Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 300236 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.

My sense is that prop depots are such a good idea, and well within a determined effort to achieve, and the benefits for longer missions are so great, that we should be placing a much greater priority on them.

The idea of your characterization is correct, I think, but some what exaggerated.  It's more like proposing the interstate hiway system at the beginning of WWII.  Forward thinking, doable with the tech at the time, but too forward thinking for the political establishment.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
...
I wonder why people can't stay objective...

Me too.
Not me...we're talking about humans, right?  I can aspire to being consistently objective, but I'm far from perfect.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
...
Spaceships will probably have to follow sea ships and have home port regulation.  The USA has never trusted the United Nations to act as a fair regulator.

Once a law is passed creating a regulatory body to cover private sector versions of one of the outer space items it simplifies things if the same body also regulates the rest.  The alternative of separate agencies and laws for each item would be just too complex and inefficient....

One area that can usefully be regulated is interoperability of the different types of vehicles.... Since most vehicles will probably only have a single hatch the docking systems need to be compatible.

When I talk of the US quietly dropping out of the OST, I hear comments about how premature that is, and how OST doesn't affect anything, and so forth.  But it is a problem, because it simply does not allow for private enterprise, and a new body of law will have to be developed.  The law of the sea is the obvious starting point and the best working analogy that can be used.  These matters need to have a budget line item.

I also talk of standardization, clearly along the lines of what Morning-Swallow is talking about.  Jim was telling me about the complexities of the shuttle cargo mounting attachments in some other thread.  This complexity leads to an increase in launch costs.  It's time to start designing systems such as manned and unmanned docking hatches; cargo and payload containers; standardized refillable propellant tanks, and the like.

A big part of the idea of sustainability is the idea that the costs of getting to space come down, and one way of reducing costs signeficantly is the advantage of economies of scale spread out over a free, but properly regulated market of private industry, which fairly competes to provide services and hardware.

The R&D effort needs to focus on standardization and interoperability, not on the hopes of a new propulsion system.  The game will be changed, I think, not by a sudden new invention, but by steadily working on the things we can work on, which are more demonstrably amenable to a predictable schedule and cost.  Besides, when the new propulsive invention suddenly appears, we will be in a position to utilize it.  For example, crew transfer operations thru a docking station will be ergonomically the same, no matter the propulsion system.

...
Given that the wording of the bill refers to NASA having a government-operated system to support ISS until commercial comes proves itself reliable... This isn't just sticking Orion on top of a S-HLV, it is building a CCB-based archetecture with multiple applications...

As Ross pointed out, following this path simply moves fuel depots to after the development of the HLV.  The technology negates the need for the stretch-tank version unless you want direct cargo launch to the Moon and allows for single-launch crew lunar access and NEO missions.  It also allows commercial providers with properly-equipped upper stages to launch heavier cargoes to the Moon too, something that would make a lunar outpost much easier: Instead of just J-24x but also the EELV-Heavies, F-9H and maybe even Ariane-5 launching cargo to the Moon.  I'm pretty sure that with all that capability, landing 1kt on the Moon every year would be possible...

If you maximise the utility of the spacecraft, then you reduce development costs and allow them to be focussed on mission-specific equipment instead of a unique spacecraft for each different application...

So, in conclusion: "One Size Fits All S-HLV" - Definately no.  "One Size Fits All Spacecraft" - Sort-of yes, and, to the degree it is true, not a bad thing.

Ben's thinking along the lines I'm thinking, with a much better command of the HLV sub-type nomenclature.  "Properly equipped", my bolding, is another way of talking about standardization, that is, payload standardization.  This starts suggesting that a commercial cargo provider can focus on the payload, and a commercial launch provider can focus on the rocket. The CP knows what his cost for connecting to the rocket are; it is the same for the various LP's, and he can control the interface pertaining to his cargo.  This type of specialization opens up the commercial market a great deal and also provides for predictable costs, if there is a well-regulated scheme in which to do this.

Crew launching would remain in the government domain for a while longer, largely because, and maybe only because, government can absorb the risk of ensuring crew safety.  Commercial launching is difficult enough as it stands.  Eventually, the skill set of the commercial market will include crewed launches, about the same time that the FAA accomodated the commercial crew regulatory environment.

I'm starting to wonder if the union of "can get congressional buy-in", "can get the budgets necessary", and "will actually work in practice" is actually a null set.

~Jon
...
This is why I advocate deployment of an EML-1 Gateway flagged to and operated by a small neutral power and for that facility to assist every spacefaring nation with the goal of achieving lunar surface access.
...
Anyway, in my opinion, winning ITAR reform and getting non-NASA destinations into LEO as soon as possible is more important than winning a NewSpace monopoly over NASA access to LEO. Don't squabble over how to divvy up NASA funding, work to make a larger pie.
...

Yeah, about that null set. And "flagged", my bold; OST is standing in the way of this possibility.  Most Liberian ships today are owned by private companies, and the idea is not allowed by OST.  Eventually, that "gateway" may be owned by a private company, but its first incarnation should be built by the US government, and expanded by rent paying private industry.

Make the pie larger, indeed.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 03:08 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Drapper23

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
http://english.cri.cn/6909/2010/03/05/1361s554261.htm   China is developing a new rocket with a capability to place 75 tons in low earth orbit. This is similiar to the J-130. The new rocket will be used to send Chinese astronauts to the Moon!!  "A new heavy-thrust carrier rocket is under scientific research, with the goal of sending astronauts to the moon, scientists said. Although there is no official timetable yet for China's moon landing, scientists are researching a new powerful carrier rocket with a lift-off thrust of 3,000 tons, Liang Xiaohong, vice-president of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, told China Daily on Thursday."

"The heavy-thrust launcher's lift-off thrust will be three times that of the Long March-5, China's current largest launcher," said Liang, who is also a member of the 11th CPPCC national committee."
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 02:45 pm by Drapper23 »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
The idea of your characterization is correct, I think, but some what exaggerated.  It's more like proposing the interstate hiway system at the beginning of WWII.  Forward thinking, doable with the tech at the time, but too forward thinking for the political establishment.

Yeah, but it's more like proposing the interstate highways in 1880, twenty years before you have the first workable car, or even any idea what you would use it for. (Also, the comparable Autobahn was actually build before WWII...)

There have been a grand total of nine cis-lunar manned missions, all of them more than 35 years ago. We need to start flying missions ASAP, and then, with lessons learned, we can start building the appropriate infrastructure around those missions. Otherwise, you're left with massively too much front-end costs, and a long time before any actual return.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
I think Obama's plan was to test the technology first (possibly some of it at the ISS) before actually building the depot.

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
http://english.cri.cn/6909/2010/03/05/1361s554261.htm   China is developing a new rocket with a capability to place 75 tons in low earth orbit.

The article you link to just talks about the 25ton Long March 5. There is no reference to any 75 ton vehicle in it anywhere. Liang was talking about lift-off thrust.

The "3000 ton" comment vs. 1000 ton comment for Long March 5 is also unclear. You measure thrust in Newton. Long March 5 will use 1.2MN or 0.5MN thrust engines. The total thrust of the largest variant of LM 5 (CZ-5-504) is expected to be about 10MN, probably he means that as "1000 ton".

Well anyway, Long March 5 is so far out in the future, any derivative thereafter is just pure speculation and fantasy on part of the good doctor. There are no official plans, which also is underpinned by this quote from the artilce: "Compared to the Long March-5, the heavy-thrust launcher will be more powerful, but its payload capacity is still under discussion, he said."
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
We need to start flying missions ASAP, and then, with lessons learned, we can start building the appropriate infrastructure around those missions. Otherwise, you're left with massively too much front-end costs, and a long time before any actual return.

In that case you need a spacecraft, not a new launch vehicle.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
wow, this thread got all hijacked over individual master plans for conquest of the universe.

Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692

P.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.

That's funny...

So the ISS is the same size as it was before, and nothing has been running since? I seem to recall a SARJ failure and a radiator delamination. Now we have a solar array mast issue and a swivel problem.

You're right...no problem waiting for 2012. (rolls eyes) 

You may first want to check out documentation on upmass requirements before making bold assertions here.

Oh I have...

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AIAASpace2008PaperMarkAFoster.pdf

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.

I could not disagree more as the basic technology of fuel depots has been in use since the 70s on space stations.

Doing things the Apollo way by launching everything all at once has been outdated since 1977 when Salyut 6 introduced LEO refueling.
Repeating Apollo would be a pointless waste of money that would only merely replicate what a few cheap rovers can do for 10x less.

The most conservative plan that would still make sense today and not be mindlessly archaic would be to deploy hypergolic depots and use SEP tugs to move fuel and cargo out of LEO anything less would be needlessly crippling our efforts.
None of this would be radical or new technology but it would cut costs at least by a factor of two.
Using a chemical EDS and an Apollo free return type trajectory for cargo would be foolish and wasteful.

An Apollo type architecture only made sense back in the 60s as docking was a new thing fuel transfer was untested,robotic spacecraft were pure scifi, and storing human rated space hardware on orbit for 6 months was untried.

Now docking is an everyday thing ,LEO assembly is tried and tested,LEO refueling proven,robotic spacecraft are used for most of the cargo and storing a return vehicle in space for months before use is part of normal operations.

We now need to work out things like lunar ISRU ,cheaper ways of getting things out of LEO and start building an infrastructure.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 04:00 pm by Patchouli »

Online Chris Bergin

Get it back on the topic of the article guys.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
I wonder if the CxP people will side with this bill it could the compromise they been looking for.

If done right it could make all involved parties happy and get us the infrastructure we need.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It's up on Thomas, too.

Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
wow, this thread got all hijacked over individual master plans for conquest of the universe.

I've found a problem with this bill, I believe. While it provides for additional separate funding for the shuttle operations it also requires that existing ISS products currently not manifested be identified and evaluated but I do not see any funding for that task. Nor do I see any funding for any reconditioning, retesting, etc for any payloads that may be identified. Not much point in extending the shuttle if the payloads are unfunded IMO.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
wow, this thread got all hijacked over individual master plans for conquest of the universe.

I've found a problem with this bill, I believe. While it provides for additional separate funding for the shuttle operations it also requires that existing ISS products currently not manifested be identified and evaluated but I do not see any funding for that task. Nor do I see any funding for any reconditioning, retesting, etc for any payloads that may be identified. Not much point in extending the shuttle if the payloads are unfunded IMO.
Noted in the post by 51D Mascot I linked to above -- $100 million in FY 2011 and FY 2012.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 04:11 pm by psloss »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It's up on Thomas, too.

Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.


NO co-sponsors.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Noted in the post by 51D Mascot I linked to above -- $100 million in FY 2011 and FY 2012.


Do'h, I read that post and the Bill and somehow forgot all that, must be oldtimers. <sigh>

Thanks psloss
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
ISS alone cannot possibly sustain a robust commercial crew capability (not enough flights) and yet the proposal floated February 1st seems to do little, if anything, to hasten the arrival of non-NASA destinations in LEO, or elsewhere.

And that is why I find NewSpace enthusiasm for the original February proposal to be rather odd.

The funny thing about people as a payload is that demand is very price elastic. So, if a system that can affordably fly, say, 12 people to orbit each year is available, other payloads will volunteer to fly, as well. The same cannot be said for most other payloads.


Online Chris Bergin

Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
On the Senate side:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723

It's up on Thomas, too.

Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.


NO co-sponsors.


I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?

Quote
This latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.

The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not so, I'm told by LM, they are against it, against losing Orion.

That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?

Politics, argh! :)
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 04:28 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0