A small part of it is actually doing what it’s supposed to be doing. Of course, it could be doing a lot more of this kind of thing if Congress would let it get out of the launch business.
30 thoughts on “Shocking Behavior From NASA”
Comments are closed.
Excellent presentation.
Might want to note that the Bill Rothchild listed for several of the studies [ISRU Lunar Mission (Paul Spudis/Bill Rothschild), Space Based Solar Power Demo (Bill Rothschild)] is also one of the “evil” proponentss of SDHLV.
http://spacepropulsion.us/Documents/2010AIAA-JPC-Rothschild.pdf
Amazing, isn’t it, how he can be good guy and an evil “shill” all at the same time.
I prefer the Von Braun “Space wheel” myself.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast26may_1m/
Wow, the MMSEV is much better than the one I’d seen previously. The one I saw before looked more like a Star Trek shuttle, but since you knew it didn’t have a magical propellant system; it had no where to go. The pictures at the link are a much more substantial vehicle.
I should also say that I’m not shocked. I’ll be shocked when the few that do this kind of work at not inevitably succombed and discredited by the many who don’t.
The Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle is a very interesting concept.
The idea (if not the design) is reminiscent of the Pilgrim Observer, a similar spacecraft designed by the late G. Harry Stine and released by MPC as a plastic model kit. I now see that it’s about to be re-released:
http://www.round2models.com/models/mpc/pilgrim-observer
On a related note, Space Adventures recently announced that they have signed their first customer for a lunar Soyuz mission. They only need one more customer to make the flight happen.
I can hear Mark Twittington gnashing his teeth in anger right now. How dare a private citizen want to go to the Moon? How dare NASA want to go beyond the Moon? This is the end of human space exploration as we know it!!! 🙂
Just to correct Ed’s usually libelous rantings, I’m all in favor of Space Adventure’s operations. If they can send private citizens around the Moon (albeit apparently with Soviet built technology) on their own dime, I will be the first to cheer.
Shortly I will be coming out with a piece analyzing the Nautilus X concept (which by the way would be used to facilitate a return to the Moon as well as go beyond.) If Ed has tears he had best be prepared to shed them now.
I love the concept. I just wish there was money and leadership to execute it. I am not holding my breath,
ack… “at” should be “are”… ruined the line. I can’t even blame auto correct.
I do like Wright’s comment!
Mark, there would be plenty of money for it if they quit wasting it on unneeded launch systems.
Rand, the concept does envision using the SD-HLV and Orions, as well as commercial launchers. It complements rather than replaces the current concept,
Just to correct Ed’s usually libelous rantings, I’m all in favor of Space Adventure’s operations. If they can send private citizens around the Moon (albeit apparently with Soviet built technology) on their own dime, I will be the first to cheer.
Sorry, Mark. I guess I was confused by your constant drone that “only the government can go beyond LEO.” I didn’t realize that quoting you accurately was libelous.
I’m glad to hear that you’re finally supporting Space Adventures and commercial human spaceflight. I assume you will soon be calling for NASA to purchase seats from Space Adventures, instead of continuing to pour money down the Orion rathole?
It is encouraging (if surprising) that you have something good to say about Nautilus X. Although, you still can’t resist taking your usual swipe at the NASA leadership. As Rand points out, there is plenty of money for things like this if NASA doesn’t build Ares (and Orion).
Mark Whittington Says: January 28th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Mark Whittington Says: January 28th, 2011 at 11:17 am
As per my post above there is a second paper linked to at the site. It is from a report on the results of the ‘Technology Applications Assessment Team (TAAT)”. Appears to be a sort of “hear is what you can do with this system if you had it” analysis. One of the participants is a proponent of the Side Mount SDHLV. So that is not surprising that the architecture not only supports a return to the Moon, but uses SDHLV as well.
Amazing things could be accomplished, but first (among a number of other things) the constant pointless in-fighting among the “space advocacy community” would have to abate to something approximating sane levels. I guess that means we are probably all doomed. 🙂
I guess that means we are probably all doomed.
Yes, you may all may doomed.
Rand, the concept does envision using the SD-HLV and Orions,
Alas, Mark, your reading comprehension has not improved.
The presentation doesn’t say it envisions using “the SD-HLV.” It says “HLV.” I know that’s confusing to the uninformed layman, so let me explain:
A heavy-lift vehicle could be Shuttle-derived but does not have to be. The FAA’s annual commercial space report lists a number of commercial HLVs. Some are under development; others already exist. Anyone informed about the current state of space technology knows this.
The presentation does not say Orion is required. It merely says that the docking port is compatible with Orion and other vehicles. Which could include a SpaceX Dragon or a Space Adventures Soyuz, for example. (You did say that you’re now in favor of Space Adventures, remember?)
It complements rather than replaces the current concept,
If that’s what you advocate, then you are right about money — there isn’t nearly enough money in the NASA budget to fund your “current concept,” let alone your “current concept” and anything new.
Of course, I wouldn’t expect a Bush Republican to understand anything about fiscal reality.
Amazing things could be accomplished, but first (among a number of other things) the constant pointless in-fighting among the “space advocacy community” would have to abate
Joe, there is a difference between “possible” and “possible given an infinite pot of money.”
You and Mark talk as though NASA had an infinite pot of money. I assure you, that is not the case.
It is not pointless to oppose schemes that are unrealizable in the real world, where infinite pots of money don’t exist.
Edward Wright Says: January 28th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
“I know that’s confusing to the uninformed layman, so let me explain:”
Thanks for making my point, I will let Whittington (or Twhittington as you like to call him – What are you like eight?) speak for himself, but I am not an “uninformed layman” and the plan clearly seems to be assuming an In-Line SDHLV and Orion Vehicle.
“Of course, I wouldn’t expect a Bush Republican to understand anything about fiscal reality.”
Great more Republican/Democratic/Libertarian name calling. Nothing to do with the issue at hand, but really helps keep the conversation on track.
Edward Wright Says: January 28th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
“Joe, there is a difference between “possible” and “possible given an infinite pot of money.” You and Mark talk as though NASA had an infinite pot of money. I assure you, that is not the case. It is not pointless to oppose schemes that are unrealizable in the real world, where infinite pots of money don’t exist.”
Assuming you meant proposing not “oppose”ing, I would have to see a cost analysis for the system compared to a real estimate of the money to be available. If you have one please present it.
“plan clearly seems to be assuming an In-Line SDHLV and Orion Vehicle.”
Since Orion and a HLV are currently part of official NASA policy, it makes sense that those planning NASA projects will assume they will be available and will use them in their plans. However, if budget limitations prevent development of the HLV, then the question is whether it is required for the MMSEV.
My guess is that it is not. If the centrifuge module can be launched by a single Atlas V, I don’t see why the other modules cannot as well. Perhaps the design for the core module will have to be split it into two parts but that hardly seems fatal.
I’ll note also that the MMSEV also makes Orion redundant. The primary justification given for the high cost of Orion is the requirement that it provide deep-space habitation in addition to transport to/from LEO. The MMSEV obviously provides superior habitation facilities so the only requirement on the capsule is that it be usable after docking to the MMSEV for several months to a couple of years. There’s no reason a Dragon couldn’t be upgraded for that job.
Since Orion funding looks comparable to what’s needed for the MMSEV, it would make sense to cancel Orion and use the money for this far more capable system.
I am not an “uninformed layman” and the plan clearly seems to be assuming an In-Line SDHLV and Orion Vehicle.
Okay. Please show your professional analysis that leads you to conclude Nautilus X requires an in-line SDHLV and Orion capsule. Include the math, if you please. Explain why Nautilus X could not be launched using a side-mount SDLHV, Delta IV Heavy, Falcon Heavy, or ____. Explain why Nautilus X requires an Orion and could not dock with a Soyuz, Dragon, or “other” capsule as indicated in the PPT presentation.
Assuming you meant proposing not “oppose”ing,
No, I meant “opposing.” Proposing schemes that are unrealizable is, indeed, pointless. As is blaming people who point out that their flaws.
I would have to see a cost analysis for the system compared to a real estimate of the money to be available. If you have one please present it.
It’s available in the Review of US Spaceflight Plans Committee Final Report.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meetings/10_22_pressconference.html
Clark Lindsey Says: January 28th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
First of all thanks for a straight forward post on the issues with no gratuitous insults aimed at anybody.
“Since Orion and a HLV are currently part of official NASA policy, it makes sense that those planning NASA projects will assume they will be available and will use them in their plans. However, if budget limitations prevent development of the HLV, then the question is whether it is required for the MMSEV.”
We agree, at least to a point. I am a Side Mount SDHLV advocate, but I have no “religious convictions” about booster configurations. Let the “numbers” fall where they may. I think a combination of EELV (or Falcon 9 if you prefer, if and when it goes operational) and Side Mount will do the job most efficiently overall, if the facts prove otherwise (including the possibility of an In-Line SDHLV or using only Medium Lift) so be it, my universe will not crumble.
“My guess is that it is not. If the centrifuge module can be launched by a single Atlas V, I don’t see why the other modules cannot as well. Perhaps the design for the core module will have to be split it into two parts but that hardly seems fatal.”
For a number of reasons your guess and mine diverge, but that is a subject for detailing of the proposal not the two of us getting into a remote control fist fight.
“I’ll note also that the MMSEV also makes Orion redundant. The primary justification given for the high cost of Orion is the requirement that it provide deep-space habitation in addition to transport to/from LEO. The MMSEV obviously provides superior habitation facilities so the only requirement on the capsule is that it be usable after docking to the MMSEV for several months to a couple of years. There’s no reason a Dragon couldn’t be upgraded for that job.”
Here is the part that will knock you (or at least some in these parts) out; I do not have enough information about what the crewed version of Dragon is to be to have an informed opinion, but I do not necessarily disagree with you. If it can be done more efficiently that way, fine by me.
Edward Wright Says: January 28th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
I am not an “uninformed layman” and the plan clearly seems to be assuming an In-Line SDHLV and Orion Vehicle.
“Okay. Please show your professional analysis that leads you to conclude Nautilus X requires an in-line SDHLV and Orion capsule. Include the math, if you please. Explain why Nautilus X could not be launched using a side-mount SDLHV, Delta IV Heavy, Falcon Heavy, or ____. Explain why Nautilus X requires an Orion and could not dock with a Soyuz, Dragon, or “other” capsule as indicated in the PPT presentationY”
You are one really angry individual aren’t you? Had you had bothered to read any of the attendant posts you would know that I am in fact a proponent of the “side-mount SDLHV” you mention. I was merely pointing out the obvious fact that the study was assuming the In-Line SDHLV and Orion Vehicle.
I am (believe it or not) no more pleased with the way things are going than you are. I just try to be a little more civil about it.
Had you had bothered to read any of the attendant posts you would know that I am in fact a proponent
Come on Joe, where’s the fun in agreeing, when you can argue? Especially when agreeing requires one to read first. You ask for so much.
Wow, Joe — next, you’re going to accuse me of being responsible for shooting Gabrielle Giffords!
You said you aren’t a layman, so I asked for the professional analysis behind your statement. It’s obvious from your responses that you don’t have any.
The “appeal to civility” may be popular with television pundits right now, but it’s worthless in engineering.
When your boss asks you to back up a statement, do you accuse him of being “angry” and starting a “remote fistfight” because he won’t just take your word for it?
Spending tens of billions of dollars on a side-mount HLV that makes space travel even more expensive is not an “amazing thing.” Unless you mean amazingly wasteful. (Yes, I’m angry that the government wastes so much of my tax money. If that upsets you, so be it.)
I believe NASA is brimming with bright, energetic, optimistic staff who have waited most of their careers for the opportunity to show their ideas and their worth. If we have the convergence of circumstance and opportunity I think is coming, their ideas will come to fruition and some will become household names.
Leland, if you read first, you would know that I was *not* “agreeing” with Joe.
Joe said Nautilus X was “clearly” assumed an In-Line SDHLV. I merely pointed out the “In-Line SDHLV” as one of several alternatives that could be used. I did not indicate that it was a good alternative.
I might have added “space elevator” or “Star Fleet heavy-lift transporter” as possibilities. That does not mean I think they are good possibilities. 🙂
My dear Lord! This is what an actual spaceship is really suposed to be.
If I squint real hard, I can see David Bowman begging Hal to open the pod bay door on the big version of this craft!
Sign me up! Just please leave the psycho AI at home.
Question: Instead of a centerfuge, how about two Sundancer modules at the opposing ends of two booms being spun?
Edward Wright Says: January 28th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
“Wow, Joe — next, you’re going to accuse me of being responsible for shooting Gabrielle Giffords!”
Now there is a political stretch? Once again to something that has nothing to do with the subject.
“You said you aren’t a layman, so I asked for the professional analysis behind your statement. It’s obvious from your responses that you don’t have any.”
You asked for a whole series of technical analysis that you know could not be fitted into this format (pretty safe to ask for things you know the format will not allow). I could provide a bunch links, but I have played that game before. You would simply hand wave any valid points away.
“The “appeal to civility” may be popular with television pundits right now, but it’s worthless in engineering.”
Civility has as much worth in Engineering as it does any place else, except to a professional bore; and I have been calling for it (on this site and others) since well before the Arizona tragedy
“When your boss asks you to back up a statement, do you accuse him of being “angry” and starting a “remote fistfight” because he won’t just take your word for it?”
No boss I have ever had asked to put my work in an untenable format. Additionally they pay my salary, you don’t
“Spending tens of billions of dollars on a side-mount HLV that makes space travel even more expensive is not an “amazing thing.” Unless you mean amazingly wasteful.”
Linked above (in my first post on this thread) is a detailed analysis (by two engineers extremely experienced in the systems involved) that says your above statement is incorrect. You asked me for five analyses, I ask you for only one: Show me your “professional analysis that leads you to conclude” they are wrong. And remember ” Include the math, if you please”.
“(Yes, I’m angry that the government wastes so much of my tax money. If that upsets you, so be it.)”
That you are angry (and what makes you so) is no longer of any interest to me whatsoever.
Wouldn’t a tumbing pigeon configuration be a lot more mechanically simple than a rotating ring? They would both accomplish the job, if you are using impulsive thrust, and a tumbing pigeon wouldn’t need rotating seals, ect.
Bill Rothschild’s numbers don’t add up.
I am a little confused by the numbers presented. The cost is a projected 8 billion and a 5 year time line for first launch. It will launch 72 metric tonnes to LEO at $2100 per pound. (page 14) if it is commercially operated. On the same page it shows cost per launch is 500mil with a minimum flight rate of 6 per year.
72Mt x 2200 = 158,400 pounds.
158,400 x $2100 = 332,640,000 mil/flight.
$500,000,000 / 158,400 = $3156/pound
There are examples of various payloads that could be launched. Not every payload is exactly 72 Mt, some range in the 10 ton to 40ton range. So some one those launches are going to be a lot more costly per pound.
The presentation does not go into detail what that 8 billion is paying for by item. NASA has not did the major lay off for the shuttle retirement yet and I believe this is why congress is in such a hurry to get something shuttle derived started before the major layoff occurs.
The shuttle workforce is running about $200 mil a month. The build time is a projected at five years. If the shuttle force takes a 25% reduction you are looking at a 60 month carrying cost of 150 mil per month or 9 billion. Even if half the shuttle force gets laid off you are still looking at 6 billion in labor costs for some people that will have nothing to do until the system is operational.
I just do not see the 8 billion number as being realistic.
Vladislaw Says: January 30th, 2011 at 10:17 am
I will not take up the task of answering questions about a presentation on which I did not work. I think I know the answer to several of your questions (one is likely a “cut and paste error” of the sort that happens routinely when presentations are being written while development is still in progress – I hate to think how many times I have seen a presenter have to verbally correct such errors) but since I was not there I am not going to try and say. If you seriously want answers to your questions the appropriate thing to do is to take to the authors themselves (William J. Rothschild, Theodore A. Talay, Edward M. Henderson). Contact information (e-mail addresses) for Rothschild and Talay are clearly listed on the last page of the pitch.
Joe
“Amazing things could be accomplished, but first (among a number of other things) the constant pointless in-fighting among the “space advocacy community” would have to abate to something approximating sane levels. I guess that means we are probably all doomed. ”
Exactly right. I’m always astonished at the level of anger exhibited discussing a topic, the best path for space-flight, which most of the American public would consider as dry and boring as watching grass grow.
The MMSEV at least approximates what a real spaceship should be. I’m dubious about its radiation hardness and the the solar electric power won’t be good for much beyond maybe the near edge of the Asteroid Belt, but looks modular enough to be replaced later by radiators and a nuke of some kind. Nice to see some official attention being paid – however belatedly – to the crucial question of faux gravity for long-term missions. Still better is the ISS test module for same; this should have been the #1 ISS priority from the get-go and is at least 15 years overdue. Better late than never, anyway. Now there’s just the little matter of actually getting something like this built.