Author Topic: Wingo Op Ed: Establishing the VSE  (Read 23392 times)

Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Wingo Op Ed: Establishing the VSE
« on: 04/23/2008 02:56 am »
Dennis Wingo (a.k.a. wingod around these forums) has written a thought provoking article about the VSE on Spaceref. ( http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1285 ) The article makes the very valid point that VSE is focusing too much on how to get to the moon instead of what we should do on the moon (and that because of this, VSE doomed to failure just like SEI).

Here's a little quote for the Direct and/or EELV supporters:
"The problem is not the rocket, it is the plan of what we do when we get to the Moon. While there are many who would strenuously argue that the transportation architecture represented by the ESAS study as implemented with billions of dollars of taxpayer money is the wrong one, in the end, this argument misses the greater point."

I have to agree with the notion that the goal of VSE should be not simply returning to the moon as a stepping stone to mars, but actually doing something useful there too.

But I do think that the rocket is a big part of the problem too. More specifically, the problem is what the architecture choice does to NASA's budget.

Ares I and V suck up all the budget NASA has available and then some, bringing us back to the budgetary unsustainability of the Saturn V era.  While NASA's VSE pays lip service to the idea of a permanent lunar base, enacting Constellation means that no money is left to even bother planning the details of more than Apollo style boots-and-flag missions within NASA's current financial envelope. Conversely, the financial estimates I've seen suggest that Delta and/or Atlas EELV would mean very expensive lunar missions launched in very tiny segments: the costs would quickly add up to outweigh even Constellation. Delta and Atlas make great economic sense if all we want is LEO crew and cargo launches to ISS, but very little economic sense for lunar missions.

So... only an not-too-big, not-too-small, just-right "Goldilocks" solution would allow NASA to still have some budget dollars left to fund actually doing something of any significance on the Lunar surface. And that leaves us with true SDLV heavy-lift as the only way I see for NASA to get to the moon and  still be able to afford to do something useful there.

This is starting to sound familiar: 8.4m core, 4-seg SRB, disposable RS-68 engines, and either an in-line payload (Direct) or side-mounted payload (disposable Shuttle-C type fairing).  The difference in the costs between these two options seems practically negligible (a few hundred million on a $300-billion program). Shuttle-C may save some initial development and infrastructure costs, but side mount payload implies a need for an EELV to serve as crew launcher. And that, in-turn, implies a "gap" with the very real political risks of the loss of STS infrastructure, workers, and knowledge.  Direct can serve as the launcher for everything needed for LEO, lunar, and even Mars missions, but costs more up front to develop the in-line config and the needed pad and MLP changes at KSC.

Nothing else will get NASA back to the moon within the next decade. (Except Branson, Carmack, Bezos, and Musk, of course :laugh: ).

Any thoughts?

(Of course, I expect that a few people here may somewhat disagree with my views in the most polite and genteel manner....)  :)

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #1 on: 04/23/2008 04:45 am »
I must agree that this is one of the best space pieces I've seen in a long long time.

Bloody well done, Dennis.

As to the point:

Quote
But I do think that the rocket is a big part of the problem too. More specifically, the problem is what the architecture choice does to NASA's budget.

Well, on a tactical level, I think you're right, but Dennis' piece is at the strategic level and if NASA had been going down the self-sufficient architecture route from the beginning, the entire discussion of Ares/Direct/EELV might be quite moot.

You're arguing whether we should be bunting or going for the home run. Dennis is suggesting that perhaps we should be playing hockey.

:)

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #2 on: 04/23/2008 04:50 am »
Your summary is earning no disagreement from me :)

Dennis wrote a really excellent piece there.   My hat is off to the man.

An interesting exercise, given this approach, is to look and see just how badly Ares fits into this model.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #3 on: 04/23/2008 04:52 am »
Quote
jml - 22/4/2008  9:56 PM

Shuttle-C may save some initial development and infrastructure costs, but side mount payload implies a need for an EELV to serve as crew launcher.

Why?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #4 on: 04/23/2008 06:04 am »
My understanding is that a side mount SDLV places the CEV in the same location as the Shuttle crew cabin, which is unacceptable after Challenger and Columbia.  This would put the CEV right in the potential debris field from rapid unscheduled disassembly of the ET or an SRB.  Even with a launch abort system to pull the CEV away from a disintegrating LV stack, the risk to crew is higher than with the CEV mounted atop the LV.

Of course, I may well be wrong. Anyone have in-line vs. side-mount SDLV LOC numbers from ESAS handy?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #5 on: 04/23/2008 06:31 am »
Abort options are severely constrained in any situation where the ET is disintegrating at the time of LAS firing.   The 'cone' of LAS flight away from the side-mount position intersects with potential debris coming from the top of the tank.

That is unless you fly on a particularly large Shuttle-C variant placing the crew module at a station height above the ET, such as Shuttle-Z - but that vehicle's LOC/LOM numbers are too low to be considered safe anyway.

Its a catch-22 situation.   Small causes problems, large causes other problems.   I have yet to see any variant of Shuttle-C with a better-than 1:600 LOC if used for crew launch ops.

Here is the relevant section from ESAS Section 6, Page 385:-

Quote
The Shuttle-derived options considered were of two configurations: (1) a vehicle configured much like today’s Shuttle, with the Orbiter replaced by a side-mounted expendable cargo carrier, and (2) an in-line configuration using an ET-diameter core stage with a reconfigured thrust structure on the aft end of the core and a payload shroud on the forward end. The ogiveshaped ET LOX tank is replaced by a conventional cylindrical tank with ellipsoidal domes, forward of which the payload shroud is attached. In both configurations, three SSMEs were initially baselined. Several variants of these vehicles were examined. Four- and five-segment RSRBs were evaluated on both configurations, and the side-mounted version was evaluated with two RS–68 engines in place of the SSMEs. The J–2S+ was not considered for use in the CaLV core due to its low relative thrust and the inability of the J–2S+ to use the extended nozzle at sea level, reducing its Specific Impulse (Isp) performance below the level required. No variant of the side-mount Shuttle-Derived Vehicle (SDV) was found to meet the lunar lift requirements with less than four launches. The side-mount configuration would also most likely prove to be very difficult to human rate, with the placement of the CEV in close proximity to the main propellant tankage, coupled with a restricted CEV abort path as compared to an in-line configuration. The proximity to the ET also exposes the CEV to ET debris during ascent, with the possibility of contact with the leeward side TPS, boost protective cover, and the LAS. The DDT&E costs are lower than the in-line configurations, but per-flight costs are higher—resulting in a higher per-mission cost. The side-mount configuration was judged to be unsuitable for upgrading to a Mars mission LEO capability (100 to 125 mT).

Essentially, if you include Shuttle-C in the mix, you need a separate CLV again - with all the associated additional costs, albeit you could opt to use an EELV as a cheaper substitute instead of developing the Ares-I.   But then you end up sharing your flight rate between two vehicles again and neither gets the economic benefits of a really robust flight rate...   You end up paying through the nose again for two different vehicles which you aren't using either one often enough to make it economical.   And they just don't close the performance requirements with only two flights.

Wingo and I have locked horns on this issue before :)

We actually agree in most other respects regarding the wider program, but on this one isolated issue - launch vehicle selection - I depart company with him and have to side with NASA on the in-line configuration being the better option.

I believe side-mount SDLV or side-mount SDLV+EELV are both dead-end solutions for the Exploration program financially speaking, driving the cost of exploration high enough that it will result in the Shuttle side of the equation ultimately just being canceled, leaving us with EELV's servicing ISS and no further capability beyond LEO again.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #6 on: 04/23/2008 04:43 pm »
Quote
jml - 23/4/2008  1:04 AM

My understanding is that a side mount SDLV places the CEV in the same location as the Shuttle crew cabin, which is unacceptable after Challenger and Columbia.  This would put the CEV right in the potential debris field from rapid unscheduled disassembly of the ET or an SRB.  Even with a launch abort system to pull the CEV away from a disintegrating LV stack, the risk to crew is higher than with the CEV mounted atop the LV.

Of course, I may well be wrong. Anyone have in-line vs. side-mount SDLV LOC numbers from ESAS handy?

Never said Shuttle-C config was optimal but it is not impossible and would not have to drive seperate crew and cargo launchers.  Challenger and Columbia do not really apply since shuttle has no escape system anyway and the CEV will be protected by the LAS.  The heat sheild will have multiple layers of protection.  The LAS engines would probably have to be canted, etc for a shuttle-C config.  

The point is this would be another design trade but saying it automatically drives a two launch vehicles I don't believe is valid.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #7 on: 04/23/2008 04:54 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 23/4/2008  12:43 PM
Never said Shuttle-C config was optimal but it is not impossible and would not have to drive seperate crew and cargo launchers.  Challenger and Columbia do not really apply since shuttle has no escape system anyway and the CEV will be protected by the LAS.  The heat sheild will have multiple layers of protection.  The LAS engines would probably have to be canted, etc for a shuttle-C config.  

The point is this would be another design trade but saying it automatically drives a two launch vehicles I don't believe is valid.

It is valid.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #8 on: 04/23/2008 05:17 pm »
Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  11:54 AM


It is valid.

I don't believe it is.  We'll leave it at that.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline MarkWhittington

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #9 on: 04/23/2008 05:38 pm »
Wingo's piece is, unfortunately, riddled with factual errors and analytical fallacies. For one thing, any article that quotes Barney Frank as the voice of both the Congress and the people cannot be taken seriously.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #10 on: 04/23/2008 05:43 pm »
Quote
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008  1:38 PM

Wingo's piece is, unfortunately, riddled with factual errors and analytical fallacies. For one thing, any article that quotes Barney Frank as the voice of both the Congress and the people cannot be taken seriously.

instead of slinging muck due to your personal differences with Dennis, point out and list the errors

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #11 on: 04/23/2008 06:08 pm »
Quote
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008  1:38 PM

Wingo's piece is, unfortunately, riddled with factual errors and analytical fallacies. For one thing, any article that quotes Barney Frank as the voice of both the Congress and the people cannot be taken seriously.
I don't think Barney's presence in the discussion makes a strong argument either way, even if Rep. Frank himself is a polarizing figure.  Didn't some "anti-Mars" language make it all the way to the President's pen in the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill?  If so, that implies there is likely bipartisan "support" for this particular position.  All he's basically saying is "I don't want to spend lots of money on that," which is much easier to support than what to actually fund.

I agree with Jim -- I'd be interested in your rebuttal if it enumerates and explains those errors and fallacies.

Offline MarkWhittington

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #12 on: 04/23/2008 06:13 pm »
Quote
Jim - 23/4/2008  12:43 PM

Quote
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008  1:38 PM

Wingo's piece is, unfortunately, riddled with factual errors and analytical fallacies. For one thing, any article that quotes Barney Frank as the voice of both the Congress and the people cannot be taken seriously.

instead of slinging muck due to your personal differences with Dennis, point out and list the errors
Jim, I don't have any personal differences with Dennis at all and I rather resent that you would accuse me of them. I've never met him. Indeed, I rather liked his book on lunar resources. But this article is just wrong. Besides the Barney Frank quote, it tends to assume that space politics have not changed since 1969, a supposition that is laughable on its face. It claims that NASA is not contemplating using lunar resources for its lunar base, also untrue. The article also mischarecterizes the level of political and public support VSE enjoys.

The main fallacy of the article, and that seems to be a common one for critics of VSE, is that it assumes that it is NASA's job to create a commercial transportation infrastructure. Does anyone remember how the space shuttle came to be? The proper way NASA could help enable a translunar transportation system is through a lunar version of COTS. But, of course, that can't happen until there is an actual lunar base to go to.

Offline MarkWhittington

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #13 on: 04/23/2008 06:16 pm »
Quote
psloss - 23/4/2008  1:08 PM

Quote
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008  1:38 PM

Wingo's piece is, unfortunately, riddled with factual errors and analytical fallacies. For one thing, any article that quotes Barney Frank as the voice of both the Congress and the people cannot be taken seriously.
I don't think Barney's presence in the discussion makes a strong argument either way, even if Rep. Frank himself is a polarizing figure.  Didn't some "anti-Mars" language make it all the way to the President's pen in the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill?  If so, that implies there is likely bipartisan "support" for this particular position.  All he's basically saying is "I don't want to spend lots of money on that," which is much easier to support than what to actually fund.

I agree with Jim -- I'd be interested in your rebuttal if it enumerates and explains those errors and fallacies.

On the Mars language, it actually originated with House Democrats. While annoying, it did not rise to the level of being a sufficient reason to veto the bill and cause a government shut down.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #14 on: 04/23/2008 06:32 pm »
Quote
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008  2:16 PM

On the Mars language, it actually originated with House Democrats. While annoying, it did not rise to the level of being a sufficient reason to veto the bill and cause a government shut down.
Fair enough.  This is really an op-ed piece, and there are plenty of opinions here.  I also don't know if it sways those opinions much, but I think it's a thoughtful op-ed piece.  That doesn't mean you have to respond with something equally as long (or at all), but it's harder to see your point of view.

Offline MarkWhittington

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #15 on: 04/23/2008 06:44 pm »
One other thing on Wingo's piece. He seems to assume that a plan to go back to the Moon can somehow be crafted that will have a broad enough political consensus that opposition to it will be nil or at least minimal. Political sustainability, as a lot of VSE critiques keep saying. This is folly, IMHO. No matter what kind of plan one comes up with, no matter what the justifications, there will be opposition. Barney Frank, whom Wingo quotes as the voice of the people, is a case in point. He would not care if it were proven that VSE contributes to the economic well being of the country. He would oppose it anyway because a pot of money would be spent on it that, in his mind, would better go to social welfare programs. There are just some people who are impervious to reason and, alas, many holds seats in the Congress. So sustaining VSE is going to be a constant effort. And sniping at it is not going to help very much.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #16 on: 04/23/2008 09:20 pm »
Quote
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008  9:16 PM

Quote
psloss - 23/4/2008  1:08 PM
Didn't some "anti-Mars" language make it all the way to the President's pen in the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill?  If so, that implies there is likely bipartisan "support" for this particular position.  

On the Mars language, it actually originated with House Democrats. While annoying, it did not rise to the level of being a sufficient reason to veto the bill and cause a government shut down.

For the record (my transcript, unofficial of course):

April 3, 2008 - Hearing

House - Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
NASA's Exploration Initiative: Status and Issues

1:21:50 into the podcast

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R - CA) :


I just want to make shure that people [who] read this record ... of this hearing ... that they do not come a way thinking that there is any type [of] consensus that we should be making Mars the driving force for prioritizing the spending that is about it... That would be perverse ! That would be giving up what we can accomplish today for something that is a majestic dream as we march to the future . But that's not the way to have a realistic and a responsible policy for America's space exploration.

Let me just for the record say that I'm one hundred percent in favour of that limitation saying that we should not be spending money on things that exclusively are for accomplishing a future manned Mars mission... that we have other things we need to do ...

Do we need to fix the Hubble telescope ? The chairman of this subcomitee took the leadership on insuring that we did not let that asset go. That costs us some money. Quite frankly I supported that...

Should we be making shure that we have a very robust system for identifying Near Earth Objects that may indeed be a threat to the Earth ? And should we establish a system on how to counteract those threats if we find something headed in our direction ? The answer is yes !

Should we be utilizing Space so we can put a greater effort into conserving and utilizing the Earth's resources for the benefit of human kind ? Yes !

All of those things cost money. It would be a horrible deservice to the people of the world - and especially to the taxpayers [in] the United States - for us to start prioritizing our spending based on the ideea of stepping human foot on Mars 30 or 40 years down the road. That would be a horrible misuse of the money when we have other things that we need to do, that can help people right now ... So let me make shure that that's thoroughly on the record.



Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #17 on: 04/23/2008 09:29 pm »
But that was followed up a while later by comments to the exact opposite by both Dr. Hinners and (IIRC) by Rep. Nick Lampson.

Rohrabacher's comments were not the only opinions presented at that hearing.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4046
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #18 on: 04/23/2008 09:45 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 23/4/2008  5:29 PM

But that was followed up a while later by comments to the exact opposite by both Dr. Hinners and (IIRC) by Rep. Nick Lampson.

Rohrabacher's comments were not the only opinions presented at that hearing.
I think the point is -- and hopefully renclod will correct me -- that the opinion expressed by Rep. Frank isn't necessarily unique to Rep. Frank.  I'll accept the point that it's not necessarily a consensus view, but I think it's the opinion that we should critique rather than the personality.  (Although now we have two polarizing figures, Frank and Rohrabacher, just at what are conventionally viewed as being on opposite ends of the political spectrum.)

But I'm aware that politics is as much about personalities as it is about ideas (I just spent a good portion of a cross-country drive listening to talk radio)...I'd rather the discussion be on the latter, but that's just my preference.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #19 on: 04/24/2008 01:13 am »
Quote
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008  11:13 AM

The main fallacy of the article, and that seems to be a common one for critics of VSE, is that it assumes that it is NASA's job to create a commercial transportation infrastructure. Does anyone remember how the space shuttle came to be? The proper way NASA could help enable a translunar transportation system is through a lunar version of COTS. But, of course, that can't happen until there is an actual lunar base to go to.

According to the The National Aeronautics and Space Act

Quote
The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

A modest implication is that that it is NASA's job to encourage though not necessarily "create" commercial transportation infarstructure. As I see it, by developing and using Ares I in place of existing commercial launch providers, NASA has both failed to take advantage of a unique opportunity and to deliver on one of its obligations.
Karl Hallowell

Tags:
 

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