–There is no “better.” Both companies are kicking ass. I think a lot of people who read this probably share a common goal with me: we’d like to see wider access to space. We’d like to see colonization of the Moon, or maybe Mars, or maybe beyond. We’d like to see a highway to the stars. There is only one way this happens: dramatically reducing the cost of getting into space. And the way to do this is by reusing your rockets and spacecraft.–
It’s a way but there are other ways.
I think reusing rockets is more related to suborbital travel.
And it’s of going to orbit, reusing rockets is mostly about the Falcon Heavy. If you want commercial launch vehicle which has over 40 tons of payload, this is not something done before and Heavy Falcon might work without re-using it’s first stage, but it become more viable if one can re-use it’s first stages.
Or we have 20 ton heavy lift and these “need help”. Or US govt needed such a launch vehicle, and military spent 2 billion dollar to develop EELV in which an important part of it was developing that hvy lift capacity for some military satellites.
Anyhow, the Falcon-9 and Falcon Heavy is roughly the same as EELV
or you could say a different version of it- so having wide variety of launch capacity which includes a heavy launch [though SpaceX has biggest commercial heavy launch ever attempted- and due to be launched this year].
A way of helping EELV in the past or future and way to help SpaceX is for NASA to explore the Moon and to have such exploration not exclusively using a govt launch vehicle [SLS].
And part of lunar exploration [and subsequent Mars manned Program] would start with develop of depot in LEO.
Now with lunar exploration program, one should have more rockets launches per year to the Moon- say somewhere around 100 tons to LEO or 50 tons to GTO or more. And you continue launches to ISS which roughly same amount payload to LEO.
And first 6 to 8 years of lunar exploration is robotic mission, and about 2 years manned lunar missions. And by time one doing lunar manned mission, one ends NASA ISS program, and begin early stages of Mars program – robotics and infrastructure for manned part which will begin after NASA finishes Lunar program. So at end of lunar program and beginning of Manned missions to Mars, NASA is not spending billions [or 1 billion] on the ISS program and allowing the Mars program to ramp up to about 6 billion per year.
So one will have spent less than 200 billion on ISS. Have spent less than 40 billion on lunar program and about 60 billion per decade on Mars exploration which could last 2 to 4 decades. Plus an average of 50 billion per Mars base made [development and operation] and one start with smaller base and make bigger and more expensive bases later on.
With lunar exploration one could spend about 1/2 of 40 billion on unmanned missions. And with Mars exploration one will have higher percentage of entire program cost on manned part of program, but also one spend large part of budget on robotic missions. Or one purpose of sending crew to Mars is to be able to use more Mars robotic missions.
So with lunar and mars, one will make as many robotic missions as you can make, which starts with lunar program and continues throughout the Mars exploration program. And crewed part of exploration is largely about being able to do more exploration within a shorter period of time. Shortening the time of lunar exploration program by using crew, should appear more obvious, as compared to Mars program. This mainly due to lack of current knowledge of Mars at the present time and Mars is large target to explore. Or we could explore the moon in less than 10 years, and we can’t say how long Mars exploration may require, except that it seems reasonable to assume it will take much longer than determining if and where there minable lunar water.
Anyways, exploring the Moon and Mars should require some commercial rocket launches. And the results of lunar exploration could require far more commercial rocket launches per year, and such demand will include hvy commercial launches.
But in terms of next 10 years, suborbital may require much more launches though in term tons of payload as metric, it could be about the same.
Depot in LEO?
It’s not going to happen if people just say “depot in LEO, an on-orbit filling station . . . kewl . . .” Someone will have to work out the technology of microgravity fuel transfer, build some hardware, and demonstrate that it works.
I have brought this up before. I read in, what was it, the British Interplanetary Society was it called, about the history of the Agena and how it and Corona/Discoverer in the early space age was “light years” ahead of everything else — 3-axis stabilized spacecraft, on-orbit engine restart along with all of the fluid mechanics to make that happen.
Landing a rocket stage on its tail is a simple enough concept, but someone had to work out the details and build stuff and show it can be done. Likewise, an orbital depot along with the necessary transfers of propellant is simple, right?
But there are many details to work out and hardware to build and test and get right. Somebody needs to “get cracking” on this problem.
So what has NASA been doing all of these years with the International Space Station, anyway?
–So what has NASA been doing all of these years with the International Space Station, anyway?–
Well considering a space station in LEO should have been about technology of having an operational depot- not much.
But recently on ISS there has been some minor effort related to this.
And currently there has been other efforts related to issue of depots by NASA.
In terms of launching a satellite, US military in the past has tested docking a satellite which related to problem of re-fueling.
As far as what NASA should do, it should do a program which about 2 billion dollars and should focus on transferring LOX to spacecraft which has missions going beyond LEO, and work towards having all NASA robotic missions being refueled in LEO.
The development and operation of depot in LEO should related to major lunar exploration program and be used for all robotic and manned programs in the future.
And once NASA has moved from experimental to an operational depot in LEO, it should expect to be able to get to point of being able buy rocket fuel in other Earth orbits. Or NASA should expect the private sector to develop their own depots as part of how it sells rocket fuel in space.
In other words, NASA at some point after demonstrating routine depot operation, then gets out of depot business and simply buys rocket fuel which made available by the private sector where and whenever NASA needs it.
Some of the comments were saying things like if only congress stopped telling NASA what to do, they could get some stuff done. The problem with this is that NASA is a government agency and because of this, it is required to have civilian oversight and control. Strange time we live in when people think federal agencies should be able to do wtf they want with no direction or questions from those who pay the bills.
Don’t want congress dictating everything? Then you need to start a business or support those who do. Even then, congress is going to meddle, especially in the space industry because of the hoops businesses have to jump through to access space.
–There is no “better.” Both companies are kicking ass. I think a lot of people who read this probably share a common goal with me: we’d like to see wider access to space. We’d like to see colonization of the Moon, or maybe Mars, or maybe beyond. We’d like to see a highway to the stars. There is only one way this happens: dramatically reducing the cost of getting into space. And the way to do this is by reusing your rockets and spacecraft.–
It’s a way but there are other ways.
I think reusing rockets is more related to suborbital travel.
And it’s of going to orbit, reusing rockets is mostly about the Falcon Heavy. If you want commercial launch vehicle which has over 40 tons of payload, this is not something done before and Heavy Falcon might work without re-using it’s first stage, but it become more viable if one can re-use it’s first stages.
Or we have 20 ton heavy lift and these “need help”. Or US govt needed such a launch vehicle, and military spent 2 billion dollar to develop EELV in which an important part of it was developing that hvy lift capacity for some military satellites.
Anyhow, the Falcon-9 and Falcon Heavy is roughly the same as EELV
or you could say a different version of it- so having wide variety of launch capacity which includes a heavy launch [though SpaceX has biggest commercial heavy launch ever attempted- and due to be launched this year].
A way of helping EELV in the past or future and way to help SpaceX is for NASA to explore the Moon and to have such exploration not exclusively using a govt launch vehicle [SLS].
And part of lunar exploration [and subsequent Mars manned Program] would start with develop of depot in LEO.
Now with lunar exploration program, one should have more rockets launches per year to the Moon- say somewhere around 100 tons to LEO or 50 tons to GTO or more. And you continue launches to ISS which roughly same amount payload to LEO.
And first 6 to 8 years of lunar exploration is robotic mission, and about 2 years manned lunar missions. And by time one doing lunar manned mission, one ends NASA ISS program, and begin early stages of Mars program – robotics and infrastructure for manned part which will begin after NASA finishes Lunar program. So at end of lunar program and beginning of Manned missions to Mars, NASA is not spending billions [or 1 billion] on the ISS program and allowing the Mars program to ramp up to about 6 billion per year.
So one will have spent less than 200 billion on ISS. Have spent less than 40 billion on lunar program and about 60 billion per decade on Mars exploration which could last 2 to 4 decades. Plus an average of 50 billion per Mars base made [development and operation] and one start with smaller base and make bigger and more expensive bases later on.
With lunar exploration one could spend about 1/2 of 40 billion on unmanned missions. And with Mars exploration one will have higher percentage of entire program cost on manned part of program, but also one spend large part of budget on robotic missions. Or one purpose of sending crew to Mars is to be able to use more Mars robotic missions.
So with lunar and mars, one will make as many robotic missions as you can make, which starts with lunar program and continues throughout the Mars exploration program. And crewed part of exploration is largely about being able to do more exploration within a shorter period of time. Shortening the time of lunar exploration program by using crew, should appear more obvious, as compared to Mars program. This mainly due to lack of current knowledge of Mars at the present time and Mars is large target to explore. Or we could explore the moon in less than 10 years, and we can’t say how long Mars exploration may require, except that it seems reasonable to assume it will take much longer than determining if and where there minable lunar water.
Anyways, exploring the Moon and Mars should require some commercial rocket launches. And the results of lunar exploration could require far more commercial rocket launches per year, and such demand will include hvy commercial launches.
But in terms of next 10 years, suborbital may require much more launches though in term tons of payload as metric, it could be about the same.
Depot in LEO?
It’s not going to happen if people just say “depot in LEO, an on-orbit filling station . . . kewl . . .” Someone will have to work out the technology of microgravity fuel transfer, build some hardware, and demonstrate that it works.
I have brought this up before. I read in, what was it, the British Interplanetary Society was it called, about the history of the Agena and how it and Corona/Discoverer in the early space age was “light years” ahead of everything else — 3-axis stabilized spacecraft, on-orbit engine restart along with all of the fluid mechanics to make that happen.
Landing a rocket stage on its tail is a simple enough concept, but someone had to work out the details and build stuff and show it can be done. Likewise, an orbital depot along with the necessary transfers of propellant is simple, right?
But there are many details to work out and hardware to build and test and get right. Somebody needs to “get cracking” on this problem.
So what has NASA been doing all of these years with the International Space Station, anyway?
–So what has NASA been doing all of these years with the International Space Station, anyway?–
Well considering a space station in LEO should have been about technology of having an operational depot- not much.
But recently on ISS there has been some minor effort related to this.
And currently there has been other efforts related to issue of depots by NASA.
In terms of launching a satellite, US military in the past has tested docking a satellite which related to problem of re-fueling.
As far as what NASA should do, it should do a program which about 2 billion dollars and should focus on transferring LOX to spacecraft which has missions going beyond LEO, and work towards having all NASA robotic missions being refueled in LEO.
The development and operation of depot in LEO should related to major lunar exploration program and be used for all robotic and manned programs in the future.
And once NASA has moved from experimental to an operational depot in LEO, it should expect to be able to get to point of being able buy rocket fuel in other Earth orbits. Or NASA should expect the private sector to develop their own depots as part of how it sells rocket fuel in space.
In other words, NASA at some point after demonstrating routine depot operation, then gets out of depot business and simply buys rocket fuel which made available by the private sector where and whenever NASA needs it.
Some of the comments were saying things like if only congress stopped telling NASA what to do, they could get some stuff done. The problem with this is that NASA is a government agency and because of this, it is required to have civilian oversight and control. Strange time we live in when people think federal agencies should be able to do wtf they want with no direction or questions from those who pay the bills.
Don’t want congress dictating everything? Then you need to start a business or support those who do. Even then, congress is going to meddle, especially in the space industry because of the hoops businesses have to jump through to access space.