Author Topic: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight  (Read 38643 times)

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« on: 03/17/2008 04:20 pm »
Houston Chronicle editorial goes a bit far with "when the next generation Orion space vehicle is finally ready to carry our astronauts back to the moon sometime before 2020, they may find Chinese counterparts already there and working".

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5624425.html

 - Ed Kyle

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #1 on: 03/17/2008 04:38 pm »
That sounds like an interesting future. How do we get China and the US to move that fast?
Karl Hallowell

Offline Paul Adams

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • United Kingdom and USA
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #2 on: 03/17/2008 05:14 pm »
Regardless of how fast other nations move, the USA should not lose it's ability to independently put people into space.

If not shuttle, how about Space X?

My personal preference (sorry Jim!) is two shuttle flight a year from 2011 onwards until Orion is ready. There seems to be a growing consensus to make somthing like this happen. NASA needs a cash injection to continue with a reduced shuttle program and the full speed development of shuttle.

Paul
It's all in the data.

  • Guest
RE: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #3 on: 03/17/2008 05:19 pm »
Quote
edkyle99 - 17/3/2008  12:20 PM

Houston Chronicle editorial goes a bit far with "when the next generation Orion space vehicle is finally ready to carry our astronauts back to the moon sometime before 2020, they may find Chinese counterparts already there and working".

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5624425.html

 - Ed Kyle

I wonder if they'll have takeout?

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #4 on: 03/17/2008 06:15 pm »
Quote
Paul Adams - 17/3/2008  2:14 PM

My personal preference (sorry Jim!) is two shuttle flight a year from 2011 onwards until Orion is ready. There seems to be a growing consensus to make somthing like this happen. NASA needs a cash injection to continue with a reduced shuttle program and the full speed development of shuttle.
I see the same conventional consensus within the industry and its oversight about "the gap."  But beyond those groups, it's been pretty quiet.  (It would very quiet if this weren't a presidential election year.)  It seems to me that something has to change to move things off the status quo...are there some recent examples/quotes from representatives that have less of a political stake (i.e., their constituents don't have a large stake in jobs related to NASA human spaceflight projects) in NASA who are now committed to supplemental appropriations for human spaceflight?

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #5 on: 03/17/2008 07:05 pm »
Quote
psloss - 17/3/2008  2:15 PM

Quote
Paul Adams - 17/3/2008  2:14 PM

My personal preference (sorry Jim!) is two shuttle flight a year from 2011 onwards until Orion is ready. There seems to be a growing consensus to make somthing like this happen. NASA needs a cash injection to continue with a reduced shuttle program and the full speed development of shuttle.
I see the same conventional consensus within the industry and its oversight about "the gap."  But beyond those groups, it's been pretty quiet.  (It would very quiet if this weren't a presidential election year.)  It seems to me that something has to change to move things off the status quo...are there some recent examples/quotes from representatives that have less of a political stake (i.e., their constituents don't have a large stake in jobs related to NASA human spaceflight projects) in NASA who are now committed to supplemental appropriations for human spaceflight?

What would a low-budget (relatively), low-flight-rate STS program look like?  Would NASA be able to do everything with one orbiter, one OPF, etc.?  Could Ares I build up in one VAB High Bay/LCC while STS simultaneously stayed minimally active?  What would the orbiters carry?   How many crew?  How much would it cost?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline stockman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6916
  • Southern Ontario - Canada
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #6 on: 03/17/2008 07:07 pm »
Quote
edkyle99 - 17/3/2008  4:05 PM

Quote
psloss - 17/3/2008  2:15 PM

Quote
Paul Adams - 17/3/2008  2:14 PM

My personal preference (sorry Jim!) is two shuttle flight a year from 2011 onwards until Orion is ready. There seems to be a growing consensus to make somthing like this happen. NASA needs a cash injection to continue with a reduced shuttle program and the full speed development of shuttle.
I see the same conventional consensus within the industry and its oversight about "the gap."  But beyond those groups, it's been pretty quiet.  (It would very quiet if this weren't a presidential election year.)  It seems to me that something has to change to move things off the status quo...are there some recent examples/quotes from representatives that have less of a political stake (i.e., their constituents don't have a large stake in jobs related to NASA human spaceflight projects) in NASA who are now committed to supplemental appropriations for human spaceflight?

What would a low-budget (relatively), low-flight-rate STS program look like?  Would NASA be able to do everything with one orbiter, one OPF, etc.?  Could Ares I build up in one VAB High Bay/LCC while STS simultaneously stayed minimally active?  What would the orbiters carry?   How many crew?  How much would it cost?

 - Ed Kyle

You can't do it with just one. You need a minimum of two orbiters for this as you always need one to be LON for the other. This scenario would probably get rid of one orbiter and its associated support staff. You may be able to process both orbiters with one crew in rotation so further cutbacks might be made but I am not sure.
One Percent for Space!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #7 on: 03/17/2008 07:27 pm »
the fixed costs are the killer and not the flight rate.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #8 on: 03/17/2008 07:28 pm »
Quote
Paul Adams - 17/3/2008  2:14 PM

My personal preference (sorry Jim!) is two shuttle flight a year from 2011 onwards until Orion is ready.
Paul
Orion/CLV needs all the money from a shut down STS program in order to come to life. If you don't shut down STS, Orion/CLV won't happen. We must choose: money for STS -or- money for Orion/CLV. There is not enough money to do both, even in a diminished capacity. Given the looming economic climate, there is likely to be even less funding available in the coming years. It's one or the other.

Flying Shuttle costs between $4-$5 billion per year, regardless of whether you fly twice or 4-5 times. The cost of any one specific flight is a very tiny piece of the annual cost of maintaining the entire infrastructure to support STS. So cutting down to 2 flights would contribute almost nothing at all. Orion/CLV desperately needs that money, all of it, or it will never fly.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #9 on: 03/17/2008 07:49 pm »
On falling behind china only has the longmarch 5 as a lunar launch vehicle it's the only 25T+ class vehicle they have.

Unlike the chinese we have a choice of LVs Ares just happens to be the plan A.

We have the EELVs and F-9 as backups so even if Ares fails completely we would still be ahead in lift capacity.

Heck we even have more then one vehicle in the works Orion is not the only American manned spacecraft by a long shot.
 
I will say how the CLV and Orion are being developed is foolish at best  and it could be done better,cheaper and faster.

A lot of testing could be done on the EELVs or the CLV  could have more in common with the shuttle stack.

 I'm fully aware Ares I 1x really is just a political stunt vs a test flight of actual hardware.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #10 on: 03/17/2008 07:51 pm »
Quote
clongton - 17/3/2008  3:28 PM

Orion/CLV needs all the money from a shut down STS program in order to come to life. If you don't shut down STS, Orion/CLV won't happen. We must choose: money for STS -or- money for Orion/CLV. There is not enough money to do both, even in a diminished capacity. Given the looming economic climate, there is likely to be even less funding available in the coming years. It's one or the other.

Flying Shuttle costs between $4-$5 billion per year, regardless of whether you fly twice or 4-5 times. The cost of any one specific flight is a very tiny piece of the annual cost of maintaining the entire infrastructure to support STS. So cutting down to 2 flights would contribute almost nothing at all. Orion/CLV desperately needs that money, all of it, or it will never fly.

Shuttle wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be kept flying without extra funding from Congress, on top of what is needed for Constellation.  The question is this.  Would Congress ever think that the cost to fill the "gap" would be worth paying?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #11 on: 03/17/2008 08:02 pm »
Quote
edkyle99 - 17/3/2008  4:51 PM

Shuttle wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be kept flying without extra funding from Congress, on top of what is needed for Constellation.  The question is this.  Would Congress ever think that the cost to fill the "gap" would be worth paying?
I agree with Chuck; it looks like a zero-sum game (and has for a long time).  But I'd love to hear a good argument against that or a realistic argument about how the game could change.

That bill that Rep. Weldon introduced was admittedly to make a political point, but it's been awfully quiet since it was introduced.  Anybody hear any questions/discussion about this bill during the recent round of appropriations subcomittee hearings?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR04837:@@@X

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #12 on: 03/17/2008 08:10 pm »
Simple redesign the Orion/CLV/HLV system to coexist with the shuttle if that means using a smaller cargo vehicle so be it.

But you do get a much bigger CLV so loosing 20 tons on the HLV becomes a non issue just move the LOI burn to Orion and you save a lot of mass on the LSAM.

Call me crazy but maybe Von Braun and his team got that split right the first time around.

If the Chinese believe they can reach the moon using just a 25T class vehicle then we should have no problems at all making due with a 50T and 120T vehicles vs Ares V.

Worst case we switch to L1 staging of the mission and use Hohmann transfers for cargo which includes landers.


I feel the need for a 140T vehicle is the biggest lie Griffin has said it's not even needed for a mars mission .

The present system is not the only way to reach the moon nor is it even the best way.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #13 on: 03/17/2008 08:19 pm »
Quote
Patchouli - 17/3/2008  5:10 PM

Call me crazy but maybe Von Braun and his team got that split right the first time around.
Von Braun took advantage of a political opportunity (and to his credit he was ready to do so), but he didn't create that opportunity.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #14 on: 03/17/2008 08:42 pm »
Quote
Patchouli - 17/3/2008  2:49 PM
 
I will say how the CLV and Orion are being developed is foolish at best  and it could be done better,cheaper and faster.

Pick two. IMHO, using EELVs would be cheaper and faster, but not better in capabilities and mission performance by a long shot...

Simon ;)

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #15 on: 03/17/2008 09:01 pm »
Quote
psloss - 17/3/2008  4:19 PM

Quote
Patchouli - 17/3/2008  5:10 PM

Call me crazy but maybe Von Braun and his team got that split right the first time around.
Von Braun took advantage of a political opportunity (and to his credit he was ready to do so), but he didn't create that opportunity.
My mistake I should have been more clear and said the delta V budget split.
 In that they made the lander as efficient as possible by shifting much of the delta V budget to the apollo CSM so that mass of tankage etc does not have to be transported all the way to the lunar surface.
This change got them away from needing the Nova booster.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #16 on: 03/17/2008 09:02 pm »
Quote
Patchouli - 17/3/2008  4:49 PM
 F-9 as backups so even if Ares fails completely we would still be ahead in lift capacity.

Why is this always thought of as a given?   Spacex is not a viable backup

Offline texas_space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
  • Ex Terra, Scientia
  • Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #17 on: 03/17/2008 09:30 pm »
It's not just money causing the gap.  Engineering decisions were made to develop a vehicle with TWO new engines/stages.  Both are in the critical path for the LV.  Spending more money won't necessarily make the engineering, testing, etc. go much faster.

I also agree with Jim.  SpaceX is an option down the road, but it isn't a viable one at the moment.  NASA can maybe talk to them AFTER they have a successful launch.
"We went to the moon nine times. Why fake it nine times, if we faked it?" - Charlie Duke

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #18 on: 03/17/2008 09:58 pm »
Quote
Jim - 17/3/2008  6:02 PM

Quote
Patchouli - 17/3/2008  4:49 PM
 F-9 as backups so even if Ares fails completely we would still be ahead in lift capacity.

Why is this always thought of as a given?   Spacex is not a viable backup

SpaceX is more well known than ULA and its offerings.  What he really means is a rocket capable of being used to fulfill NASA's human spaceflight requirements as a backup, of which there are a few alternatives if the Ares 1 does not pan out and its duties must be replicated.  The F9 is just a placeholder for that "capability rocket", although not a perfect one for one replacement at its capabilities or realization.

***

The "lead in human spaceflight" is an irrelevant marker and nothing materially significant will occur if NASA can't make orbit for a few years and loses "prestige" as a result.  Quantify prestige for me please; it's all in your head.   The "China!" canard as a threat/motivator/essential justification is equally moronic and those who state it must come to terms with the obvious: if China is beating NASA to the moon with a much smaller rocket and much less funding, then the NASA strategic vision if flawed through and through if it requires enormous expenditure to achieve lesser results.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Losing the lead in Human Spaceflight
« Reply #19 on: 03/17/2008 10:03 pm »
Quote
Patchouli - 17/3/2008  5:10 PM
Worst case we switch to L1 staging of the mission and use Hohmann transfers for cargo which includes landers.

You no doubt mean low energy trajectories derived from weak stability boundary theory, chaos theory, for hohmann trajectories are the standard and the more fuel inefficient.  Anyways, it's a good concept, the segmentation and separation of non time dependent cargo on more efficient trajectories, and one that's been bottled up within me since December.

Tags:
 

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