Author Topic: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets  (Read 15084 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #20 on: 04/24/2010 02:25 pm »

1.  Good question.  I exclude Atlas and Delta when I say commercial boys.

2.  Paper rockets are ones that have put 1,000 lbs into orbit but they say they will fairly soon put manned spacecraft into orbit.

3.  Not sure they understand how hard that is to do.


1.  Which is wrong

2.  Falcon 9 is real and is sitting on pad.  Ares I is a paper and greater than 4 years from the pad.   

3,  Yes they do.  And guess who is helping and advising them?   NASA,  NASA is working with Spacex, There are other NASA users than the Constellation program

You will loose these arguements especially in a thread with the words "'Affordable', 'Sustainable' " which are not applicable to Ares I.
« Last Edit: 04/24/2010 02:27 pm by Jim »

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #21 on: 04/24/2010 02:34 pm »
I exclude Atlas and Delta when I say commercial boys.

You don't get to forget and exclude Atlas and Delta when talking about replacement for Ares I. If you want to direct flak at SpaceX, do so, just don't attempt to hide it under the "commercial" umbrella which includes proven launch vehicles whether you like it or not.

Your definition of "paper rocket" seems rather arbitrary, dare I say it was specifically tailored to fit SpaceX alone. The Falcon 9 at the pad right now has more actual flight hardware than Ares I will have in a couple of years from now.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #22 on: 04/24/2010 09:23 pm »
Didnt anyone watch all of Augustine as I did ?
1.  Nasa was building a booster 10 times safer than Shuttle.
2.  Gary Pulliam said the Delta IVH would take 5.5 to 7 years to man rate. 
3.  I wish they would proceed !
He also didnt want to get into the PRA of it.
4.  The commercial boys at this stage still have paper rockets, I hope very much that they do succeed.


You are wrong again

1.  So what.  The other vehicles are safer than the shuttle

2.  He is not the end all expert.  Also Aerospace was given bogus requirements.  Other NASA groups have said it would be quicker

3.  NASA would have to pay for it

4.  No, ULA is part of the commercial boys and Delta IV and Atlas are not paper rockets.  Neither is Falcon 9, which is more real than Ares I.

Another important consideration our friend here is overlooking is that almost all of the analysis NASA had the Aerospace corp do was focused not on commercial LEO taxis, but on flying the existing lunar Orion on Delta-IVH.  "Human rating" an Atlas V 401 for flying commercial payloads is a much easier job than human rating a Delta-IVH for a payload close to its max capacity.  In fact, a commercial LEO taxi on an Atlas-V 401 actually comes out in the same ballpark PRA-wise (if you trust PRAs further than you can throw them) as Ares-I on Orion.  Not to mention the fact that by the time Atlas V would be flying people it will have a few dozen flights under its belt (unlike Ares-I which would have what, 1? 2?)

~Jon

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #23 on: 04/25/2010 05:00 pm »
Ed Kyle has an interesting post on one way to do a sustainable manned program here:

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/moonslo.html

Using a storable earth departure stage requires more mass in LEO than LH, but you can use existing EELVs and avoid the huge fixed cost of a dedicated NASA-owned HLV.

With low boiloff LH storage you can avoid the performance hit of storable propellant, and that technology is baselined for Mars in NASA's latest study. Low boiloff methane propulsion is also baselined for Mars. But even if these technologies prove difficult, a storable stage can work as a fallback.

Although Ed would probably prefer to go to the moon first, a big storable stage is also an enabler for asteroid missions.

Long duration deep space habitats, which we also need for Mars in any case, are another enabler for a sustainable program.  They would allow conjunction-class asteroid missions, which would allow a lot more science return than a sprint mission. They would be needed for a Phobos mission.

They would also allow a more cost-effective lunar program, since a two-year mission costs much less than four six month missions.


Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #24 on: 04/26/2010 12:32 am »
Ed Kyle has an interesting post on one way to do a sustainable manned program here:

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/moonslo.html

Using a storable earth departure stage requires more mass in LEO than LH, but you can use existing EELVs and avoid the huge fixed cost of a dedicated NASA-owned HLV.

With low boiloff LH storage you can avoid the performance hit of storable propellant, and that technology is baselined for Mars in NASA's latest study. Low boiloff methane propulsion is also baselined for Mars. But even if these technologies prove difficult, a storable stage can work as a fallback.

Although Ed would probably prefer to go to the moon first, a big storable stage is also an enabler for asteroid missions.

Long duration deep space habitats, which we also need for Mars in any case, are another enabler for a sustainable program.  They would allow conjunction-class asteroid missions, which would allow a lot more science return than a sprint mission. They would be needed for a Phobos mission.

They would also allow a more cost-effective lunar program, since a two-year mission costs much less than four six month missions.



Deep space habitats also increase access to the moon. One of the problems with Apollo was that the places where you could land were limited by the limitations of the craft. If you can get into a polar orbit and wait long enough, you are able to land anywhere on the moon that you choose. Additionally if you develop tugs then you could either move the habitat back to LEO or perform services on the habitat in deep space. You could send more lunar cargo back to earth than you could if you had to squeeze it into a earth return capsule.

The only problem I have with the go slow approach to lunar exploration is it needs to be done as part of a larger program. No one will support a space program that launches human missions only once every two years. A program that is doing other things in LEO and launches the occasional deep space mission is supportable.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #25 on: 04/27/2010 02:57 am »
Paper rockets are ones that have put 1,000 lbs into orbit but they say they will fairly soon put manned spacecraft into orbit.  Not sure they understand how hard that is to do.
How about suborbital missiles like Atlas D ? Paper rocket ?
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

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
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #26 on: 04/27/2010 05:15 pm »
...So what.  The other vehicles are safer than the shuttle...

No, they are not.  The other vehicles have calculated safety records, that, if correct, would indicate they could be safer than the only launch vehicle we have with an actual safety record.

That is the hair splitting truth, and you know it.

,,,You may not be the total expert that you think you are....

Read around on this site for comprehensive examples of his expertise.  True, I end up splitting some of his finer hairs...

As to paper rockets:  Ares I-X had a test launch.  Like it or not, that's an actual rocket.  Falcon 9:  a real rocket, sitting on a pad getting ready to launch in 5...4...

There's far too much snark going on, in my mind; "paper" is being used as a derogative adjective, not even as a valid point of discussion.  This idea that a 1,000 pound actual orbiting payload somehow got launched by a "paper" rocket?  And somehow doesn't count?  But a 1,001 pound payload, that has to be real, by this stupid definition.  This is intellectual dishonesty.

A paper rocket would be a design that is not implemented, and only exists in paper.  As a design became implemented, it would get into a "gray" area; that area where some hardware existed, but a launchable rocket would still be far from realized.  But it is not defined by the actual launching, nor the size of a payload either.  But this has to be informally agreed upon by the participants in the discussion.  As if.

Another factor in the "paper" determination: How far along in the process is the new rocket design?  The example I would give would be Falcon 9: clearly a rocket.  What about the heavy variant?  I would say this might be a paper design.  Pretty far along in it's design, but not really all that far along in its hardware implementation, plus, its necessary predecessor hasn't actually been launched yet, so....  I wish I had such a paper rocket!  I'd have several hundred paper employees, a paper island in the Pacific, a paper launch pad at the Cape, a paper test site, dozens of acres of paper buildings.  The point of calling it a paper rocket is?

Anyhow, the term is being used pejoratively, by insider pros, as well as outsider amateurs; no positive information which would help a decision maker is being proffered, typically, in many of these dismissals on this basis.

I do object to our politicians and NASA administrators playing footloose and fancy free with "paper" safety numbers, however.  These numbers, which have greater or lesser public scrutiny depending on the underlying data crucially affect the sustainability and affordability of our HSF budget.  I object to Bolden's remarks about his "gut" feeling about Ares safety numbers.  He should rather address the safety issue with the nuance and truthfulness that it deserves.  In this, his motives become less than acceptable.

As to Orion having a forty year possible life:  Of course it could, as any owner of a flyable B-17 will tell you.  The appropriate questions are: should it, or must it, or will we have a choice about its successor, or will it do as a lifeboat for many years?  And so forth.

In my mind, our nation's new launch vehicle, the one paid for by taxpayers, would be a capital expense, and should have quite the long useful lifetime.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #27 on: 04/28/2010 02:17 pm »
Since the thread original was about definitions, here's my view on what those mean.

"Affordable" is subjective. The US could afford to spend ten times what it currently does on NASA, but it doesn't choose to spend that much. My view is that "affordable" really means that a serious attempt is made to get more for the money (from the point of view of the speaker).

"Sustainable" probably is just as subjective. I see it as meaning either that the project would remain in the absence of government spending or that the project is so important that it's funding is protected from cuts. For example, unsubsidized and profitable commercial satellites would be sustainable since they don't depend on government funding and hence, would not be threatened by a cut in such funding. For another example, the nuclear launch detection infrastructure is sustainable since the US will continue to need such services to protect itself against a first strike possibility.

My view is that most of NASA's activities simply aren't "sustainable". It is elective spending that Congress chooses to continue to fund and may well fund throughout the rest of this century. They are "affordable" in that Congress pays for them and hence, can afford them.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #28 on: 04/28/2010 04:16 pm »
Since the thread original was about definitions, here's my view on what those mean.

Ditto :D

Quote from: khallow
"Affordable" is subjective. The US could afford to spend ten times what it currently does on NASA, but it doesn't choose to spend that much. My view is that "affordable" really means that a serious attempt is made to get more for the money (from the point of view of the speaker).

Agreed but I’d go a step further and say that “Affordable” = Politically Acceptable and that comments from Arthur, Will, and Proponent in the first post on the historic NASA funding trends provide a good definition of what is affordable: About 18 billion in 2007 dollars annually overall or about 6 billion annually for human spaceflight.

Quote from: khallow
"Sustainable" probably is just as subjective. I see it as meaning either that the project would remain in the absence of government spending or that the project is so important that it's funding is protected from cuts. For example, unsubsidized and profitable commercial satellites would be sustainable since they don't depend on government funding and hence, would not be threatened by a cut in such funding. For another example, the nuclear launch detection infrastructure is sustainable since the US will continue to need such services to protect itself against a first strike possibility.

I would suggest that sustainable means that “the project” continues from Administration to Administration, Congress to Congress. I would further suggest that the concept of “the project” has served NASA human space flight poorly within the framework of its overall goal of exploring the universe. This concept of NASA human space flight being dependant on and totally committed to a single project, program, etc was foisted on the Agency by the need to accomplish the Moon mission and continued with the SSP, ISSP, and Constellation. While these programs paid lip service to the overarching goal of exploration they each quickly became sole focus of human space flight efforts with little effort to insure their contribution to an overall exploration strategy. When it became necessary to justify their continuing expense in terms of exploration they tended to come up with extensions that were incredibly expensive and technologically overreaching. The SSP was able to lead into and create the ISSP but there seems little doubt that Constellation was not going to lead into or contribute to any continuing exploration beyond some small lunar surface exploration and required the sacrifice of both our hard won RLV capability and our sole space station.

Quote from: khallow
My view is that most of NASA's activities simply aren't "sustainable". It is elective spending that Congress chooses to continue to fund and may well fund throughout the rest of this century. They are "affordable" in that Congress pays for them and hence, can afford them.

I would agree with the cravat “as they are currently formulated”. That is what I found so hopeful about the President’s proposal. By changing the model from some massive program to a series of technologic goals and limited capabilities tests within an overarching human space exploration strategy we have the possibility of not only sustainability but affordability as well. Since each step is relatively inexpensive and achievable within one or two terms and contributes to exploration in a clearly understandable way we have a far greater likelihood that each step will be accomplished as well as the flexibility to modify other, ongoing, steps or create new steps in light of the results. This model has worked well for unmanned exploration and should work for manned exploration as well.

The major problem with this model is that it is going to take time and for some reason NASA and NASA supporters seem to think BIG things should happen now, that we should see men on the Moon or Mars in our lifetimes. Given the budget that Congress has historically given NASA that is not going to happen. This constant refrain of needing goals such as “man on the Moon”, “man on Mars” and schedules such as “by 2020”, “by 2030” is ultimately futile within the available funds, it is setting the Agency up for failure.
“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 JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #29 on: 04/28/2010 04:24 pm »
There's also another sense of "sustainable" in how it could be used regarding a "sustainable" lunar colony.  If there were a gold mine in Shackleton Crater, and bullion could be shipped back to Earth, that would qualify as a classic business model of sustainability.  However, since the current information suggests that there is mostly only regolith and water ice, the likely uses of these resources seem to be limited to the on-site production of propellant, O2 and water.  These commodities would reduce the amount of mass necesary to be launched from Earth, thus enhancing the "sustainability" of the colony by reducing these costs.

The ideal definition of colony sustainability would be a state of complete economic and ecologic independence from Earth, obviously a distant vista.  Possibly, and probably likely, this state of perfection will never be achieved; there's always something people need right here, on the Moon, that is only available from somewhere else, ususally the Earth, excluding the hypothetical Earthly agrarian utopia.

I think there's a third sense of the word "sustainable", but it would depend on the maintenance of long term human activity, over several generations without interruption, aiming to create, in this example, a lunar colony.  In other words, it would be a "sustainable" political will to achieve this particular goal.  It has been shown, although perhaps not proven, on this site, in many places, that this is the showstopper.  Not technology nor cost nor specific celestial body, within reason.

It is a great disappointment to me to hear the President use the failed BTDT argument about the Moon, shooting instead for Mars in a grand F&F fashion.  Even should the most optimistic schedules for a Mars landing become reality, the planet will almost immediately be subject to the same failure of the BTDT argument, since the costs of the one time accomplishment will be so high, and the economic returns virtually non-existant.

There is the real chance of finding life on Mars, of course, which would change the "sustainable" equation dramatically, if the costs were able to be kept within budgetary affordability.  One side effect, tho, might very well be a human quarantine of the planet till a better understanding of that life, including its virulence, could be had.  This might turn our efforts back to the Moon, since a much larger return mission of several hundred people to Mars would probably gain much international support.

The other chance, of course, would be the discovery of either a pyramid or Paley's watch on a nearby celestial body.  This kind of discovery, if it were to be made public, would also change the affordability portion of the sustainability equation.  The woodwork is full of wormy speculation on this possiblity.

I continue to insist that we go to the Moon with the intention to stay, and then to go to Mars with the same intention, dealing with the ET aspect in a logical fashion if necessary.  It is intention which is the basis of affordability and sustainability.  There does not appear to be much of this sort of intention supporting the budget proposal, which more resembles a shuffling of the HSF budgetary deck chairs.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #30 on: 04/28/2010 04:29 pm »
This constant refrain of needing goals such as “man on the Moon”, “man on Mars” and schedules such as “by 2020”, “by 2030” is ultimately futile within the available funds, it is setting the Agency up for failure.

In my opinion the problem is that the goals are a combination of three things: grandiose, far out and too precisely dated. I'd be in favour of less ambitious but nearer term initial goals, something like beyond LEO (even if that just means the lower van Allen belt) within 5 years, combined with less precise longer term goals like beyond GEO within 10-15 years and either Phobos or the moon within 15-25 years.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #31 on: 04/28/2010 05:02 pm »
In my opinion the problem is that the goals are a combination of three things: grandiose, far out and too precisely dated. I'd be in favour of less ambitious but nearer term initial goals, something like beyond LEO (even if that just means the lower van Allen belt) within 5 years, combined with less precise longer term goals like beyond GEO within 10-15 years and either Phobos or the moon within 15-25 years.

I would respectfully disagree for two reasons;

With a budget of only six billion dollars and with a substantial portion of that committed to infrastructure (here on Earth and in orbit) we need to be cautious about where the remainder is spent and utilize that infrastructure to its fullest. Short term projects within our budget and within our technological capabilities should have first priority.

Secondly we need to allow the results of our projects to inform our decisions on both technologic goals and physical destinations. Flexibility should dominate our plans for the next century, we don’t know enough to make good decisions about where we should go or how we should get there.

To put this in the perspective of John’s post above, we do not have either the technology or the budget to settle the Moon. We are not likely to have such a budget in the foreseeable future and any attempt to structure a program that attempts to achieve such goals would require multiple Congresses and Administrations to buy in to the goals which, historically, ain’t gonna happen.

A much more achievable goal, making the ISS sustainable (by John’s definition), does not seem to likely either although the effort would result in huge paybacks in technologic development directly applicable to exploration while costing a small fraction of John’s proposal.
“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 JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Thoughts on 'Affordable', 'Sustainable' and Program Budgets
« Reply #32 on: 04/28/2010 05:19 pm »

I would suggest that sustainable means that “the project” continues from Administration to Administration, Congress to Congress.

More or less what I said also.  This sense of the word should be generally accepted as a valid interpretation.

Quote from: Norm Hartnett
I would further suggest that the concept of “the project” has served NASA human space flight poorly... these programs paid lip service to the overarching goal of exploration but they each quickly became sole focus of human space flight efforts with little effort to insure their contribution to an overall exploration strategy....

I think this is a fair and accurate assesment, and should also be generally acknowledged, although Mr. Bolden might feel compelled to disagree.

Quote from: Norm Hartnett
I would agree with the cravat “as they are currently formulated”....

Well, I woulda said "caveat", but hey...

Quote from: Norm Hartnett
That is what I found so hopeful about the President’s proposal. By changing the model from some massive program to a series of technologic goals and limited capabilities tests within an overarching human space exploration strategy we have the possibility of not only sustainability but affordability as well...

Me too.  That is, I found it hopeful also, but I've been learning a lot about the decision making process of our HSF programs, and those realities have dampened my enthusiasm for the proposal significantly.  I also that the stated allocation of funds in the proposal is wrong, and should stress actual prospecting missions so as to begin closing the economic business case of HSF.

Quote from: Norm Hartnett
The major problem with this model is that it is going to take time and for some reason NASA and NASA supporters seem to think BIG things should happen now...

The "for some reason" would be: Why has it taken more than forty years to get back to the biggest, closest, undoubtably cheapest to get to, even by F&F standards, naked eye destination?  It should go without saying that that re-visitation should take place only in "affordable" steps, not grandiose ones.  The ultimate goal, colonization, should not be confused with the next far smaller steps to that goal.  Some of these steps would indeed be robotic prospecting missions, not research into the next "unsustainable" BFR, with sortie missions a close second.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1