ~Jon

   1. Some non-cryo demonstrations would be even better. Many people seem to think, or just act as if, cryogenic propellant storage and transfer is the only technology development that needs to be done to make propellant depots viable. More reliable automated rendezvous and docking, proximity operations and yes, reusability of launch vehicles all seem a heck of a lot more important to me.

      Cryogenics seems more like premature optimization. It’s the kinda thing NASA does because there’s no actual need for them to succeed. Another example: The All-Terrain Hex-Legged Extra-Terrestrial Explorer (ATHLETE) test-bed. No chance of schedule pressure on that project either.

   2. That may be true. But SLS is not getting cancelled for whatever unfathomable reason.

   3. There’s an opportunity to restart NASA’s propellant-depot Centennial Challenge, if someone can find a suitable non-profit to propose and manage it.

      1. Space Studies Institute?

         1. Ed, Rand,

            A propellant depot challenge, so long as they could get a decent-sized prize pot might actually be kind of interesting. SSI would be a good one to run it. Realistically though it’d be hard to get a pot big enough. Has NASA’s CC ever offered a prize worth more than $2-3M? It would be challenging to descope a “propellant depot” prize enough to make a $2-3M with the current cost of launch. Regardless of whether you go for a cryo or storable propellant depot, will you really be able to demo something that improves the state of the art on that scale?

            Now, if they could get $5-10M for a prize purse, you could probably start seeing some really interesting results. But is that plausible?

            ~Jon

7. The referenced article distorts the conclusions of the Augustine Report that stated that heavy lift is vitak for beyond LEO exploration, but that fuel depots would be a useful add on when the cryogenics storage problem is solved and demonstrated,

   1. The Augustine Report did indeed state that heavy lift is needed, but it set the threshold for heavy lift at 40-60 metric tons. It also pointed out that using EELV-derived launch vehicles in this class “would eliminate somewhat the historic carrying cost of many Apollo- and Shuttle-era facilities and systems” and would create “the possibility of substantially reduced operating costs, which may ultimately allow NASA to escape its conundrum of not having sufficient resources to both operate existing systems and build a new one.” That’s a powerful confirmation of the article’s point that SLS is part of the problem, not the solution. And Augustine didn’t even consider Falcon Heavy.

      1. using EELV-derived launch vehicles in this class “would eliminate somewhat the historic carrying cost of many Apollo- and Shuttle-era facilities and systems” and would create “the possibility of substantially reduced operating costs

         You have insufficient imagination. A skilled team of politicians and bureaucrats could easily find a way to make an EELV-derived vehicle as costly as the Space Shuttle. (How do you think Shuttle got to be so expensive?)

         Charles Miller was a big fan of Shuttle-C or side-mount, which he considered the “easiest” Shuttle conversion. Jim Muncy has called for NASA to build “the simplest, cheapest Heavy Lift Vehicle.” The problem is that they look at the most optimistic, best-case outcome of their schemes (which is shown on paper) but never consider the downside scenarios (which are much more likely in the real world).

         1. “You have insufficient imagination. A skilled team of politicians and bureaucrats could easily find a way to make an EELV-derived vehicle as costly as the Space Shuttle. (How do you think Shuttle got to be so expensive?)”

            And to go one step further, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that EELV got expensive at the same time Shuttle stopped flying.

         2. Please take note of the context of my remarks. Apparently accepting the validity of the Augustine Report, the post to which I responded implied that an SLS-sized launch vehicle is needed. The most concise way for me to expose the incorrectness of this conclusion was to grant, for purposes of argument, the validity of the Report and then point out that it simply does not claim an SLS-sized rocket is needed.

   2. What does SLS have to do with heavy lift? It has to fly first. I see this program following a similar trajectory to Ares. And even should the SLS fly at some point, it still has the usual trouble of big rockets with high cost and a dearth of useful missions.

      On the other hand, there are those well-known space launch businesses in the US which are quite capable of developing heavy lift for a small fraction of what SLS will cost. Why not redirect SLS funding to something useful instead? That assumes, of course, that the US actually wants heavy lift capability.

      1. It has been following the same trajectory as Ares. They still haven’t decided on which first stage engine they will use after all this time. The 2nd stage of the first version instead of using J-2X is going to use a refurbished Delta IV Heavy 2nd stage. Maybe they will do a Potemkin Ares-IX like launch and declare the program a success…

         1. For the backers of SLS, the program is an outstanding success. Massive amounts of money is being pumped into their congressional districts, thus buying votes. That’s the only real success metric there is. If it never flies but the money keeps flowing, it’ll still be considered a success by them.

            1. “That’s the only real success metric there is. If it never flies but the money keeps flowing, it’ll still be considered a success by them.”

               But if it flies it will be less of success for them.

               So it this point, let’s get it to point of flying it as soon as
               possible so it becomes less profitable as compared even more time
               of it not flying.

               I think anytime NASA is going built a rocket which going to take
               more decade to build it, it should obvious NASA should not do this.
               So generally faster, cheaper, better, is a lot better than dead, expensive
               and the worst ever.

      2. What does SLS have to do with heavy lift? It has to fly first.

         SLS already has an accomplished record as a heavy-lifter; it’s lifting billions from taxpayer wallets, and has been doing so for years.

         And that, of course, it was it’s designed to do.

Comments are closed.