Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

You ain't putting me on that thing.

Posted by Astrosmith at June 28, 2005 01:27 PM

I put my cursor on the link, looked at the URL, and had the classic thought, pick any two.

Posted by triticale at June 28, 2005 03:42 PM

ATK had a nice handout at the Paris Air Show entitled "Space Shuttle Derivatives" dated August 2004. (Cleared for export under ITAR Section 120.10(5), basic marketing). It's an 8:35 DVD that comes across as the sort of thing that engineers have wet dreams about.

It's scaleable! It's Man-Rated! All of the existing infrastructure is in place! (But there is this blank sheet of paper we do need to fill out with a few minor details). Look at these sexy graphics! Drool over these beautiful rockets! (Ref.# V1483)

I'm just wondering who, outside of NASA, would want to cram so much valuable stuff into such a behemoth launcher? I can't imagine them building more than a score of them, most likely around a dozen, but certainly more than a handful.

This existing infrastructure would have to be carried for a long period of time as we do one, maybe two launches a year. A few quick trips to the Moon with a rudimentary base useless for commercial purposes, then on to Mars as quick as possible before the tax purse slams shut forever.

Posted by ken murphy at June 28, 2005 05:25 PM

Regardless of where one falls on the few/big vs. more/medium vs. many/small launcher spectrum, there's a few gems in the FAQs...

The answer for #3 (re: SRB reusability) has, I think, the correct perspective -- the reusability isn't the big deal, it's the *recovery* for examination and post-flight diagnostics that's important.

And there's a great line in the answer to #6, "When it comes to reusability, the astronaut office only has one requirement: the crew should be reusable."

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at June 28, 2005 07:48 PM

All propellant issues aside- it just makes me so proud that after 44 years of manned space flight, we're back to the 'spam in a can' approach that started it all.

Posted by SpaceCat at June 28, 2005 08:04 PM

Eric,

"We are deeply redundant in astronauts."

Comment overheard in the 4S elevator after some powerpoint engineering.

anon

Posted by anon@jsc at June 28, 2005 09:16 PM

Other than spacecraft without wings ('spam in a can") and spacecraft with wings (e.g., Shuttle), what alternatives exist?

Griffin has long expressed a preference for this approach; no surprise, then, if it is selected.

Seems to me that true spacecraft -- ones that operate only in space -- should let form follow function and be as pretty or as ungainly as they need to be. Spacecraft that play secondary roles, like getting off of and back onto a planetary surface, will have a different function and a different design. If puting wings on them makes them cheaper, fine. But, our first experience with wings so far says no. There's no reason we can't do better, but Griffin has orders to actually go places, not to build a better winged spacecraft.

Posted by billg at June 29, 2005 05:42 AM

Other than spacecraft without wings ('spam in a can") and spacecraft with wings (e.g., Shuttle), what alternatives exist?

If that's your classification criteria for spacecraft I doubt you're ever going to get anywhere.

I could show you a reusable liquid-fueled vehicle without wings or design something with wings that got most of its energy from solids or hybrids.

Given a choice between an SRB-powered spam-in-a-can and an SRB-powered semi-RLV, I think I'd rather stay home and clean the apartment.

Posted by Phil Fraering at June 29, 2005 06:52 AM

Indeed, Phil- and of course with the 'spam in a can' poke I was certainly not drawing a line between wings and no-wings. My concern is mission capability and duration. After 44 years I'd like to see enough maturity in the program to be able to send a crew of 6 - 8 into orbit with enough hardware and life support to go several weeks- or much more even if it meant linking up with an unmanned 'tanker.' I don't see that capability sitting on top of a single SRB which is not much more (lift-wise) than an old Gemini-Titan stack. Then, keeping "VSE" in mind- it would take multiple launches of that system and no doubt some complex on-orbit assembly to do anything meaningful; lunar or Mars.

Posted by SpaceCat at June 29, 2005 07:42 AM

I'm not especially enamored of wings or no-wings. I do reject building any specific design if the primary purpose is to prove the design, rather than doing the job. We ought to, but we don't, fly often enough to warrant building operational craft while we're testing experimental craft.

Given Griffin's statements before and after he got the job, it is apparent that he favors the Shuttle Derived route, with a nod to the inline heavy lifter.

At this juncture, though, NASA ought not to be in the business of figuring out how to get people and cargo to and from LEO.

Posted by billg at June 29, 2005 09:25 AM

It is pretty unfortunate that it seems they will be using a solid first stage. I do like the basic single-stick design for this purpose, with high-thrust first stage and high-isp second stage. But I would have used RD-180 in the first stage and SSME in the second stage.

Before you shoot me for suggesting the use of SSME:
* The second stage is supposed to be reusable.
* SSME is as high performance as NASA can get off the shelf for something on LOX/LH2.
* SSME is pretty reliable. So far it has not had a failure in flight.
* It used to need frequent expensive repairs, but multiple upgrades have made that less of a problem.

Most of the cost on Shuttle maintenance was about the TPS or because of safety expenses related to the toxic hypergolics used in the Shuttle RCS. I suppose J2 is also ok, even if it is lower performance. The use of solids is harder to comprehend, except for political or supply issues.

Posted by Gojira at June 29, 2005 09:58 AM

> Other than spacecraft without wings ('spam in a can") and spacecraft
> with wings (e.g., Shuttle), what alternatives exist?

Plenty. Do you think that because those are the only things that have been built, they are the only things that can be built?

Lockheed's CEV concept has wings, but it's a capsule that lands by parachute. Delta Clipper had no wings but it was not a capsule, it it was a reusable powered lander. Dyna-Soar had wings, but it was not a Shuttle. HL-10 had no wings, it landed horizontally like the Shuttle, but it was not a capsule or a Shuttle.

> Seems to me that true spacecraft -- ones that operate only in space --
> should let form follow function

Seaplanes and landplanes are considered true aircraft, although they are capable of returning to Earth. So, I don't think it's fair to say that space vehicles that return to Earth are not "true" spacecraft.

Since the term "spacecraft" was coined as an anology to aircraft, a true spacecraft should be truly analogous. Escape capsules are not considered aircraft. A true aircraft is a reusable vehicle capable of controlled (usually powered) flight under human control. Those characteristics allow aircraft to perform a wide variety of missions at low cost.

Space capsules are very much analogous to aircraft escape capsules. Both are designed for controlled crash-landings using parachutes. Neither are truly reusable. Although it would be possible to rebuild/refurbish a capsule for reuse, the cost would be quite high. Both are ejected from a disintegrating vehicle -- although in the case of space capsules, it's a missile that's designed to disintegrate rather than an aircraft that's having a bad day.

The Shuttle has some characteristics of a true spacecraft, but in other ways, it was like a capsule. It's capable of controlled landings, which allow for some reuse, but it is not well designed for reuse. Like a capsule, the orbiter is "ejected" from a disintegrating "stack," and the orbiter itself requires heavy maintenance.

> If puting wings on them makes them cheaper, fine. But, our first
> experience with wings so far says no.

What experience is that? Apollo was not cheap, despite the current mythology. You're reasoning from a single data point. The Spruce Goose had big wings. It was not successful. Does that prove that airplanes with big wings will never be successful?

If you're hung up on wings, there's no reason why reusable spacecraft have to have wings. Again, see the Delta Clipper. Although, it may turn out that wings are desirable. You're getting hung up on the most superficial aspect of the design.

> There's no reason we can't do better, but Griffin has orders to
> actually go places, not to build a better winged spacecraft.

That's a false dichotomy. Actually going places requires transportation that's actually affordable.

If you want to travel to a lot of countries, which is better -- building an expensive handcrafted expendable boat (call it a "sea capsule") for each individual trip or buying airline tickets?

Mike Griffin has said a CEV capsule will cost $15 billion to develop. For that much money, he could buy a lot of flights on reusable vehicles.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 29, 2005 12:26 PM

> After 44 years I'd like to see enough maturity in the program to be able to
> send a crew of 6 - 8 into orbit with enough hardware and life support to
> go several weeks- or much more even if it meant linking up with an
> unmanned 'tanker.' I don't see that capability sitting on top of a single
> SRB which is not much more (lift-wise) than an old Gemini-Titan stack.

The Gemini-Titan stack already had that capability. Gemini-Titan could have sent a crew of 6-8 into orbit. It would have required 3-4 launches, that's all. Gemini VI/VII already had a combined crew of four; Gemini XI rendezvoused with an unmanned "tanker" (Agena) and used it to achieve an orbit of over 1000 kilometers.

The military almost never sends a single aircraft out on a mission. Why do we assume that every space mission must be accomplished with a single spacecraft?

The problem with the SRB isn't its size, but it's cost and reliability.

> Then, keeping "VSE" in mind- it would take multiple launches of that
> system and no doubt some complex on-orbit assembly to do anything
> meaningful; lunar or Mars.

How many bases were built during World War II, using the DC-3 -- an aircraft that was dismissed as "too small" at the start of the war? How many of those required multiple "launches" of DC-3s? How many required complex assembly?

Why is "complex" on-orbit assembly (which was demonstrated during Gemini) still considered scary and something to be avoided at all costs? (Very high costs, in the case of VSE.) Wasn't it proven in Project Gemini?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 29, 2005 12:47 PM

It would be fair to say the SRB "stick" would more equavlant to A Apollo/Saturn 1B stack than a Gemni/Titan.

In fact, I kindly direct all of your attentions to this link:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/saturni.htm

Seems like there was a plan to replace 'clusters last stand' with a SRM for the 1st stage way back when.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 29, 2005 01:40 PM

An interesting thing about VSE is that you hear a lot about launchers and spacecraft that are going to go to moon, but not a peep about what the heck are they exactly planning to do there ? Paint DONT PANIC on it in big friendly letters ?

I would think that what you wanna do there largely defines and puts constraints on how you are gonna get there too, so isnt all this a cart before the horse ?

Posted by kert at June 29, 2005 01:46 PM

Edward: My question wasn't an attempt to be snarky, but simply to ask about alternatives. Winged versus nonwinged seems a pretty binary proposition.

My assertion that "true" spacecraft are those that don't land on some body's surface was meant to suggest that the role and requirements of a vehicle that always stays in space is so substantially different from those of a vehicle that must endure the stresses of surface launch and atmospheric reentry that they are dissimilar craft.

As I've said, I have no preference regarding LEO vehicles. I'd focus on cost, safety, ease of operation, reusability, etc., before I'd worry about whether or not the thing had wings, was a lifting body...whatever. I think the private sector is on the verge of being able to make money ferrying cargo and people to and from LEO. It's much more important for that to happen than it is for any particular vehicle design to prevail. (I think the biggest thing preventing that is the lack of jobs, i.e., too few flights. Can someone turn a profit flying two missions per year to the ISS?)

Yes, aircraft can be reused and support a wide variety of applications. They are general purpose flying machines. Spacecraft ought to be, as well, but I suspect it will some number of decades before that happens. Today spacecraft and their launch vehicles are, essentially, designed and built to support one mission or a very narrow range of missions. I expect that continue even if/when people like Rutan start making money. So, no DC-3's or C-141's of space for some time. (The rational certainly exists for a general purpose LEO vehicle, an LEO to lunar orbit vehicle, etc. )

Again, I'm not arguing the virtues of winged versus nonwinged. Although obvious datapoints other than Shuttle exist for winged craft, politically it is the only one. Any proposal to build another resuable winged vehicle will face the "How Is This Different Than The Shuttle?" question on the Hill. So, I don't think my statement about Griffin's orders are a false dichotomy. I don't know what design he will select for CEV. I'm certainly not going to let Thiolkol PR images foreshadow that decision. But, he's supposed to finish and service the ISS, phase out the Shuttle with no more crashes, put people on the Moon to stay, build an infrastructure to support missions to Mars and asteroids, and not break the budget. I'm guessing his highest priority is not the reusability of the small vehicle that ferries people to and from LEO.

Posted by billg at June 29, 2005 01:48 PM

"I'm guessing his highest priority is not the reusability of the small vehicle that ferries people to and from LEO."

The new baseline CEV mass, 30 metric tons is getting very far from a small LEO vehicle. His highest priority seems to keep a certain large batch of engineers employed and certain contractors happy instead.

Posted by kert at June 29, 2005 01:56 PM

There;s nothing wrong with on-orbit assembly, Edward. Fewer launches mean fewer risks associated with launch and reentry. We ought to let common sense guide us. If we know that we will need to build a 1000-ton platform on orbit, then four launches with a large vehicle might make a lot more sense than twenty launches with a smaller vehicle. It would certainly get built much quicker.

Posted by at June 29, 2005 01:58 PM

"Fewer launches mean fewer risks associated with launch and reentry... If we know that we will need to build a 1000-ton platform on orbit, then four launches with a large vehicle might make a lot more sense than twenty launches with a smaller vehicle"

Yes, except when your large vehicle fails, you have lost one quarter of your megastation and stand a good chance of being royally screwed with your entire project. OTOH, if one of your small vehicles fails, in the best case you have to send up a few more easily replaceable solar panels that were the cargo.

So, in some ways, you are actually risking _A LOT_ more with big launches.

Posted by kert at June 29, 2005 02:08 PM

> I think the private sector is on the verge of being able to make money ferrying
> cargo and people to and from LEO. It's much more important for that to happen than it is for any particular vehicle design to
> prevail. (I think the biggest thing preventing that is the lack of jobs, i.e.,
> too few flights. Can someone turn a profit flying two missions per year to the ISS?)

No, but they might be able to turn a profit carrying VSE propellant/parts/personnel to orbit 600 times a year -- assuming VSE had an open architecture that allowed small deliveries.

> Yes, aircraft can be reused and support a wide variety of applications. They
> are general purpose flying machines. Spacecraft ought to be, as well, but I suspect it will some number of decades
> before that happens.

Why? It might take decades to produce a "DC-3 of space" but that shouldn't stop someone from building a "Northrop Alpha" or "Ford Trimotor of space." If no one's trying to do that, how will they suddenly be able to build that DC-3 some number of decades from now?

> Any proposal to build another resuable winged vehicle will face
> the "How Is This Different Than The Shuttle?" question on the Hill.

How about, "The new vehicles don't have to carry seven astronauts and 65,000 pounds of cargo. They might carry seven astronauts or just two pilots and a ton of cargo. They'll be built and operated by private companies, not NASA, and we'll sign contracts with multiple companies so if one doesn't work out, we'll have backups"?

> he's supposed to finish and service the ISS, phase out the Shuttle with no
> more crashes, put people on the Moon to stay, build an infrastructure to
> support missions to Mars and asteroids, and not break the budget.

As someone else said in another context, "pick any two." :-) Okay, to be fair, he could do four of those five -- if "not break the budget" isn't one of them. He can't do all five without radical reduction in launch costs that can only come with reusability.

> I'm guessing his highest priority is not the reusability of the small
> vehicle that ferries people to and from LEO.

Apparently not, since he's on record as assuming that reductions in launch costs are impossible during the next 40 years. Let's hope he's not intent on making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by at June 29, 2005 04:32 PM

> Fewer launches mean fewer risks associated with launch and reentry. We
> ought to let common sense guide us.

Fewer flights mean fewer risks associated with takeoff and landing. So ask yourself, why do the President and Vice President travel on separate airplanes? Putting all your eggs in one basket does not reduce risk.

> If we know that we will need to build a 1000-ton platform on orbit, then
> four launches with a large vehicle might make a lot more sense than twenty
> launches with a smaller vehicle. It would certainly get built much quicker.

Why "certainly"? Federal Express carries millions of packages overnight, with a fleet of 500 vehicles. Why do you assume 20 flights have to take a very long time?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 29, 2005 04:50 PM

>>"...they might be able to turn a profit carrying VSE propellant/parts/personnel to orbit 600 times a year..."

Almost two flights a day? Not going to happen. It'd be nice if something, anything, generated a demand for 2 crewed spaceflights per day, but it ain't gonna happen in this lifetime.

>>"...that shouldn't stop someone from building a "Northrop Alpha" or "Ford Trimotor of space." If no one's trying to do that, how will they suddenly be able to build that DC-3 some number of decades from now?"

What's stopping anyone is the lack of missions for such a vehicle to fly. You don't build a vehicle and then rant about how stupid the world is because no one wants to fly your new toy. When the missions are there, someone will build a craft to do the job. If there's money to be made, the private sector will do it. Not everything that needs to be done in space will be profitable.

>>"They might carry seven astronauts or just two pilots and a ton of cargo. They'll be built and operated by private companies, not NASA..."

And the members of the Appropriations Committee will sit back and wonder why they should believe anything they hear after believing everything they heard about the Shuttle.

>>"He can't do all five without radical reduction in launch costs that can only come with reusability."

Debatable. But, in any case, Mike Griffin does not live and work in that reality. If NASA can't complete his orders within budget, it won't. I don't expect Griffin to think a reusable craft has any political future. Congress will hear "reusable" and think "Shuttle" and ask why they should throw good money after bad.

>>"Putting all your eggs in one basket does not reduce risk."

If any given flight has a 1 percent chance of failure, you are bound to have more failures in 20 flights than in 4 flights.

>>"Why do you assume 20 flights have to take a very long time? "

I didn't say that, did I? I said building something that needed 4 flights would go quicker than something that needed 20 flights. I didn't say how long either would take. Frankly, just because you can build something on orbit, that's not a compelling reason to do so.

Posted by billg at June 29, 2005 07:05 PM

> Almost two flights a day? Not going to happen. It'd be nice if something, anything,
> generated a demand for 2 crewed spaceflights per day, but it ain't gonna happen
> in this lifetime.

You're very pessimistic about your life expectancy.

I expect we'll have much more than two flights a day long before NASA reaches the Moon.

> What's stopping anyone is the lack of missions for such a vehicle to fly.

You're arguing around in circles. If NASA purchased transportation for propellant, parts, and personnel, there would not be a lack of missions.

If you start by deciding everything has to be launched on a Saturn V-class that flies once or twice a year, of course there's going to be a lack of missions. That's the result of bad planning, not a law of nature.

> And the members of the Appropriations Committee will sit back
> and wonder why they should believe anything they hear after believing
> everything they heard about the Shuttle.

Yet, you expect those same Congressmen to believe launching astronauts on SRBs is safe, after Challenger?

I don't think Congressmen are as stupid as you make them out to be.

>>>"Putting all your eggs in one basket does not reduce risk."

> If any given flight has a 1 percent chance of failure, you are bound to have
> more failures in 20 flights than in 4 flights.

Trying to minimize the absolute number of failures, rather than the probability of failure, is cuckoo. If you want to go down that path, you shouldn't put all your payloads onto four flights but zero flights -- thus ensuring zero failures. Also zero successes.

>>"Why do you assume 20 flights have to take a very long time? "

> I didn't say that, did I? I said building something that needed 4 flights
> would go quicker than something that needed 20 flights.

Yes, you said it, but that doesn't make it axiomatic. The time required to complete a construction project depends on many factors.

You aren't going to be launching vehicles the size of a Saturn V every day. If NASA launches one every six months, it will take two years just to launch your platform -- unless there's a launch failure, in which case you have to wait for the factory to build you a replacement.

> Frankly, just because you can build something on orbit, that's not
> a compelling reason to do so.

It is when it saves billions of dollars. Why is the ability to build a 250-ton launcher a compelling reason to do so?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 29, 2005 08:23 PM

To everyone talking about many launches vs few launches.

Here is the deal: cost per weight decreases the larger a rocket is. It also decreases with the number of launchers produced (the wonders of mass production). Now someone just needs to figure out where is the optimum in that. Griffin seems to think the bigger the better.

Posted by Gojira at June 29, 2005 11:31 PM

To everyone talking about many launches vs few launches.

Posted by Gojira at June 29, 2005 11:31 PM

Griffin used to think Magnum would have lower cost per weight than something like EELV. See slide 7 in this PDF.

Just last year he summed the options to three. See this PDF.

All HLV launchers, two from the DoD EELV space, one being a Shuttle derived HLV.

However, looking at his original idea space in page 22, you can see the Shuttle B/C would take like 4-5x the payload of the heavy EELVs.

Given how the Delta-IV Heavy launch went (heralded as a success by Boeing, but it dropped the cargo at an orbit to low) and there have been zero Atlas-V Heavy launches so far, I cannot say Griffin is totally bonkers by trying to go his own separate way, given that HLV is what the man wants.

Posted by Gojira at June 29, 2005 11:34 PM

Sorry for all the posts people :-(. I have been fighting with the filter to try to post, and the error message was so useless I could not figure out where the problem was. It was the URLs. I will try it this way:

PDF #1
PDF #2

Posted by Gojira at June 29, 2005 11:38 PM

Here is the deal: cost per weight decreases the larger a rocket is.

That is a vastly oversimplified rule of thumb, that has to include the caveat all other things being equal (including, among other things, flight rate). They rarely are in the real world.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 30, 2005 05:34 AM

"An interesting thing about VSE is that you hear a lot about launchers and spacecraft that are going to go to moon, but not a peep about what the heck are they exactly planning to do there ? Paint DONT PANIC on it in big friendly letters ?"

They could start mining the titanium ore which turned up among the moon rocks Andy Rooney whined about not having seen.

Posted by triticale at June 30, 2005 07:26 AM

>>"I expect we'll have much more than two flights a day long before NASA reaches the Moon."

What demand, Edward, do you see happening to spawn all those flights? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it, but I don't expect to. And, I don't count 20-minute barnburner tourist flights to 100k and back. I'm talking about 2 flights per day to support some kind of ongoing activity in LEO or beyond.

>>" ...you expect those same Congressmen to believe launching astronauts on SRBs is safe, after Challenger?"

I'm not interested in what Congressmen believe. I'm interested in how they vote. It will be easier to explain a vote for an SRB-derived vehicle than a vote for any winged vehicle that appears, to the public eye, as Son of Shuttle. In the public mind, the Shuttle is equivalent to the Orbiter and the public believes the Orbiter is faulty. Griffin will, as he already has, argue that going the Shuttle-Derived route to get to CEV launchers and a family of HLV's is cheaper, faster and quicker than any alternative. He will argue that post-Challenger SRB's are safe and reliable, and that the rest of the stack, minus the Orbiter, is equally safe and reliable and should be adapted for use to support the VSE. Whether you or I agree or disagree is irrelevant since we aren't running NASA and we aren't testifying on the Hill.

Finally, debates about the optimum number flights to use to build or service some hypothetical activity are essentally useless. If your motivation for arguing for using a lot of small vehicles is to generate more business for the private firms you hope will be doing the launching, go for it. I think Griffin has opened the door to private companies competing to carry cargo to ISS and trash and cargo back from ISS. Do that successfully, and see if it leads to anything.

But, I really am curious about the, apparently, private sector initiatives that you think will require 2 flights per day sometime within the next decade or so.

Posted by billg at June 30, 2005 08:47 AM

But, I really am curious about the, apparently, private sector initiatives that you think will require 2 flights per day sometime within the next decade or so.

Every market research study indicates that there is more than ample demand than that for passenger trips to orbit.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 30, 2005 09:00 AM

> What demand, Edward, do you see happening to spawn all those flights?

To repeat the obvious -- if NASA designed VSE with an open architecture, so components could be carried on small vehicles, and contracted out for those flights, then there would be demand.

You keep arguing in circles: NASA shouldn't create demand because there won't be any demand.

> I'm not interested in what Congressmen believe. I'm interested in how they vote.

Congress has not rejected commercial vehicles out of hand. In fact, they voted funds for NASA to purchase flights on such vehicles, even when NASA didn't want to. Nor did they express the slightest concern about whether the vehicles were winged or not. You're putting words into their mouths.

> It will be easier to explain a vote for an SRB-derived vehicle than a vote for any winged vehicle

If that's true, it's only because parts of NASA are cynically using Challenger to propogandize for the Apollo capsules they want to build. There's no evidence that propoganda's as effective as you say, however. NASA did not reject Lockheed's winged capsule design; they're funding it.

And again, reusable spacecraft do NOT necessarily have to be winged. The IMPORTANT choice is not between winged and non-winged, but between reusable and expendable.

Why do you obsess on the most superficial aspect of the design?

> Griffin will, as he already has, argue that going the Shuttle-Derived route to get to CEV launchers
> and a family of HLV's is cheaper, faster and quicker than any alternative.

Undoubtedly. That does not mean Griffin is right. If Griffin argued for jumping off bridges, do you think it would be a good idea to jump off bridges?

> I think Griffin has opened the door to private companies competing to carry cargo to ISS
> and trash and cargo back from ISS. Do that successfully, and see if it leads to anything.

As you said earlier, "how do you turn a profit flying two missions per year to the ISS?" Or less after 2016, when the ISS budget goes to zero in NASA's budget plan?

Or are you suggesting NASA should keep spending money on ISS and defer its plans for the Moon?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 30, 2005 10:51 AM

Griffin has actually said out loud why he's dead-set on STS-derived everything:

"You fly the last shuttle safely if the work force on the last shuttle feels there is a path to the future for them."
"All in all the best path for NASA appears to be the shuttle-derived approach," Griffin said

So thats it. Pork. All the arguing about safety and cost and schedules etc is just smoke and mirrors. So shuttle is basically politically inescapable, its workforce and infrastructure needs a safe future and there you are stuck with that.

So, what was it again about getting NASA out of space trucking business ?

Posted by kert at June 30, 2005 11:26 AM

triticale:

Mining for titanium on the moon is a really dumb idea. What exactly did you want to do with it? Return it to Earth? Titanium ore down here is just pennies per pound. Process it for use in space? The cost of manufacturing in space makes the idea a nonstarter.

ET resources that will be used anytime soon will be for simple, homogenous consumables, like propellants, and possibly for extremely valuable raw materials that are very rare on Earth.

Posted by Paul Dietz at June 30, 2005 11:52 AM

When Columbus came to America, he came on three ships provided by Queen Isabella. She didn't actually pay for them, they were given to her by the town of Palos de la Frontera in payment of debt owed to the Crown. The town's criminals were also part of the crew. She gave the boats to Columbus because the Crown didn't need them or the criminals.

If Columbus hadn't come calling about the time Isabella was receiving those ships, he never would have sailed. The trip was just not worth the investment at the time. Imagine that. In fact, the Americas provided no commercial payoff for Spain until the latter half of the sixteenth century.

I don't think, in the long run, it matters what architecture is chosen. All that matters is that we, as a nation, pick something, get going and keep going. If shuttle-derived will get it kick started and keep the funding up, then, let's roll with it.

Posted by Jardinero1 at June 30, 2005 02:04 PM

> I don't think, in the long run, it matters what architecture is chosen. All
> that matters is that we, as a nation, pick something, get going and keep
> going. If shuttle-derived will get it kick started and keep the funding
> up, then, let's roll with it.

If the architecture is not affordable, no one will keep going for very long. Doesn't anyone remember how Apollo turned out?

Columbus justified his project on its own merits, not on analogies to a completely different activity that took place 500 years earlier.

If the best justification people can come up with is "America should fund Shuttle II because Queen Isabella funded Columbus," that merely shows how poor an investment it really is.

Posted by at June 30, 2005 02:30 PM

Edward:

I don't see the connection between an open architecture VSE that permits small vehicles and a sustained demand for at least two daily flights. I certainly don't expect payloads, private or NASA's, to get smaller just to enable private firms to make money doing a lot of little launches.

I'm not asserting that "NASA shouldn't create demand because there won't be any demand". NASA should try to buy whatever NASA wants to buy. NASA should not design VSE simply to create private sector demand. If there's demand within the private sector for private sector launches, great. I'd love it. Rand says there is; I'm skeptical, at least within the 10-15 year span you're talking about. But, again, I'd be happy to be wrong.

I don't know if NASA is lobbying Congress to build capsules. They haven't announced their CEV design choice. One design's a capsule; one isn't. We will see which they pick. I don't care. Also, I never mentioned NASA propaganda at all.

I agree that "reusable spacecraft do NOT necessarily have to be winged". I haven't said they had to be winged. I don't really care if spacecraft are throwaways or reusable. I'm interested in cost and reliability. If using throwaways for a given number missions is cheaper than using wings, fine. And, vice versa. They can put pedals and wheels on the damn thing if that makes it work better.

No, I would not jump off a bridge if Griffin suggested it. Nor do I care if he is "right" or "wrong" I don't know how to judge correctness in this context: I doubt it exists.

No, I do not think NASA should continue to fund ISS. I think it is essentially a pointless money pit.

I'll be clear: NASA's mission is to do whatever the President tells them to do. If they can generate some private sector demand in the process, fine. But they would be irresponsible to distort their program to artificially prompt creation of private sector demand.

I'm all for private sector demand for space travel. I just think it will never develop if it is dependent on NASA. And I'm not at all optimistic about that "two flights per day 2015" thing.

Posted by billg at June 30, 2005 02:41 PM

The age of exploration started way, way before that. When trade with India by an all sea route was established, and the spice trade monopoly was wrestled away from the Muslims. It was all about trade, and we never went back. The western powers have ruled the sea, ergo international trade, ever since. The only small difference is the largest western sea power now is in the USA instead of being in an European power.

At best you can compare colonizing the Moon and Mars with the Catholic powers colonization of the deserted islands in the Atlantic and northwestern coast of Africa. Remains to be seen where the space spice analog, for trade, is. I suspect that would require contact with aliens, and establishment of trading relationships with them. This is why projects exploring planets on other nearby star systems or even far fetched things like SETI are interesting, from a long term point of view.

Posted by Gojira at June 30, 2005 02:41 PM

Those who can, are doing. Those who can't, or won't, natter about it forever on line.

Posted by at June 30, 2005 02:47 PM

I agree with Jardenero1. The point is to actually go somewhere and exploit it, not sit here and dilly-dally while a bunch of hangers-on debate the perfect architecture. There will be no perfect spacecrtaft, just as there are no perfect aircraft, boats, cars, trucks, whatever. Get over it. If all this actually works and leads to something, no one will care what design NASA picked.

No one is justifying anything based on Colombus, nor is anything meriting the name "Shuttle II" under consideration. Note. please, that the Orbiter is being tossed.

Nor is VSE an investment, anymore than the Navy's ships are investments. Investments are supposed to return a profit. Government agencies do their job. If people don't like the job that's been asigned to NASA, fine, but it is twisted logic to attack something for failing to be what it is not intended to be. (But, the twisted logic is par for the course since so many people seem to like to rebut assertions other posters did not make.)

Nor was Apollo an "investment". It wasn't supposed to lead anywhere but putting two guys on the Moon. Kennedy asked for that and he got it; he did not ask for a self-funding infrastructure capable of supporting human exploitation of the Solar System and, hence, he did not get it.

Posted by billg at June 30, 2005 03:35 PM

> I don't see the connection between an open architecture VSE that permits
> small vehicles and a sustained demand for at least two daily flights. I
> certainly don't expect payloads, private or NASA's, to get smaller just to
> enable private firms to make money doing a lot of little launches.

Payloads don't have to get any smaller. The average astronauts weighs maybe 200 pounds. A freeze-dried meal weighs several ounces. Propellants are, for all practical purposes, infinitely divisible. You don't need a Saturn V to launch any of those things.

> NASA should try to buy whatever NASA wants to buy.

Why should NASA buy what it "wants" rather than what the nation needs? Should a government agency be allowed to waste money just because it's what they "want"?

> They haven't announced their CEV design choice. One design's a capsule; one isn't.

What makes you think that? Lockheed's CEV still lands with a parachute. It will be subject to the same mechanical shock as any other capsule. The fact that is has wings will not contribute substantially to its reusability, which will be limited by the availability of ELVs as well as any damage it suffers on impact.

> I do not think NASA should continue to fund ISS. I think it is
> essentially a pointless money pit.

How do you expect private enterprise to "compete carrying cargo to ISS" if there is no ISS?

> I'll be clear: NASA's mission is to do whatever the President
> tells them to do.

What gave you that idea?

The President is the Executive branch. His job is to enforce the law. Congress makes the law. NASA's mission is to do what Congress chartered it to do -- not whatever the Presidents tells them to.

> If they can generate some private sector demand in the process, fine.
> But they would be irresponsible to distort their program to artificially
> prompt creation of private sector demand.

Congress (makers of laws) ordered NASA to "seek and encourage to the fullest extent possible the commercial use of space?"

Why is building giant rockets and maintaining the high cost of space transportation more important than "promoting the general welfare" of the United States?

> No one is justifying anything based on Colombus, nor is anything
> meriting the name "Shuttle II" under consideration. Note. please,
> that the Orbiter is being tossed.

And replacing it with a new orbiter (CEV) that will, by all indications, be at least as expensive. Why is that an improvement worth spending billions of dollars?

> Nor is VSE an investment, anymore than the Navy's ships are investments.
> Investments are supposed to return a profit. Government agencies do their job.

Another faulty analogy. Navy ships exist to provide for the common defense. And yes, they are investments. They are expected to produce a return on investment by making the nation more secure. If they didn't, Congress wouldn't fund them. It doesn't fund sailing ships any more, for example.

Building giant moonrockets won't make the United States more secure. There are no moonmen waiting to attack us, and the argument that the Chinese are about to attack us from the Moon isn't convincing.

> Nor was Apollo an "investment". It wasn't supposed to lead anywhere
> but putting two guys on the Moon. Kennedy asked for that and he got
> it;

And why was that a good thing? The United States is not a monarchy. The President of the United States isn't entitled to get something just because he asks for it. He's not supposed to spend a single dime unless it fulfills a Constitutional purpose, like providing for the common defense or promoting the general welfare.

The President's space vision doesn't help provide for the common defense. So, if it isn't done in a manner that promotes the general welfare, why do it all?

If the US is going to spend $17 billion a year on a space program, why choose to make it a program that, in your words, "doesn't lead anywhere"?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 30, 2005 04:59 PM

Absolutely the VSE is an investment, as are Navy ships and the Interstate Highway System. They are national investments, undertaken by all of the citizens of the country. Financial investments are supposed to return a profit, but financial are not the only kind of investments, nor particularly the most important in the long run.

Once again, I whip out my copy of "The Vision for Space Exploration", published Feb. 04, Ref.#: NP-2004-01-334-HQ.

From the "Goal and Objectives" section, right up front:

"...
-Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and INFRASTRUCTURES both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration;
-Promote international and COMMERCIAL participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and ECONOMIC interests." [emphasis added]

Some see NASA's role as being strictly on the frontier, so shooting for anything less than the Moon is not hewing to that philosophy. I disagree, as it's clearly been shown that even near-Earth activities are really tough for NASA. Leaving supply and crew transfer to an EOL station does, however, hew to the NASA at the vanguard philosophy.

There's lots of business to do in LEO, MEO, HEO, GEO, EML-1, on the Moon, at the asteroids, and even Mars. NASA can help improve American launch systems, and contribute to their increased production and strength, as they have with aeronautics, or they can go off and design their own private launch system that no one else really has a need for, and thus does little to serve America's commercial and industrial development of space.

Posted by ken murphy at June 30, 2005 05:12 PM

Absolutely the VSE is an investment, as are Navy ships and the Interstate Highway System

Yes, it's an investment, but the statement that it is like those requires justification. The Interstate Highway System had immediate uses. The Navy serves a historically demonstrable purpose -- defending the country.

What purpose is VSE serving to justify the analogy?

Comparisons to Columbus (to refer to early messages) face the awkward fact that the manned exploration of the New World had turned a profit in less time than the so-called 'Space Age' has already existed. The day when manned exploration of space leads to a profit is not close.

Posted by Paul Dietz at June 30, 2005 07:10 PM

Edward:

I can only conclude

1. That, for some reason you are unwilling to reveal, you are suggesting launching the components of VSE one astronaut at a time and one freeze-dried meal at a time.

2. You have access to some secret knowledge about the nation's needs that NASA ignores at our peril rather than spending taxpayers' money to buy nonexistent vehicles from businesses with nonexistent track records.

3. That you hold contradictory opinions about what makes a vehicle reusable or not, and that you also hold that it is axiomatic that a resuable vehicle is to be preferred and that you would rather see no human activity in space than activity in expandavle vehicles.

4. That you confuse my opinions about what ought to happen with what almost certainly will happen. (E.g., I argue that ISS is a waste of money and you interpret that to mean I'm contradicting my statement that businesses should compete to carry cargo to and from ISS. Regardless of my opinion, ISS isn't going to go away when the Shuttle closes down, as you well know.)

5. That you have a rather unrealistic impression of the actual role played by the Executive (doubtless confusing your ideological beliefs about what it should be doing with what it really does).

6. That you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the VSE architecture (e.g., equating the CEV with the Orbiter).

7. That you believe the purpose of the space program is either to use tax dollars to subsidize private sector profit, or to secure the nation from extraterrestrial threat which you clearly consider will not come from moonmen or Beijing.

8. That you are quite adept at building and attempting to rebut scarecrow arguments? (E.g., I say Kennedy got what he asked for in Apollo and you ask why that was a "good thing". Of course, I didn't say Apollo was good or bad. I contend that Shuttle and ISS don't go anywhere and you distort that to claim I said it about VSE.

So, I'm led to conclude that you are interested in human space travel only if it is done exactly as you wish. On the other hand, as i've repeatedly stated, I don't really care how it gets done.

Posted by billg at July 1, 2005 05:44 AM

Ken, perhaps there is money to be made in all those places you list, but I think that asertion is, currently, largely an act of faith. There is real money to be made servicing a very real ISS. As I alluded, if the private sector cannot do that, why should we expect it to be able to do anything else in space, or, more likely, to even be interested?

NASA, I'm sure, would argue that it has built an infrastructure and that it has fostered commercial interests. Your real heartburn is because NASA channels money to a very few defense constractors rather than deliberately behaving as a agency whose primary purpose is to seed development of new private enterprises.

Posted by billg at July 1, 2005 05:59 AM

There is real money to be made servicing a very real ISS.

This isn't a good argument since you can currently lobby the government for money without having to provide any sort of orbital services. Unless the ISS were turned into a hotel or the like, I really don't see the potential for profit from the ISS. I ignore, of course, the $100 billion or so sunk cost.

As I alluded, if the private sector cannot do that, why should we expect it to be able to do anything else in space, or, more likely, to even be interested?

Well, the private sector seems very adept at siphoning money off of the ISS budget. So we can lay those fears to rest.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at July 1, 2005 10:02 AM

> for some reason you are unwilling to reveal, you are suggesting launching the
> components of VSE one astronaut at a time and one freeze-dried meal at a time.

No, there are plenty of options between launching astronaut or frozen meal at a time and launching them all in one 120-ton chunk. Are you really unable to think of any?

> You have access to some secret knowledge about the nation's needs that NASA
> ignores at our peril rather than spending taxpayers' money to buy
> nonexistent vehicles from businesses with nonexistent track records.

I have nonsecret information that's readily available to anyone who cares to educate themselves.

And it's hypocrtical to complain about "nonexistant vehicles" while asking the taxpayers to shell out billions on cost-plus contracts to develop non-existant Shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicles.

As for the "track record" you speak of -- that would be the track record of failing to build NASP, X-33, X-34, X-38, 2nd Generation RLV, and Orbital Space Plane -- what's so great about that? Why do you place such a high value on past failure?

> you would rather see no human activity in space than activity in expandavle vehicles.

What I would "rather see" is irrelevant. If we continue with expendable vehicles, we will see no human activity in space (or at least, no significant human activity in space) because it costs too much. Wishful thinking will not change that.

Would you rather see no significant human activity in space than give up your addiction to ELV and heavy lift?

> you confuse my opinions about what ought to happen with what almost certainly will happen

No, I point out that there's nothing certain about what you think will happen.

Your pessimistic predictions will come true only if some very bad decisions are made over the next few years. That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Yes, I know you don't think your predictions are pessimistic. Pessimists never do.)

> I argue that ISS is a waste of money and you interpret that to mean I'm
> contradicting my statement that businesses should compete to carry cargo
> to and from ISS

If NASA stops funding ISS because it's a waste of money, as you want, then there will be no cargo going to or from ISS.

If you don't see the contradiction there, I can't help you.

> That you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the VSE architecture
> (e.g., equating the CEV with the Orbiter).

You're very hung up on what NASA names things. Do you remember what Shakespeare said about roses?

The "CEV" is also called "Constellation, a couple years ago it was called an "Orbital Space Plane," next year it may be called something else. By any name, it is what it is -- a replacement for the Shuttle orbiter to transport NASA astronauts into space.

> I say Kennedy got what he asked for in Apollo and you ask why that was
> a "good thing". Of course, I didn't say Apollo was good or bad.

You want the taxpayers to spend many tens of billions of dollars recreating Apollo. From that, it's reasonable to assume you think Apollo was a good thing.

> I'm led to conclude that you are interested in human space travel only
> if it is done exactly as you wish.

You conclude many things that aren't so. Why should one more surprise me? :-)

I'm led to conclude that you are interested in human space travel only if it's very expensive and almost nonexistant.

Why is it better for NASA to spend more money to send fewer people into space?

Posted by Edward Wright at July 1, 2005 03:02 PM

HAHA. Funny, the beginning of the animation looks just like a B-29 "bombs away" when the SRBs drop off

Posted by cuddihy at July 1, 2005 04:58 PM

Post a comment