Author Topic: Exploration Enterprise Workshop Day 1 and Day 2 Presentations released  (Read 25682 times)

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/may/HQ_M10-081_Exploration_Charts.html

Quote
NASA Announces Posting Of Space Exploration Workshop Charts

WASHINGTON -- Presentation charts for the opening-day briefings of NASA's Exploration Enterprise Workshop in Galveston, Texas, will be posted online at noon EDT, Monday, May 24.

The two-day workshop brings together a broad community of space exploration stakeholders from government, industry and academia. The Exploration Systems Mission Directorate's plans for human and robotic space exploration and the administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the agency will be discussed.

Presentations:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/new_space_enterprise/home/workshop_home.html

Edit: day 2 presentations released
Edit: Videos of the Day 1 presentations and Panel Q&A are up.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2010 07:56 am by 2552 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
My favorite parts are the disclaimers.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Page 8 of the Heavy Lift presentation has 6 thumbnails of notional new HLVs. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (HLV 4's core stage looks slightly wider than the boosters) 5th are common core designs, similar to Atlas V Phase 2/3. Interesting.

Edit: Looking closer (zoomed in), it looks like HLVs 1, 2, and 3 use winged flyback boosters. HLV 4 does not, and looks the most similar to Atlas V Phase 2.

Edit: Page 11 mentions a partially reusable HLV as a possibility:
Quote
The study shall identify and analyze multiple alternative architectures (expendable, reusable, or some combination) on which a Heavy Lift System addressing the objectives can be based

This would seem to make an RS-84-derived engine design a bit more likely.

« Last Edit: 05/24/2010 10:44 pm by 2552 »

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Awesome, thanks for posting this. There's a lot of really interesting info.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
My favorite parts are the disclaimers.

How so?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline stealthyplains

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Page 8 of the Heavy Lift presentation has 6 thumbnails of notional new HLVs. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th are common core designs, similar to Atlas V Phase 2. Interesting.

#6 is the draft BAA six-LOX/RP mega-Saturn.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
My favorite parts are the disclaimers.

How so?

"In fact, not all proposed missions and investments fit the in
budget at this time."

Grammar aside, this is actually reasonable, though I consider it quite likely that the disclaimer will be conveniently ignored by some FY11 budget proponents when it suits their aims. ("But look at all this neat stuff we can afford if Constellation is cancelled! In-orbit propellant transfer and storage! Lightweight/inflatable modules! Automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking! Aero-assist/entry, descent and landing! Closed loop life support! Advanced in-space propulsion (ion/plasma, etc)!")

When in reality, the actual budget will only support a few of those.
JRF

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
My favorite parts are the disclaimers.

Also: what Jorge said.

"Proposed missions and investments do not necessarily all fit in budget at this time
...
Specific launch dates and missions are likely to change
...
Proposal must (and will) fit within NASA’s space flight budget profile
..."




Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
My favorite parts are the disclaimers.

How so?

"In fact, not all proposed missions and investments fit the in
budget at this time."

Grammar aside, this is actually reasonable, though I consider it quite likely that the disclaimer will be conveniently ignored by some FY11 budget proponents when it suits their aims. ("But look at all this neat stuff we can afford if Constellation is cancelled! In-orbit propellant transfer and storage! Lightweight/inflatable modules! Automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking! Aero-assist/entry, descent and landing! Closed loop life support! Advanced in-space propulsion (ion/plasma, etc)!")

When in reality, the actual budget will only support a few of those.

The items you listed (inflatable modules, propellant transfer, ARRD, aero-assist, ECLLS, advanced ion propulsion) all fall under the initial set of ETDD and FTD missions, which already have funding allocated for them in the budget: http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

The disclaimer is likely for follow-up missions/demonstrations missions which aren't already in the budget (e.g. multi-megawatt NEP, 23m inflatable decelerator at Mars, nuclear thermal propulsion, EVA tech, Mars medical suite demo, in-space VASIMR demo, building mega-Saturn and other HLLV construction), which will likely be prioritized on the basis of results from earlier missions/demonstrations.

Of course, I suspect that won't stop anti-FY2011 folks from falsely claiming that it can't afford its initial missions and tech demonstrations.
« Last Edit: 05/24/2010 09:52 pm by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
My favorite parts are the disclaimers.

How so?

"In fact, not all proposed missions and investments fit the in
budget at this time."

Grammar aside, this is actually reasonable, though I consider it quite likely that the disclaimer will be conveniently ignored by some FY11 budget proponents when it suits their aims. ("But look at all this neat stuff we can afford if Constellation is cancelled! In-orbit propellant transfer and storage! Lightweight/inflatable modules! Automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking! Aero-assist/entry, descent and landing! Closed loop life support! Advanced in-space propulsion (ion/plasma, etc)!")

When in reality, the actual budget will only support a few of those.

The items you listed (inflatable modules, propellant transfer, ARRD, aero-assist, ECLLS, advanced ion propulsion) all fall under the initial set of ETDD and FTD missions, which already have funding allocated for them in the budget: http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

The disclaimer is likely for follow-up missions/demonstrations missions which aren't already in the budget (e.g. multi-megawatt NEP, 23m inflatable decelerator at Mars, nuclear thermal propulsion, EVA tech, Mars medical suite demo, in-space VASIMR demo, building mega-Saturn and other HLLV construction), which will likely be prioritized on the basis of results from earlier missions/demonstrations.

Of course, I suspect that won't stop anti-FY2011 folks from falsely claiming that it can't afford its initial missions and tech demonstrations.

No, that is not what the disclaimer is for.  It applies to every single piece.  It says missions, concepts, timelines, etc are subject to change.

As for what you specifically point one, none of them have any funding.  The reason is because there is no budget for anything yet and that is the plain and simple truth.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
As for what you specifically point one, none of them have any funding.  The reason is because there is no budget for anything yet and that is the plain and simple truth.

I'm sorry, but isn't this logic somewhat circuitous?

Anyways, we should probably bring this thread back to discussing the actual contents of the workshop presentation.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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. 

For example I will point out the following:

1.  Inflatable modules?  The Bigelow designs are based off NASA's TransHab, which saw actual testing.

2.  VASMIR?  Funded by JSC prior Dr. Diaz forming his own company.

3.  Lox/Methane engines?  Fired at WSTF and funded by NASA.  The most recent was a few weeks ago.  http://www.aerojet.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=221

4.  Prop transfer?  Hypergolic transfer from the orbiter to the ISS was near ready to be implemented (on the orbiter) nearly a decade ago until the ISS prop module was cancelled.  Testing had been completed at WSTF and the design was through CDR (I believe anyway, it was a while ago).

5.  Inflatable aeroshells?  Langley just completed a sub-orbital test launch a few months ago.

I could go on but I thought it was time to bring this up.  It simply does not have to be as black and white or binary as some, mainly pro-FY2011 supporters suggest unfortunately.  That doesn't mean there will always be money for everthing but as has been stated the FY2011 proposals cited on this thread clearly say the same thing. 

In fact, TransHab was near cancellation but it was transferred to Bigelow and a whole new company was formed.  As for VASMIR, it was difficult for JSC to fund and another company was formed.  This is what NASA is supposed to do and it did it without sacraficing everything else. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Agreed, OV.

There are a lot of people who are trying to make the argument that we need to abandon the whole of NASA's >$5bn HSF efforts (ISS independent) in order to make room for less than $1.5bn worth of new R&D and Commercial spaceflight combined.

I'm just not buying what they're selling.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 05/24/2010 10:26 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Seattle Dave

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 48
I've got a proposal that will cost nothing in dev costs and can lift 65,000lbs, astronauts and bring back downmass. It can also support EVAs for assembly of hardware on orbit, and is reusable.

It's a bit expensive to run, but the workforce is trained and seasoned, and we'll be ready for operational missions of your choosing in 2010.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
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. 

For example I will point out the following:

1.  Inflatable modules?  The Bigelow designs are based off NASA's TransHab, which saw actual testing.

2.  VASMIR?  Funded by JSC prior Dr. Diaz forming his own company.

3.  Lox/Methane engines?  Fired at WSTF and funded by NASA.  The most recent was a few weeks ago.  http://www.aerojet.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=221

4.  Prop transfer?  Hypergolic transfer from the orbiter to the ISS was near ready to be implemented (on the orbiter) nearly a decade ago until the ISS prop module was cancelled.  Testing had been completed at WSTF and the design was through CDR (I believe anyway, it was a while ago).

5.  Inflatable aeroshells?  Langley just completed a sub-orbital test launch a few months ago.

I could go on but I thought it was time to bring this up.  It simply does not have to be as black and white or binary as some, mainly pro-FY2011 supporters suggest unfortunately.  That doesn't mean there will always be money for everthing but as has been stated the FY2011 proposals cited on this thread clearly say the same thing. 

In fact, TransHab was near cancellation but it was transferred to Bigelow and a whole new company was formed.  As for VASMIR, it was difficult for JSC to fund and another company was formed.  This is what NASA is supposed to do and it did it without sacraficing everything else. 

Correct. The point of FY2011's tech development efforts isn't to somehow take completely new TRL1 technology and somehow stick it into TRL8 missions, but rather continually develop and test various types of technology and push it up the TRL stack. The attached image, taken from this presentation from today's meeting illustrates the approach well.

The technologies you listed all have mid-level or mid-high TRLs, but have yet to be matured to the point that they can be tested in space and used in operational missions. That is what FY2011 seeks to do. It's also worth noting that none of the items you listed were pursued under CxP.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I've got a proposal that will cost nothing in dev costs and can lift 65,000lbs, astronauts and bring back downmass. It can also support EVAs for assembly of hardware on orbit, and is reusable.

It's a bit expensive to run, but the workforce is trained and seasoned, and we'll be ready for operational missions of your choosing in 2010.

Wow, that sounds great.  If only it could be true and we could have something like that.  If there were possibilities and proposals to make it less expensive too....well that would be something really special.  ;)
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
from 457442main_EEWS_CommercialCrew.pdf

OK then, commercial crew to ISS conops:

"Commercial providers will generally be responsible for all management, engineering, production, logistics, testing and verification, launch preparations, mission planning, integration, training, and operational functions

Commercial providers will generally be responsible for all facilities and infrastructure;

Commercial providers will be responsible for providing Certification of Flight Readiness (CoFR) for the vehicle and all ground and flight support infrastructure to NASA for acceptance "


This here is definitely the LEO taxi model, not the crew vehicle leasing model (Boeing/Bolden) , IMO.


Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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. 

For example I will point out the following:

1.  Inflatable modules?  The Bigelow designs are based off NASA's TransHab, which saw actual testing.

2.  VASMIR?  Funded by JSC prior Dr. Diaz forming his own company.

3.  Lox/Methane engines?  Fired at WSTF and funded by NASA.  The most recent was a few weeks ago.  http://www.aerojet.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=221

4.  Prop transfer?  Hypergolic transfer from the orbiter to the ISS was near ready to be implemented (on the orbiter) nearly a decade ago until the ISS prop module was cancelled.  Testing had been completed at WSTF and the design was through CDR (I believe anyway, it was a while ago).

5.  Inflatable aeroshells?  Langley just completed a sub-orbital test launch a few months ago.

I could go on but I thought it was time to bring this up.  It simply does not have to be as black and white or binary as some, mainly pro-FY2011 supporters suggest unfortunately.  That doesn't mean there will always be money for everthing but as has been stated the FY2011 proposals cited on this thread clearly say the same thing. 

In fact, TransHab was near cancellation but it was transferred to Bigelow and a whole new company was formed.  As for VASMIR, it was difficult for JSC to fund and another company was formed.  This is what NASA is supposed to do and it did it without sacraficing everything else. 

Correct. The point of FY2011's tech development efforts isn't to somehow take completely new TRL1 technology and somehow stick it into TRL8 missions, but rather continually develop and test various types of technology and push it up the TRL stack. The attached image, taken from this presentation from today's meeting illustrates the approach well.

The technologies you listed all have mid-level or mid-high TRLs, but have yet to be matured to the point that they can be tested in space and used in operational missions. That is what FY2011 seeks to do. It's also worth noting that none of the items you listed were pursued under CxP.

Well, you do know best and all I'm sure.  Yet I will point out the following:

1.  One of these were funded under the Exploration Technology Development Program.  What's that you ask?  I'll leave it to the "experts".

2.  All of them occurred while at least two active programs were in play. 

3.  Given that, there is nothing to say they cannot continued to be matured to get the TRL up or turn them over to, dare I say it, wait for it...wait for it...a commercial company.  What?  Are you kidding me?

But what do I know, I just work in this business.....
« Last Edit: 05/24/2010 10:46 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
1.  One of these were funded under the Exploration Technology Development Program.  What's that you ask?  I'll leave it to the "experts".

My mistake, I had forgotten about the LOX/methane work ETDP did with XCOR and Armadillo.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
1.  One of these were funded under the Exploration Technology Development Program.  What's that you ask?  I'll leave it to the "experts".

My mistake, I had forgotten about the LOX/methane work ETDP did with XCOR and Armadillo.

Yeah, it was very limited clearly.

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esmd/aboutesmd/acd/technology_dev.html

Look, why I never agreed with the implementation of the CxP launch vehicles, the INTENT was to make it as simple as possible so that we could actually DO something somewhere else and not spend all the money getting off Earth.  Clearly things went wrong there but nothing that could not be refocused. 

It's time people realized the truth. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

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