R&D on First Stage Launch PropulsionLarge hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene) engine capable of generating high levels of thrust exceeding roughly one million pounds of thrust at sea level. Improved robustness, efficiencies, affordability, operability– Explore partnership with DoD – common engine for national security and civil space missions– Goal: Fully operational engine by 2020
I'd also like to point out that many of the items proposed in FY2011 have been worked in the past or are being worked. I point this out because I believe too many think that these are brand new or impossible to work with a more focused program. That is simply not the case.
Quote from: OV-106 on 05/24/2010 10:17 pmI'd also like to point out that many of the items proposed in FY2011 have been worked in the past or are being worked. I point this out because I believe too many think that these are brand new or impossible to work with a more focused program. That is simply not the case. Isn't the key difference that this plan budgets and schedules to actually launch missions, with actual in-space hardware, on actual launch vehicles? The whole point is that this technology has been "worked in the past" (as you say), in the lab and ground-tests, but there was little or no allocated money or plan to actually fly. Before now.-Alex
Hate to break it to you but, STS has been "launching missions" for years if I recall.
Oh and BTW you could do this stuff and still have SDHLV easily, with proper budgeting and managment (something NASA lacks at the moment).
And you could fly heavier tech demonstraters on HLV (if need be).
Prove to me any of this will actually fly. After all, if it so "game-changing", etc then that also means that still some more work needs to be done in order to get it to fly. Now, as I stated, I have no problem working some of this stuff and have no delusions that we can do significant exploration without it. However, note I said "significant" because we can do some exploration with what we have now and continue to mature other technologies.
The problem with die-hard supporters of FY2011 is that the wool is being pulled over your collective eyes. Some fancy buzz words are thrown around to make it sound great but many of the details are missing, and like I said, it is completely possible to work some of these under a more focused program. In addition, NASA's history is rittled with programs that were intended to fly and never did. I could name them but it would be a long list. The FY2011 proposals will be the latest, and possibly last, addition.
Only if one wanted to not do something would one pursue this path where everything is stopped, excuses are made that we simply cannot do it with our current state of technology and decisions are deferred and notional missions do not start for another 15 years.
Isn't the key difference that this plan budgets and schedules to actually launch missions, with actual in-space hardware, on actual launch vehicles? The whole point is that this technology has been "worked in the past" (as you say), in the lab and ground-tests, but there was little or no allocated money or plan to actually fly. Before now.-Alex
You're kidding right? One (less than 60 kg) robot to the moon in 2015 and a robot on the ISS are the only actual flights listed. Everything else is ground test.
In-orbit transfer of propellants allows space vehicles to be refueled on-orbit. – May reduce launch vehicle weight due to P/L being flown dry or reduced prop – Enables commercial providers to deliver on-orbit propellants. – Enables on-orbit assembly, satellite servicing missions, and resupply or empty or partially filled stages and spacecraft.
They also seem to be leaning towards a LOX/methane upper stage/depot (page 16).
Cryogen Options Review: Why Methane (vs. Hydrogen)• A early LOX/Methane demo offers advantages:– Enables methane-based systems and mitigates risks for LH2 systems.– Allows direct comparison of active vs. passive cooling.– Leverages recent investments in LO2/LCH4 cryo fluid management– Leverages recent investments in pressure-fed engines– Breaks the barrier for long-duration cryo systems.• A LOX/Hydrogen demo in foreseeable future is possible.– Low cryo cooler TRL implies shorter mission duration.– No accurate gauging method for unsettled propellants.• Due to similarity of LOX and LCH4 properties (e.g. temp, density, etc.), the same components may be qualified and used for ground test and flight hardware.
Quote from: 2552 on 06/02/2010 09:30 pmThey also seem to be leaning towards a LOX/methane upper stage/depot (page 16).I'm not sure how much I agree with it, but here's the current rationale (presumably subject to change as the RFI proceeds) on preferring LOX/LCH4 over LOX/LH2:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458814main_FTD_CRYOGENICPropellantSTorageAndTransferMission.pdfQuoteCryogen Options Review: Why Methane (vs. Hydrogen)• A early LOX/Methane demo offers advantages:– Enables methane-based systems and mitigates risks for LH2 systems.– Allows direct comparison of active vs. passive cooling.– Leverages recent investments in LO2/LCH4 cryo fluid management– Leverages recent investments in pressure-fed engines– Breaks the barrier for long-duration cryo systems.• A LOX/Hydrogen demo in foreseeable future is possible.– Low cryo cooler TRL implies shorter mission duration.– No accurate gauging method for unsettled propellants.• Due to similarity of LOX and LCH4 properties (e.g. temp, density, etc.), the same components may be qualified and used for ground test and flight hardware.
Prove to me any of this will actually fly. After all, if it so "game-changing", etc then that also means that still some more work needs to be done in order to get it to fly. Now, as I stated, I have no problem working some of this stuff and have no delusions that we can do significant exploration without it. However, note I said "significant" because we can do some exploration with what we have now and continue to mature other technologies.The problem with die-hard supporters of FY2011 is that the wool is being pulled over your collective eyes. Some fancy buzz words are thrown around to make it sound great but many of the details are missing, and like I said, it is completely possible to work some of these under a more focused program. In addition, NASA's history is rittled with programs that were intended to fly and never did. I could name them but it would be a long list. The FY2011 proposals will be the latest, and possibly last, addition. Only if one wanted to not do something would one pursue this path where everything is stopped, excuses are made that we simply cannot do it with our current state of technology and decisions are deferred and notional missions do not start for another 15 years.
I still don't follow the desires for methane. Every EDS supporting EM-L1, LLO, NEO, LMO, Lunar surface, Mars Surface (you get the picture) is base lined to use LH2 thanks to the much higher ISP. We also have 50 years experience with handling LH2 on orbit, with existing flight hardware but relatively little experience with methane. So what about cryo-cooler TRL, just use passive thermal protection and deal with the modest boil-off, performance wise you are still way ahead.