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.
jml - 22/4/2008 9:56 PMShuttle-C may save some initial development and infrastructure costs, but side mount payload implies a need for an EELV to serve as crew launcher.
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).
jml - 23/4/2008 1:04 AMMy 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?
OV-106 - 23/4/2008 12:43 PMNever 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.
Jim - 23/4/2008 11:54 AMIt is valid.
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008 1:38 PMWingo'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.
Jim - 23/4/2008 12:43 PMQuoteMarkWhittington - 23/4/2008 1:38 PMWingo'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
psloss - 23/4/2008 1:08 PMQuoteMarkWhittington - 23/4/2008 1:38 PMWingo'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.
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008 2:16 PMOn 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.
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008 9:16 PMQuotepsloss - 23/4/2008 1:08 PMDidn'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.
psloss - 23/4/2008 1:08 PMDidn'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.
kraisee - 23/4/2008 5:29 PMBut 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.
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008 11:13 AMThe 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.
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.
Steven Pietrobon - 23/4/2008 8:49 PMWhat 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.
Steven Pietrobon - 24/4/2008 11:49 AMIf 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.
Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2008 9:10 AMWhat 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.
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.
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"
Norm Hartnett - 24/4/2008 1:10 AMwhile I have every faith that NASA could design a cart that would work with the horse in the rear,
HIP2BSQRE - 24/4/2008 8:30 PM If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market.
Eerie - 25/4/2008 3:13 AMQuoteHIP2BSQRE - 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%#$ing Moon Base can be made sustainable by selling souvenirs? :laugh:
gospacex - 25/4/2008 3:30 AMI wouldn't jump to conclusions so fast.I am not a businessman, and much of what they do _appear_ stupid to me. But I try to account for the fact that they probably know better how to make business work better than me.
gospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.
ChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008 5:48 AMQuotegospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.
Eerie - 25/4/2008 4:13 AMQuoteHIP2BSQRE - 24/4/2008 8:30 PM If people could buy moon dust, scupltures, anything from the moon---you would have a market. Are you serious? Because that suggestion is so stupid it is not even funny. You think a f%#$ing Moon Base can be made sustainable by selling souvenirs? :laugh:
William Barton - 25/4/2008 7:03 AMQuoteChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008 5:48 AMQuotegospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop 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?
Jim - 25/4/2008 7:10 AMQuoteWilliam Barton - 25/4/2008 7:03 AMQuoteChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008 5:48 AMQuotegospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop 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.
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.
tankmodeler - 22/4/2008 11:45 PMI 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:QuoteBut 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
OV-106 - 22/4/2008 11:52 PMQuotejml - 22/4/2008 9:56 PMShuttle-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?
renclod - 23/4/2008 4:20 PMQuoteMarkWhittington - 23/4/2008 9:16 PMQuotepsloss - 23/4/2008 1:08 PMDidn'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 - HearingHouse - Subcommittee on Space and AeronauticsNASA's Exploration Initiative: Status and Issues1:21:50 into the podcastRepresentative 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.
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008 1:44 PMOne 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.
ChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008 4:48 AMQuotegospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop 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.
kraisee - 26/4/2008 12:19 AMWhile 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.
gospacex - 25/4/2008 11:37 PMQuoteChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008 4:48 AMQuotegospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop 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?
A_M_Swallow - 25/4/2008 9:13 PMQuotekraisee - 26/4/2008 12:19 AMWhile 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?
kraisee - 25/4/2008 10:10 PMWhat 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.
wingod - 26/4/2008 5:22 AMMore 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.
wingod - 26/4/2008 5:25 AMI 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.
A_M_Swallow - 26/4/2008 5:31 PMQuotewingod - 26/4/2008 5:25 AMI 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?