Author Topic: Mitt Romney Space Policy  (Read 41598 times)

Offline Hodapp

Re: Mitt Romney Space Policy
« Reply #140 on: 06/05/2012 12:49 PM »
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2094/1
"“The next learning step, the next outward step, is the Moon,” Griffin concluded. “I think in the longer, broader reach of space policy, that is the path to which we will return.”
Griffin’s comments echoed those made a week earlier by another former NASA official. “The international space community, which had been shifting attention to the Moon in anticipation of that being the next US focus for exploration, felt blindsided” by the shift in US policy two years ago, said Scott Pace, a former associate administrator under Griffin and currently the director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, in a Washington Space Business Roundtable (WSBR) luncheon speech on May 15. “Countries in Asia, such as Japan, India, China, South Korea, saw the Moon as a challenging but feasible destination for robotic exploration and a practical focus for human space exploration.”"

Now were talking!  This is and always will be the next most logical next step in BEO!  Yeah!  Gateways/Fuel Depots...ISS type Antartica style moon base...Conquer Cis-lunar space!
Then maybe an asteroid...or just plan for an ISS type Mars mission
Launches: 133, 134, 135, EFT-1  Scrubs: 134
Future: EM-1 & EM-2

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Mitt Romney Space Policy
« Reply #141 on: 06/05/2012 01:40 PM »
SLS is not economical.  Simply take 2 lunars missions a year, which is 240,000 kg and divide by 10:  the LV size should be around 25,000 kg in order to spread the fixed costs over as many flights as possible to reduce the $/kg.  NOw assume that two LVs accomplish the same metric tonnes per year or include the International Partners and size the LV.  Then consider the largest piece of hardware needed.  Its more complex than this, but it gets you in the ballpark.

To put it simply, you have no way of knowing if it is economical or not.  There is much more to it than launch operations.  And if launch operations were the driving force and smaller always means cheaper, then perhaps we should launch everything on Pegasus. 

This argument is tired and your side of it always uses the point above but bases it around EELV class hardware, because that is where you want the argument to be.  An SLS rocket and EELV-class rockets can and will, hopefully, work very well in concert together.

The numbers clearly indicate that depot centric is 57B or more cheaper than SLS for the HEFT architecture. 

The links to the data and leaked studies show
Why a decade of HLVs (Constellation and SLS) did not solve NASA $$$ problems, but depot centric with a LEO ZBO Depot and Smaller LVs Will Help Tremendously

Here is another look at the data: Depot Centric is clearly cheaper than SLS with Solids or Liquids

More recently, Space Launch System is a threat to JSC, Texas jobs

I am not clear on what is meant by "sides" or "tired"..can you clarify this?

As per EELV/COTS and SLS working side by side:  then the fixed costs of all the product lines must be carried by the United States.  One of the reasons that LV24/25 (looks like SLS), a leading contender in ESAS, was *not* selected is that there is no economical rationale of placing a 20,000 kg (or less) capsule on a 70,000 to 130,000 kg LV--Which is why the 1.5 architecture of Constellation originated.

As just discussed, parts of Congress provide "conflicting demands"

NASA has many Space Technology Grand Challenges and they will require resources, which will require an architecture change.

In a practical sense, one or two asteroid missions will advance technology needs to travel past the moon way more than learning from the moon, while perhaps ISRU on the moon will lead to a more economical access to space.  Cosmic radiation protection and  landing heavy objects on mars are the first two that lack commonality with the lunar program among many others. 

Flexible path allows NASA to explore many destinations once cash is available, but some may not be willing to discuss a lunar destination, for, well, reasons of employment.

Okay, back to reality:  is SLS still 143B to run 8 missions over 15 years? and is the COTS/EELV depot architecture destined to failure in HLV architecture?

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Mitt Romney Space Policy
« Reply #142 on: 06/05/2012 01:52 PM »
I am not clear on what is meant by "sides" or "tired"

Try reading some posts from OV-106, he talked about that a lot. :)

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 460
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Mitt Romney Space Policy
« Reply #143 on: 06/05/2012 03:07 PM »
Okay, back to reality:  is SLS still 143B to run 8 missions over 15 years?

I think you mean SLS/Orion + mission hardware?

Do you mean 15 years + x years development?

[143B / 15 = $9.53B/year and NASA certainly isn't spending that]

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
    • TEA Party in Space
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 250
Re: Mitt Romney Space Policy
« Reply #144 on: 06/05/2012 04:01 PM »
I just wanted to clarify something quickly:

ZBO - or Zero Boil Off - is not required.  This is more of an unfunded mandate that certain people on the executive schedule want to demand.  It is job security.  We wrote about it here:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1955/1

Quote from: TEA Party in Space
Griffin’s testimony also included the following statement: “Further, a fuel depot requires a presently non-existent technology – the ability to maintain cryogenic fuels in the necessary thermodynamic state for very long periods in space.”

While it is true the required technologies have not yet been flown in space, they have been developed, ground-tested, and are ready for space flight tests. In addition, their performance characteristics have been incorporated into upper stage and depot design concepts indicating cryogenic propellants can be maintained in the appropriate thermodynamic state for over a year with zero oxygen boil-off and less than 0.05% per day boil-off of the initial hydrogen mass. By incorporating cryocoolers (cryogenic refrigeration units), it may be possible to eliminate hydrogen boil-off as well. To mature these technologies and make them available for exploration missions, NASA is currently funding four contractors to define an appropriate cryogenic propellant storage and transfer technology demonstration mission with a target launch date in 2016.

Here is a link to a study from KSC that shows that it is not required (hosted by TPIS):

http://www.teapartyinspace.org/sites/default/files/images/Thermal%20Optimization%20and%20Assessment%20of%20a%20Long%20Duration%20Cryogenic%20Propellant%20Depot.pdf

The depot arcitecture is superior in many ways:

*  Increased flight rate
*  Includes international partners
*  Reduces the footprint on the ground
*  Utilizes vehicles that are ready today
*  Subscribes to building BEO spaceships in LEO
*  BEO spaceships could be reused
*  Save a lot of money

The depot problem is only as difficult as congress and the bureaucracy wants to make it.  We feel it would be simply awesome if Candidate Romney would talk about architecture like this.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
President, TEA Party in Space

What we want and what we can afford are two very different things.

Demanding space policy that is fiscally responsible and utilizing the free market system.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Mitt Romney Space Policy
« Reply #145 on: 06/05/2012 04:10 PM »
Okay, back to reality:  is SLS still 143B to run 8 missions over 15 years?

I think you mean SLS/Orion + mission hardware?

Do you mean 15 years + x years development?

[143B / 15 = $9.53B/year and NASA certainly isn't spending that]

HEFT was over 20 years.  Incorrectly typed 15.   See slides 16 and 19. For the comparison.
NASA Study Shows cheaper alternatives to SLS

the study assumes "transfer stages", not LEO ZBO depots.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Mitt Romney Space Policy
« Reply #146 on: 06/05/2012 04:49 PM »
"Griffin on long-term space exploration plans and a return to the Moon"
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/06/05/griffin-on-long-term-space-exploration-plans-and-a-return-to-the-moon/?
"Griffin—speaking only for himself and not the AIAA—also endorsed comments made by Roscosmos head Vladimir Popovkin earlier in the day at GLEX that called for a human return to the Moon as the next step for human space exploration, as opposed to NASA’s current plans for a human asteroid mission by 2025. “I think General Popovkin’s comments this morning were on target,” Griffin said. “I think the starting point beyond space station is the Moon for a host of engineering and operational reasons that, to me, make sense.”"

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Mitt Romney Space Policy
« Reply #147 on: 06/05/2012 04:50 PM »
I just wanted to clarify something quickly:

ZBO - or Zero Boil Off - is not required.  This is more of an unfunded mandate that certain people on the executive schedule want to demand.  It is job security.  We wrote about it here:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1955/1

Quote from: TEA Party in Space
Griffin’s testimony also included the following statement: “Further, a fuel depot requires a presently non-existent technology – the ability to maintain cryogenic fuels in the necessary thermodynamic state for very long periods in space.”

While it is true the required technologies have not yet been flown in space, they have been developed, ground-tested, and are ready for space flight tests. In addition, their performance characteristics have been incorporated into upper stage and depot design concepts indicating cryogenic propellants can be maintained in the appropriate thermodynamic state for over a year with zero oxygen boil-off and less than 0.05% per day boil-off of the initial hydrogen mass. By incorporating cryocoolers (cryogenic refrigeration units), it may be possible to eliminate hydrogen boil-off as well. To mature these technologies and make them available for exploration missions, NASA is currently funding four contractors to define an appropriate cryogenic propellant storage and transfer technology demonstration mission with a target launch date in 2016.


unfortunately, as is often with politics, the statement above mixes fact and fiction.    :(

First, the four contractor studies do not include a ZBO option, TMK.

Question:  if industry studies options that does not include ZBO, are the most cost effective options brought to the taxpayer?   

Corporations hire lobbyists to influence Congress to eliminate a ZBO depot from contention.    Is this is what is happening?

Your post however, states that the option is "not needed" and an "unfunded mandate"

So let us take a short look at the "data" in the paper.

- boiloff may be reduced from 0.1% per day to maybe half that at 0.5% per day.   But wait a minute, it goes back up to above 0.1%/day for positive alpha angle.   :o

Recall that at 0.1%/day Ares V boiled away 70 ton of prop or 700M at $10,000/kg for a *single* Mars DRM 5 mission, increasing the number of launches from 5 to 6 :-[

So are you saying the tea party in space supports this boiloff rate (0.05 to above 0.1%/day) as effective use of taxpayer dollars?  consider, in your reply, that in a depot centric architecture, the launch vehicle is smaller and hence more flights are needed.  Also consider the mass fraction of the upper stage with all the passive equipment and state whether its expendable or not, risks, and how you accounted for this cost in the "paper" to reach the TPS conclusion.

Question:  can you explain the mass ratio of the LH2 and LOX tanks in relation to the mission goal:    "The mass of the LH2 and the L02 were assumed to be 5 mT (11060 lbs) and 55 mT (121660 lbs)"   Is not the desired ratio in the 5:1 range?

When you state bureaucracy, mandates, and job security, where you referring to the the government employees or contractor employees, and in which states?

The option *not* considered in any detail is listed on the last page of the leaked NASA study:

NASA Study Shows cheaper alternatives to SLS

Advantages of Propellant Depot over Refueling

* Most expensive hardware/capability can be located on the depot to be re-used over and over again rather than be expended every flight
* The expendable CPS and delivery tankers can be made as dumb/cheap as possible
* Mass of the CPS that has to be pushed through thousands of m/s of delta-V can be reduced
* All of the important and costly avionic/software/IVHM can be on the depot
* The prox-ops and rendevousand docking systems can be on the depot, rather than on CPS
* The depot could do the last prox-ops maneuvers and even berth the tanker/CPS with an RMS
* Relieves CPS of need for active boil-off control for cis-lunar missions with few burns
* Reduces risk to CPS from MMOD by reducing required time in orbit prior to departure
* Reduces number of rendezvous events required to fuel CPS from many to one, reducing risk of collision or propellant transfer failure
* Reduces risk of LOM by decoupling propellant delivery flights from delivery of mission elements (i.e., elements stay on the ground until needed for mission)
* Opens the possibility to add other in-space services (e.g., maintenance and repair)
* Potential for multiple customers and creation of new commercial industry

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Mitt Romney Space Policy
« Reply #148 on: 06/05/2012 05:38 PM »
Smashing. You're still all throwing 15 items down on a 10 items or less checkout.

Locking this as it's no longer to do with Romney. Start a new thread when he comes out with something related to NASA.

Tags: