Author Topic: Wingo Op Ed: Establishing the VSE  (Read 23393 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

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39048
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32358
  • Likes Given: 8025
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #20 on: 04/24/2008 01:49 am »
I think Wingo's article is as equally as flawed as NASA's Ares-I/V program. Wingo argues that NASA's priority in Lunar exploration should be focussed on using Lunar resources and arguing this to Congress as the major reason for going there.

"The point is that there is virtually no plan at all to carry out the truly remarkable plan to use resources derived from the Moon for further exploration."

What resources are there that could be used for further exploration? Oxygen and metals derived from rocks. Perhaps water and hydrogen from the Lunar poles. The most useful is oxygen, but it does not make sense to land your Mars spacecraft on the Moon, fill it up with oxygen, and then send it on its way to Mars. You have to carry the oxygen to land on the Moon, plus carry the hydrogen to lift you out of the Moon. Launching to Mars direct from Earth orbit is much more efficient.

What about launching the oxygen to a Lagrange point where the Mars spacecraft rendezvous and fills up? That's better, but you have to carry the hydrogen to the Moon in order to get the oxygen from the Moon. Even at a 6:1 oxygen to hydrogen ratio, this is very expensive to do and may not be worth it. Something to study though.

However, what I believe is useful is using the oxygen to launch a Lunar spacecraft from the Moon back to Earth, to help lower the costs of Lunar exploration. This has a very real and substantial benefit. Compared to direct ascent, returned payload mass increases by about 70%. A further benefit can be obtained by carrying the LOX to Lunar orbit (or Lagrange point) for use to land the spacecraft. My study shows that payload mass returned from the Moon increases by about 20%. The cost though is a doubling of lunar oxygen required, so it may not be worth it. Being able to use Lunar water only increases returned mass by 15% compared to using oxygen alone, since hydrogen is only a small component by mass.

Sure, we can make use of Lunar resources to lower the cost of going and returning from the Moon. Is that enough of a reason to argue for going to the Moon in the first place? I don't think so.

The first step though is getting there, and the high cost and complexity of Ares-I/V is as much of show stopper as anything. Lowering the cost of getting to Earth orbit should be the priority. Direct halves the cost compared to Ares-I/V and so is a good start. It is certainly affordable for the US, and other governments via propellent transfer, which could be used for other applications.

If you want to argue about making space more accessable, then money directed at reusable launches and space elevators would be much more beneficial then throwing money at the Moon or Mars. This is what happened to the Space Task Group. NASA tried to to make a reusable launcher, and only succeeded in making spaceflight even more expensive at the cost of 14 lives. This is a really hard problem.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #21 on: 04/24/2008 04:21 am »
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 23/4/2008  8:49 PM
What resources are there that could be used for further exploration? Oxygen and metals derived from rocks. Perhaps water and hydrogen from the Lunar poles.
...
What about launching the oxygen to a Lagrange point where the Mars spacecraft rendezvous and fills up? That's better, but you have to carry the hydrogen to the Moon in order to get the oxygen from the Moon. Even at a 6:1 oxygen to hydrogen ratio, this is very expensive to do and may not be worth it. Something to study though.

Stop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.

Granted, they are less efficient than hydrogen-containing fuels, but Moon liftoff is far less demanding than Earth one.

Online Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2635
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 947
  • Likes Given: 2046
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #22 on: 04/24/2008 06:09 am »
Quote
Steven Pietrobon - 24/4/2008  11:49 AM
If you want to argue about making space more accessable, then money directed at reusable launches and space elevators would be much more beneficial then throwing money at the Moon or Mars. This is what happened to the Space Task Group. NASA tried to to make a reusable launcher, and only succeeded in making spaceflight even more expensive at the cost of 14 lives. This is a really hard problem.

Reusability is a concept that seems to be taking root in the commercial sector. LockMart is working on demonstrators for a flyback booster, and SpaceX in theory will make some reuse of their launch vehicles. I think the flight of SpaceShip One was an important psychological watershed moment; "outlandish" ideas like flyback booster stages are starting to appear. In this, I think we have to also acknowledge the USAF as quiet and solid supporter of low-cost space access. They want nice spaceplanes and by jimminy they'll get them in the end.  :bleh:

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #23 on: 04/24/2008 06:10 am »
What I found most thought provoking about Dennis’ article was his link to Thor Hogan’s Mars Wars book. I’ve only read about a third of it so far but the applicability of this kind of analysis to the VSE is obvious. From the overview that Mars Wars gives of the numerous studies conducted within and without NASA since 1969 the general sense of an Agency without a clear mission that has endured in that state for decades seems pervasive. The VSE is yet another attempt to address that vacuum and is as likely to fail as all the others.
Dennis’ argument that NASA’s ESAS is focusing on the means and not the goals seems valid and is certainly valid in terms of what we see from NASA’s public outreach to date. For sure no four-man outpost is going to be able to fulfill the stated vision of mounting the Mars missions from the Moon. As to whether it is actually desirable to do so is open to some question but I note that at least two major previous studies supported that architecture. That architecture does drive the founding of a lunar colony sufficient to support some major industrial development that should lead to some understanding of the processes needed to do the same thing on Mars.
However, Dennis’ argument presupposes some form of transportation to the moon that simply does not exist. Neither Dennis’ beloved Shuttle-C, Constellation, nor Direct provide the kind of cost effective lift required for such a massive effort. Virtually every study sited in Mars Wars presupposes some form of aerospace plane as a precursor to Lunar or Mars exploration and we still do not have that key building block.
We are continuing to put the cart before the horse and, while I have every faith that NASA could design a cart that would work with the horse in the rear, I believe that until we have assured low cost access to LEO exploration and settlement of other planets will be impossible.
“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 renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #24 on: 04/24/2008 10:35 am »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2008  9:10 AM

What I found most thought provoking about Dennis’ article was his link to Thor Hogan’s Mars Wars book. I’ve only read about a third of it so far but the applicability of this kind of analysis to the VSE is obvious.
Lazy reader you are, Norm !

I read the book 3x by now. I agree, Dennis' repeated links to the book are provoking. However my own view on this issue differs, in that I think the SEI demise is not necessarily predicting the future of the VSE.

And here are my arguments:

MARS WARS - Thor Hogan
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031234_2007032394.pdf
Quote

On 25 May [1989], Mark Albrecht called Admiral Truly to ask whether NASA could return to the Moon by the end of the century—in preparation for a Mars mission early in the next century. Albrecht was stunned by Truly’s response. ‘“His first reaction was 'don’t do it.’ NASA cannot handle this.” The NASA Administrator was unsure whether this request was simply Albrecht playing ‘what if’ games, or whether this was a serious proposition. As a result, he called Vice President Quayle, who confirmed that both he and President Bush wanted to know whether this was something NASA could accomplish. After consulting with Frank Martin, Director of NASA’s Office of Exploration, Truly concluded that there was no way he could rebuff a presidential initiative. Albrecht recalled later “his initial impulse turned out to be quite revealing, because in the end, NASA couldn’t handle it.” What is equally revealing, however, is the fact that nobody at the White House reconsidered the wisdom of announcing a new initiative given the agency’s reluctance.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1111/1
The wisdom of NASA’s elders
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 21, 2008
Quote
NASA did get some sympathy from Truly, who was administrator during the abortive Space Exploration Initiative (and who lost his job because of the conflicts that stemmed from it.) “I think this time around it’s much better thought out,” he said of the Vision for Space Exploration. Announcing plans to phase out the shuttle, he said, provided a “theoretical” way for help paying for the program that didn’t exist during SEI. He also credited O’Keefe for his work putting the Vision together in the aftermath of the Columbia accident. “My hat’s off to him"

Edit: Yes, I know VSE != ESAS but a 1.5 architecture is the way to go IMHO.



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 #25 on: 04/24/2008 02:31 pm »
The strength in Dennis' article is that it focusses on the fact that NASA isn't, hasn't and shows no sign of trying to make the lunar effort sustainable. They have ignored Congress' specific requirements on that subject. If they were to refocus their efforts on sustainability and, dare I say it, economic profitiability, right from the start then a lot of things would be very, very different.

The actual hardware and architecture NASA is building would be very different as the underlying requirements would force a number of changes on pretty much all of the systems.

The funding battles would be different and, I believe, much easier, as NASA would be able to point to a business case and show how they were marching down the road to close that case. A case that would eventually show the space effort paying for itself and taking the burden off the US public. Congress has frequently been well disposed to providing seed money to new industries, espeicually if that seed money can garner a leading positin for US industries in that area.

NASA claims that they haven't ignored the congressional directives towards sustainability, but that these things will come in some far off and "to be wished for" future _after_ we get back to the moon. As Dennis states, what they fail to realise is that the US public and, therefore, Congress, no longer care about just going someplace. They want and need to see what good it will do to go there and what will be the effect on "my" life when this event happens.

Going to the Moon or to Mars no longer resonates with the public of any country as a goal in and of itself. Part of the problems is that we actually have done it before (conspiracy theorists notwithstanding). Everyone thinks if we did it before and nothing really came out of it other than some cool photos, then if that's all we're going to do ths time, why bother?

If going to the moon would help find platinum for cheap alcohol fuel cells, then, hey, that's different, useful and might actually turn a profit. Sure, lets go!

If going to the moon will allow us to create Earth environment observatories that help monitor & reduce Man's impact on the world, then, hey, that's different and may make a difference to me in my life. Sure, Let's go!

If going to the moon will allow us to mine materials on the moon and then use them to sustain a colony there at greatly reduced costs or to build/supply a Mars voyage on the cheap, then, OK, that sound's cool. Yeah, I suppose it would be cool to go but it better not cost much. (note the difference)

The generation that was galvanised by "Ask what you can do for your country" no longer exists. It has been replaced two generations later by one that really believes in "Ask what your country can do for you." If there isn't something in it for the individuals, they no longer care. Really. They don't. Doing something for some other person's or organisation's benefit has absolutely zero resonance with 99% of the population and Congress reflects this. NASA and their exploration plans MUST engage people and must return a benefit to the majority or no plan or program will survive for long. NASA appears to not have learned this lesson. They, as an organisation, are still focussed on the technology and the destination and not on why they are going there and how it will benefit, as directly and as immediately as possible, a large portion of the public who is expected to pay for it all.

It's unfortunate, but the public today is a low attention span, needy and selfish beast. If you want something from them, the quid pro quo has to be significant and quick. NASA hasn't cottoned on to this yet and we're not going to go anywhere significant in space until they do.

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #26 on: 04/24/2008 07:18 pm »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2008  1:10 AM

while I have every faith that NASA could design a cart that would work with the horse in the rear,

Ferdinand Porsche and his children did a pretty good job of designing a cart with the horse(power) in the rear! :laugh:

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #27 on: 04/24/2008 07:33 pm »
Quite actually, I thought Dennis' piece was quite brilliant. Like others have said, it's a strategic view rather than a tactical one. I do see Constellation rapidly changing from a Grand Vision to Apollo Mk. II and I don't like it.

I just helped my son do a research paper on the merits of Constellation. We looked at newspaper articles and media opinion polls. The majority of newspaper articles written around 2004-2005  were positive and mostly spoke of a Grand Plan to explore the Moon and Mars for science and resources. However from about 2006 on, those articles changed in tone. Most of the articles referenced either China's lunar ambitions, the shuttle's ongoing issues, or NASA's budget. It seemed like the good old 1970s cynicism had returned to space reporting.

NASA needs to sell ESAS as more than just Apollo revisited. Dennis' opinion piece says it better than anything I could write myself.

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #28 on: 04/25/2008 01:30 am »
I agree with Wingo on this one.  Why do people invest in their children and spend thousands of dollars on college?  They want things to be better for them.  The parents are spending for their kids future and in most cases there will be a payback in able to command more money when they seek a job.  

What kind of payback are we expecting to see from ESAS?  Eight people to the moon?  If people think Apollo got canned fast--wait to see how fast ESAS will be canned--It will not last 3 years!  Make the program relevant in people's eyes and people will support it.  Don't make it another ISS but on the moon. If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market.  

People want to touch the next forntier, that is what makes us Americans---looking over the horizion.  What opened up the west?  The ability to get there!  What opened up CA and NV?  The highway system.  Govt--NASA needs to build that system.  As people have said 'Build it, and the will come".  If NASA tries to build a billion dollar football stadium (Moonbase) in the middle of the desert without the highway or roads to get there..what do you think will happen to that plan? People will vote it down, since it does not bring or brings too little to their lives.

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #29 on: 04/25/2008 08:13 am »
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 24/4/2008  8:30 PM
 If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market.

Are you serious? Because that suggestion is so stupid it is not even funny. You think a f%#$ing Moon Base can be made sustainable by selling souvenirs? :laugh:

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #30 on: 04/25/2008 08:30 am »
Quote
Eerie - 25/4/2008  3:13 AM
Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 24/4/2008  8:30 PM
 If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market.

Are you serious? Because that suggestion is so stupid it is not even funny. You think a f%#$ing Moon Base can be made sustainable by selling souvenirs? :laugh:

I wouldn't jump to conclusions so fast.

I am not a businessman, and much of what they do _appear_ stupid to me. But I try to account for the fact that they probably know better how to make business work better than me.

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #31 on: 04/25/2008 08:38 am »
Quote
gospacex - 25/4/2008  3:30 AM

I wouldn't jump to conclusions so fast.

I am not a businessman, and much of what they do _appear_ stupid to me. But I try to account for the fact that they probably know better how to make business work better than me.

Selling souvenirs is not rocket science. Seriously.  :)

How many people do you think will buy a moon dust trinket at, lets say, 100$ price? You know what, let`s wildly exaggerate and assume every person on the planet Earth will buy one. That still won`t make anything sustainable, because no one needs more than one souvenir.

Offline ChrisInAStrangeLand

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #32 on: 04/25/2008 09:48 am »
Quote
gospacex - 23/4/2008  11:21 PM
Stop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.

I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #33 on: 04/25/2008 11:03 am »
Quote
ChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008  5:48 AM

Quote
gospacex - 23/4/2008  11:21 PM
Stop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.

I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.

Where did the RP1 come fom? I'm under the impression RP1 was only in the S1C, which winds up in the Atlantic. Upper stages were LH2, CSM/LM propellants were all hypergols. Am I mistaken?

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #34 on: 04/25/2008 11:07 am »
Quote
Eerie - 25/4/2008  4:13 AM

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 24/4/2008  8:30 PM
 If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market.

Are you serious? Because that suggestion is so stupid it is not even funny. You think a f%#$ing Moon Base can be made sustainable by selling souvenirs? :laugh:

There was at least one proposal, ca. 1970, by a private group that wanted to buy an unused Apollo/Saturn stack and pay back the funding loan selling moonrocks. In the 1990s, a group proposed funding a private moonflight (development and all!) by making a documentary movie. One of the common themes of these kinds of proposals in a misperception that gross on a commercial enterprise is spendable money.

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 #35 on: 04/25/2008 11:10 am »
Quote
William Barton - 25/4/2008  7:03 AM

Quote
ChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008  5:48 AM

Quote
gospacex - 23/4/2008  11:21 PM
Stop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.

I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.

Where did the RP1 come fom? I'm under the impression RP1 was only in the S1C, which winds up in the Atlantic. Upper stages were LH2, CSM/LM propellants were all hypergols. Am I mistaken?

She was being facetious.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #36 on: 04/25/2008 11:20 am »
Quote
Jim - 25/4/2008  7:10 AM

Quote
William Barton - 25/4/2008  7:03 AM

Quote
ChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008  5:48 AM

Quote
gospacex - 23/4/2008  11:21 PM
Stop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.

I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.

Where did the RP1 come fom? I'm under the impression RP1 was only in the S1C, which winds up in the Atlantic. Upper stages were LH2, CSM/LM propellants were all hypergols. Am I mistaken?

She was being facetious.

Aha. I thought contamination, but, yes, I see now...  :laugh:

Offline CentEur

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Poland
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #37 on: 04/25/2008 12:06 pm »
On the other hand Russians proved that all you need to get lunar resources back to Earth is to speed them in one direction from eastern lunar longitude. No lunar orbit insertion or mid-course correction needed - just a Moon based mass driver  :)

Here's the Russian method description: http://isdc2.xisp.net/~kmiller/isdc_archive/fileDownload.php/?link=fileSelect&file_id=307

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #38 on: 04/25/2008 04:42 pm »
Quote
Eerie - 25/4/2008  3:13 AM

Quote
HIP2BSQRE - 24/4/2008  8:30 PM
 If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market.

Are you serious? Because that suggestion is so stupid it is not even funny. You think a f%#$ing Moon Base can be made sustainable by selling souvenirs? :laugh:

100% supported? Nope, no way. But partially supported? Absolutely yes.

But just any old souvenir will not work, of course. Coins (for example) have a proven history of being worth far more than the bullion value of their metal.

I wrote this for the Space Review in October 2005

Quote
It might also be possible to substantially increase the short-term price for lunar platinum by adding an intangible value to the initial shipments of PGMs sent from the lunar surface. In the long term, the global commodity price of platinum will invariably fall once humanity locates an abundant lunar supply of PGM (perhaps offset by rising demand from innovative new uses), however, it may be possible to enhance temporarily the market value of initial shipments of lunar metals by fusing intangible value to an otherwise tangible asset.

Many small diners or retail shops across America have a 20 dollar bill taped to the wall behind the cash register. Why? The first dollar earned has emotional significance far beyond the actual value of the currency. Wouldn’t the first kilogram of lunar platinum ever mined by our species belong in the Smithsonian? Collectors and speculators will surely wish to share in the history and cachet associated with the first lunar materials returned to Earth for commercial purposes.

One mechanism to transform these intangibles into a commodity would be to create numismatic value.

For example even a relatively common 1799 Silver Dollar is worth more than 100 times the bullion value of 27 grams (slightly less than one ounce) of silver. The 1964 JFK half dollar is another example. Close to four million proof coins were minted and current prices for these coins fall between two and two and a half times the current bullion price for silver. The very first coins minted from lunar metals should be worth far, far more that the raw commodity price for platinum. Today, China mints panda platinum coins that are worth between 150% and 200% of bullion value.

Coins have a LONG history of holding value and IF intact lunar nickel and iron asteroids fragments are found on the surface of the Moon even non-platinum coin series can be minted from that material.

Five hundred years from now, those coins offer a potential souvenir of the days when humanity first became space-faring and the collector value will be very substantial. Evidence? The 1799 Silver Dollar is worth ~100x its value in raw silver, today.

Incorporating the Moon into humanity's global economy would be a watershed moment in human history with very few comparable events in terms of magnitude and significance for the future of our species. Becoming spacefaring would rank alongside homo sapiens leaving the Rift Valley in Africa or Abraham leaving Ur for Canaan or Plymouth Colony.

Creating artifacts (and using those artifacts to fund these ventures) is merely a means to transform that idea into a commercial commodity.

[As an aside, I am less persuaded that raw lunar materials will be all that valuable as souvenirs.

Coins on the other hand involve powerful symbolism associated with extending the human economy to the Moon and celebrate the creative power of commerce.]


= = =

As for returning material to Earth, I like the idea of using tethers to brake the incoming metal payloads in LEO. Then, those same tethers can transfer that momentum to cargo payloads headed out-bound towards the Moon. Comments by NSF poster "Vanilla" pointed me towards this idea and I love it!

Given the cost of lifting fuel to LEO, capturing that in-bound kinetic energy has real value.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #39 on: 04/25/2008 07:18 pm »
Quote
tankmodeler - 22/4/2008  11:45 PM

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

Thanks

At this time it does zero good to bash ESAS as the NASA people just turn off when you do so and it is the NASA folks who will still be around in the future.  This was to get folks to think about this and thankfully many have.





Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #40 on: 04/25/2008 07:20 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 22/4/2008  11:52 PM

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?

Please note that I went out of my way not to mention a rocket ANY rocket as even the ESAS architecture with sufficient financial support could be successful.  The point was to get NASA to think about what is needed to get that financial support.



Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #41 on: 04/25/2008 07:23 pm »
Quote
renclod - 23/4/2008  4:20 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.



Yep, and when you get a broad selection of congresspeople agreeing on a principle you damn well better listen.  THEY WRITE THE CHECKS.



Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #42 on: 04/25/2008 07:35 pm »
Quote
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008  1:44 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.

What is being discussed is that there is and has been a continuing disconnect between the people that write the checks and the people that spend them at NASA.  Of course you will never have a full consensus on this, but all you need is just over a majority in both houses and a friendly white house.  

Without considering Barney Frank's position (60 Minutes obviously thought it was worthwhile) yo are doomed to failure in that you at least have to craft a counter to it.  I actually agree (as do most of the people on this site in a recent poll) that the Moon comes first.  Everything rational argues for this if we want a hope of building a spacefaring civilization.

Too many are not willing to sacrifice the perfect for the good, and when that happens the good fails.

More on this to come soon in another article.  Thanks for the feedback here and in other arenas.  I have gotten some extremely interesting replies from very interesting places.





Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #43 on: 04/25/2008 09:02 pm »
Always remember the Golden Rule: He who writes the checks makes the rules.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline daver

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 951
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #44 on: 04/25/2008 10:16 pm »
Thanks Wingod, truly enjoyed the article.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #45 on: 04/25/2008 10:37 pm »
Quote
ChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008  4:48 AM
Quote
gospacex - 23/4/2008  11:21 PM
Stop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.
I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.

No they were not.

I am talking about fuels which contain no hydrogen at all. For example, active metals (Al,K,Mg etc). Would you agree that those are abundant on the Moon?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #46 on: 04/25/2008 11:19 pm »
I thought Dr. Hinners comment in reply to Mr. Rohrabacher's was extremely valid though - essentially that there are architectures which start with a Mars mission profile and work backwards to Lunar.   They define a profile in which you really do get to test systems on the moon which will eventually take you further afield when the time & funding is right.

The legislation limits make this more efficient approach "tricky" though.

I believe there are benefits to not limiting the program to "pure" Lunar architectures alone - and instead creating a more "generic" approach which can eventually grow to take us anywhere.

While I can certainly see the validity of not spending money on Mars which doesn't have to be spent yet, I am equally glad that there are enough loopholes around current legislation which allow us not to get bogged down in exclusive Lunar-only development.


Dennis' article does a very good job of opening the debate up and focusing on the bigger picture rather than the minutae.   He's helping to make sure we don't exclude valuable options at this early stage, options which might really be useful in 10 or 20 years time.

It is all-too easy to lose sight of the fact that we aren't trying to just do a replica of the short 6-landing Apollo program - that the VSE is supposed to be the first steps in a sustainable long-haul program which starts us down the very long path towards ever-wider expansion into space.   Making the right/wrong choices now, will have critical repercussions in the long-term and we need to keep that in mind during these early phases.

My hat off to Dennis for trying to raise the subject to a higher profile for discussion before we get totally fixed into one set of decisions that may, or may not, be helpful beyond just returning to the moon.

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

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #47 on: 04/26/2008 01:13 am »
Quote
kraisee - 26/4/2008  12:19 AM

While I can certainly see the validity of not spending money on Mars which doesn't have to be spent yet, I am equally glad that there are enough loopholes around current legislation which allow us not to get bogged down in exclusive Lunar-only development.

Time to talk about manned trips to the asteroid belt?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
RE: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #48 on: 04/26/2008 01:24 am »
Quote
gospacex - 25/4/2008  11:37 PM

Quote
ChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008  4:48 AM
Quote
gospacex - 23/4/2008  11:21 PM
Stop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.
I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.

No they were not.

@gospacex, her sarcastic comment was agreeing with you.  She forgot to add a ;)

Quote
I am talking about fuels which contain no hydrogen at all. For example, active metals (Al,K,Mg etc). Would you agree that those are abundant on the Moon?

Powdered solids will require new engines to be developed.  Current space pumps cannot handle solids.

On the Earth powders are sometimes pumped using fluids.  LOX is a fluid and expands when boiled.


On Mars reusable launch vehicles could use 2 CO + LOX = 2 CO2
A reversible process.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #49 on: 04/26/2008 03:10 am »
What studies have been done regarding making a solid propellant from lunar regolith materials?

I can imagine a number of mixtures, but the 'rubberized' bonding agent seems to be the unknown factor.   If a suitable bonding agent can be made, I could imagine a company like ATK one day getting a contract to build disposable or reusable SRB's which can have their mixtures processed and poured on the lunar surface.

I don't see it being at an industrial scale for quite a long time, but I see it happening on the distant horizon unless a really good nuclear option comes in and just blanket-replaces all in-space propulsion methods outright (go EMC2!).

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

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #50 on: 04/26/2008 03:12 am »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 25/4/2008  9:13 PM

Quote
kraisee - 26/4/2008  12:19 AM

While I can certainly see the validity of not spending money on Mars which doesn't have to be spent yet, I am equally glad that there are enough loopholes around current legislation which allow us not to get bogged down in exclusive Lunar-only development.

Time to talk about manned trips to the asteroid belt?

*Precisely*

Nothing to do with Mars at all ;)

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

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #51 on: 04/26/2008 04:22 am »
Quote
kraisee - 25/4/2008  10:10 PM

What studies have been done regarding making a solid propellant from lunar regolith materials?

I can imagine a number of mixtures, but the 'rubberized' bonding agent seems to be the unknown factor.   If a suitable bonding agent can be made, I could imagine a company like ATK one day getting a contract to build disposable or reusable SRB's which can have their mixtures processed and poured on the lunar surface.

I don't see it being at an industrial scale for quite a long time, but I see it happening on the distant horizon unless a really good nuclear option comes in and just blanket-replaces all in-space propulsion methods outright (go EMC2!).

Ross.

More like a hybrid with an aluminium solid and LOX as the oxidizer.  Isp of about 250-300 if memory serves. Bova talks about it in his book welcome to moonbase and references some work done in the 80's on the subject.



Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #52 on: 04/26/2008 04:25 am »
Quote
kraisee - 25/4/2008  10:10 PM

What studies have been done regarding making a solid propellant from lunar regolith materials?

I can imagine a number of mixtures, but the 'rubberized' bonding agent seems to be the unknown factor.   If a suitable bonding agent can be made, I could imagine a company like ATK one day getting a contract to build disposable or reusable SRB's which can have their mixtures processed and poured on the lunar surface.

I don't see it being at an industrial scale for quite a long time, but I see it happening on the distant horizon unless a really good nuclear option comes in and just blanket-replaces all in-space propulsion methods outright (go EMC2!).

Ross.

I continue to be amazed at long time spacers who do not understand that ISRU is far closer than anyone thinks, based upon a lot of work in the mining industry here on the Earth that wins metals out of poorer and poorer quality ores.

There are many processes that win metals and oxygen from regolith that can be put on an Atlas or Delta vehicle and sent to the Moon directly.  3600 kg from a Delta IV Heavy is a pretty darn good payload.

This is why we must bring in a wider community than is currently the case with aerospace engineers in the return to the Moon.



Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #53 on: 04/26/2008 10:28 pm »
Quote
wingod - 26/4/2008  5:22 AM
More like a hybrid with an aluminium solid and LOX as the oxidizer.  Isp of about 250-300 if memory serves. Bova talks about it in his book welcome to moonbase and references some work done in the 80's on the subject.

An experiments with powdered aluminium and LOX is mentioned on this website.
http://www.space-rockets.com/lsp.html

See AIAA 94-2842, AIAA 92-3450 and AIAA 86-1763 by J.H. Wickman for further details.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #54 on: 04/26/2008 10:31 pm »
Quote
wingod - 26/4/2008  5:25 AM
I continue to be amazed at long time spacers who do not understand that ISRU is far closer than anyone thinks, based upon a lot of work in the mining industry here on the Earth that wins metals out of poorer and poorer quality ores.

There are many processes that win metals and oxygen from regolith that can be put on an Atlas or Delta vehicle and sent to the Moon directly.  3600 kg from a Delta IV Heavy is a pretty darn good payload.

This is why we must bring in a wider community than is currently the case with aerospace engineers in the return to the Moon.

Has anyone written and costed a plan for producing lunar ISRU materials within say 5 years?

Offline wingod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1305
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Spaceref Article by Dennis Wingo: Establishing the VSE
« Reply #55 on: 04/26/2008 10:53 pm »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 26/4/2008  5:31 PM

Quote
wingod - 26/4/2008  5:25 AM
I continue to be amazed at long time spacers who do not understand that ISRU is far closer than anyone thinks, based upon a lot of work in the mining industry here on the Earth that wins metals out of poorer and poorer quality ores.

There are many processes that win metals and oxygen from regolith that can be put on an Atlas or Delta vehicle and sent to the Moon directly.  3600 kg from a Delta IV Heavy is a pretty darn good payload.

This is why we must bring in a wider community than is currently the case with aerospace engineers in the return to the Moon.

Has anyone written and costed a plan for producing lunar ISRU materials within say 5 years?

Mike Duke has.  I have his recent charts.  There is a lot of stuff that is going on well outside of the aerospace community such as the cast basalt used for water pipes in Germany, acid leach methods for copper, gold, and platinum mining in Africa.  There was also  work by Rockwell that was never published using magma electrolysis and flourine methods to get metals and oxygen out of regolith.  There has been some recent work on the Carbonyl process that has been published.  Just google nickel carbonyl for more info.  Mark Sonter from Australia did his masters thesis on metals processing on asteroids that also pertains to lunar resources of these metals.

There was a good paper at the LPSC this year (2045.pdf) that basically validates my hypothesis regarding the surviviability of low velocity impactors.


I am pretty well plugged into what is going on.


Tags:
 

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