Author Topic: NASA at crossroads  (Read 26379 times)

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
NASA at crossroads
« on: 12/09/2009 08:22 am »

-EELV, which destroys NASA's pork barrel politics, and leaves it as a "normal" space agency, with a budget to match.  It would turn NASA into an American version of ESA or RSA, just another science agency.


This is intriging, and I want to discuss this point further.

According to Clongton

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19548.msg513150#msg513150)

Quote
Remember what DIRECT is, and always has been. It is the most efficient design of a SDLV possible that complies with the NASA Space Authorization Act of 2005, which mandated a SDLV.

NASA is at crossroads.
Should they scrap the shuttle infrastructure and harware, and start "afresh" with EELVs ?

we suppose
- DIRECT efforts doesn't work
- the shuttle workforce / tooling is disposed off after 2012
- manned spaceflight continues despite that

what I want to discuss here the consequences of such move.
For example
-  NASA centers closed
- LC-39 mothballed
Etc.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2009 01:01 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #1 on: 12/09/2009 09:48 am »

-EELV, which destroys NASA's pork barrel politics, and leaves it as a "normal" space agency, with a budget to match.  It would turn NASA into an American version of ESA or RSA, just another science agency.


This is intriging, and I want to discuss this point further.

According to Clongton

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19548.msg513150#msg513150)

Quote
Remember what DIRECT is, and always has been. It is the most efficient design of a SDLV possible that complies with the NASA Space Authorization Act of 2005, which mandated a SDLV.

NASA is at crossroads.
Should they scrap the shuttle infrastructure and harware, and start "afresh" with EELVs ?

we suppose
- DIRECT efforts doesn't work
- the shuttle workforce / tooling is disposed off after 2012
- manned spaceflight continues despite that

what I want to discuss here the consequences of such move.
For example
-  NASA centers closed
- LC-39 mothballed
Etc.


I would imagine LC39 was mothballed, *or* modified for EELV's on the new Ares I MLP, on a milkstool or such.  Actually, knowing NASA, they'd launch the EELV's on the milkstool at LC39, with the hope being a Phase II or III EELV being their HLV in the future, which then would need the larger facilities of LC39 to work on.

I could easily seeing several centers closed, or at least brought to minimum.  Political pressure would keep them going, even if on life support, for a decade or more.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #2 on: 12/09/2009 10:07 am »
I could see the EELV evolution program getting the green light by the back door.

In essence, post-Shuttle shut-down, the decision is made to fly a downsized LEO-only Orion on top of an EELV (say, for argument's sake, the Atlas-V-504).  This is purely to operate the ISS, and might happen alongside introducing ULA's payload bay fairing for carrying shuttle-style cargoes to the ISS too.

Anyway, so assume that this 'interim' system works perfectly well.  Unfortunately, the costs of developing the ACES upper stage, PBF and EELV-ready Orion, as well as running crewed EELV flights, will slow down Ares development even further.  That isn't such a problem as there is already a crew launcher in service.  Between the CCDev capsule and this LEO-only Orion, the gap was reduced to only two or three years, so most folk are happy.  The EELV-Heavies and IP heavy launchers like the Ariane-5 and Rus-M are occasionally used to launch mission modules for non-ISS LEO missions.

Eventually, someone is going to ask: "Why are we paying for the development of the CLV and CaLV versions of Ares when we have perfectly good launch vehicles already doing the job?"

NASA's reply will be to babble about safety and capability.  No one will be able to explain why they are using a 'less safe' launch system now, at least not in a way clear to the lay-politician.  Then NASA will play its ace and point out that the current EELVs do not support beyond-LEO in the way that Ares would.  It is at that point that ULA will roll out its EELV-based lunar plans and the long-term evolution path proposals again.  With EELV-based HSF already happening, NASA will have few other cards to play - it will simply make sense to develop the current machines rather than develop new ones that will need duplicate infrastructure (at a cost the government is unwilling to pay) to operate.

FWIW, I doubt that any individual centre is likely to be closed down.  Downsizing >50% is possible.  However, MSFC and JSC will still be designing spacecraft.  JPL will still be running their practically parallel program and the other centres will be rolling along, if in a smaller and different way. 

The only likely unavoidable casualty is MAF.  Without shuttle, SDLV or Ares there is going to be no use for the facility.  ULA is unlikely to allow them to build the Atlas-V-Phase 3 cores and the Delta-IV-7m cores there just to give work to what is effectively a different (and competitor) company.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #3 on: 12/09/2009 01:20 pm »
I've just fell across this comment

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17671.msg499295#msg499295

Who said this ?

Eliminating Ares 1 and 5 and all shuttle infrastructure could save NASA future costs that could eventually be applied towards exploration by significantly reducing the workforce and fixed infrastructure costs. 

This approach would require “commercial” crew transportation for ISS and exploration missions, and would likely require propellant depots to compensate for the smaller commercial launch vehicles.  This was not politically feasible in 2005, but perhaps could be today.


Doug Stanley apparently ;)

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/files/real-options.doc 

I think we are heading toward such solution. As much as I like and respect Direct, I think the shuttle infrastructure has to go. It's going to be brutal, to say the least. But there will be benefits in the long term.

A book worth reading this days is Tom Heppenheimer "the space shuttle decision". Notably chapters 8 and 9.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm

Space station and space shuttle, LEO taxis, outsider ELV versus NASA heavy lift, end of HSF... we are back to 1971. Really !
« Last Edit: 12/09/2009 01:20 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #4 on: 12/09/2009 01:58 pm »
I am hoping for DIRECT.  It really is the greatest hope for the future of getting us out of LEO and on to bigger and better things.

It is really hard to predict what will happen to NASA because of the politics of it all; however, any competent CEO would do the follow if they were running NASA.

Immediately close Glenn and Marshall.  These two centers would be closed for lack of a true mission and the fact that Marshall cannot design anything that works.  Not a slam against the engineers there.  They do what they can, but we simply don't need that anymore when we have JSC.  The financial savings will be tremendous.

Move all of JSC control functions to KSC.  This will improve synergy between the launch and control teams as well as cut down on costs.

Move JPL from California to JSC.  First of all, if I had it my way, I would re-organize JPL and rename it because JPL hasn't met a budget or timeline in ages.  MSL comes to mind.  Operations costs in California or ridiculously high and Texas is cheaper.   

Ames... Personally, I would like to move Ames but arguably, along with APL, have given some of the best science out there.  However, a good CEO would probably move it only as a last resort.  Ames is not broke and does not need fixing.  The same could be said for APL.

The CEO would then have to change the culture.  A mass firing of most senior managers and project leads under the old mindset.  Think Sun Tso here, we have to get rid of the "only NASA can do this" mentality.  We must reward the engineers WHO PRODUCE with working new projects, being team leads, and give them other specific responsibilities but always... ALWAYS... have a business mindset at the top.

The greatest thing we have learned is that engineers and astronauts cannot manage big-time projects and budgets.  They are almost always late, they are always over budget, and many get canceled. 

You wouldn't hire an auto mechanic to work on your airplane so why have an engineer run the budget and timelines?

I realize this is all very controversial and will "tick" a lot of people off.  But this is the reality NASA has to face.  They have to realize that if they continue to stifle innovation, the new breed of engineers, and commercial space, they will be left in the dust.

I do not subscribe to the "NASA Jobs Program" or any government jobs program.  That is silly.  The sooner this mentality is put to the weigh side the sooner NASA will become great again.  And oh, kill the global warming crap.  What is going on at NASA with this is shameful.

VR
RS327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7691
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #5 on: 12/09/2009 03:11 pm »
I've just fell across this comment

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17671.msg499295#msg499295

Who said this ?

Eliminating Ares 1 and 5 and all shuttle infrastructure could save NASA future costs that could eventually be applied towards exploration by significantly reducing the workforce and fixed infrastructure costs. 

This approach would require “commercial” crew transportation for ISS and exploration missions, and would likely require propellant depots to compensate for the smaller commercial launch vehicles.  This was not politically feasible in 2005, but perhaps could be today.


Doug Stanley apparently ;)

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/files/real-options.doc 

I think we are heading toward such solution. As much as I like and respect Direct, I think the shuttle infrastructure has to go. It's going to be brutal, to say the least. But there will be benefits in the long term.

A book worth reading this days is Tom Heppenheimer "the space shuttle decision". Notably chapters 8 and 9.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm

Space station and space shuttle, LEO taxis, outsider ELV versus NASA heavy lift, end of HSF... we are back to 1971. Really !


The "This was not politically feasible in 2005, but perhaps could be today" comment is double sided. Politically, if it remains in the sub-committee's hands, there's a chance nothing changes, as they all have centers to be concerned about (votes & dollars flowing).

If Congress as a whole wants to save money, to heck with jobs, then it's possible.

I don't see the latter happening though, unless perhaps if it were phased in over some years, which means even higher up-front costs. Short-term gain, with mid-term pain, for long term gain.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #6 on: 12/09/2009 03:56 pm »
Quote
Politically, if it remains in the sub-committee's hands, there's a chance nothing changes, as they all have centers to be concerned about (votes & dollars flowing).

If Congress as a whole wants to save money, to heck with jobs, then it's possible

Excuse an european with holes in its knowledge of US space policy.
Can you develop a bit on those sub-committees ? or point me to a link ? Thank you !
« Last Edit: 12/09/2009 03:56 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #7 on: 12/09/2009 05:49 pm »

1.  Move all of JSC control functions to KSC.  This will improve synergy between the launch and control teams as well as cut down on costs.

2.  Move JPL from California to JSC.  First of all, if I had it my way, I would re-organize JPL and rename it because JPL hasn't met a budget or timeline in ages.  MSL comes to mind.  Operations costs in California or ridiculously high and Texas is cheaper.   


Non plausible and ridiculous. Shows complete lack of understanding the processes in launch and flight ops.

1.  There is little synergy between flight ops and launch ops.  Are there any other spacecraft control centers at the launch site.  No.  The USAF has them in CO (Buckley and Falcon), CA, DC, NM, etc.  NASA unmanned at JPL, GSFC, APL, etc.  NOAA in MD.  Commercial spacecraft are all over the place.

2.  JSC knows nothing about unmanned spacecraft, cost control or schedule either (See STS annd ISS development).  JPL is still a jewel for NASA and ranks as one of the highest centers to keep.

FYI, APL is not a NASA center.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2009 05:53 pm by Jim »

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #8 on: 12/09/2009 05:54 pm »
Not to mention you'd have to replicate the MCC infrastructure at KSC and the JPL infrastructure at JSC.

After IMCE, ISS cost control improved significantly.  They've been performing pretty well for most of this decade.  STS and CxP not so much.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #9 on: 12/09/2009 06:08 pm »
Antares,
I'm not sure you're quite comparing like-with-like.

All those programs have huge overheads, which are charged to the programs because there simply aren't any separate budget line items for the operating costs of the centers.

JSC charges a lot of its overheads to ISS, less so to Shuttle.   KSC charges its overheads mostly to Shuttle, with a little to ISS.   And MSFC charges most of its overheads to CxP, now that ISS development is effectively over.

If you examine the program costs as a separate part from the overheads, they always look much better.   Just be certain you are not comparing one set of program costs without the overheads, to one which still includes them.   That would be a good way to make one program look more efficient, but wouldn't be a valid apples-to-apples comparison.

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

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #10 on: 12/09/2009 06:19 pm »

1.  Move all of JSC control functions to KSC.  This will improve synergy between the launch and control teams as well as cut down on costs.

Non plausible and ridiculous. Shows complete lack of understanding the processes in launch and flight ops.

1.  There is little synergy between flight ops and launch ops.  Are there any other spacecraft control centers at the launch site.  No.  The USAF has them in CO (Buckley and Falcon), CA, DC, NM, etc.  NASA unmanned at JPL, GSFC, APL, etc.  NOAA in MD.  Commercial spacecraft are all over the place.

Agreed. The synergy between spacecraft engineering and spacecraft ops is much more important. If JSC ops were moved to KSC it would improve synergy with the launch team but the loss of synergy with spacecraft engineering would be devastating. If you think NASA has a problem with "ivory tower" spacecraft design now, just see what happens when you move the ops people 1000 miles away.
JRF

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #11 on: 12/09/2009 06:23 pm »

Agreed. The synergy between spacecraft engineering and spacecraft ops is much more important. If JSC ops were moved to KSC it would improve synergy with the launch team but the loss of synergy with spacecraft engineering would be devastating.

And with non reusable or partial reusable spacecraft, it makes little since.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #12 on: 12/09/2009 06:24 pm »
Antares,
I'm not sure you're quite comparing like-with-like.


He talking about infrastructure and not people

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #13 on: 12/09/2009 07:28 pm »
Cost control is managing costs to the projections and managing technical requirements to budgets.  By a pure definition, it doesn't take into account efficiency or inefficiency as long as the inefficiency is accurately predicted in budget projections.

Full-cost accounting has no impact to the ability of a management team to control costs.  FCA is an externally mandated requirement.  It increases both projections and actuals.  As a taxpayer, I'm a fan of FCA, but it should be proportionately distributed so that someone on the outside would have an accurate picture.  Obviously, that's ideal and not how NASA is doing it.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2009 07:30 pm by Antares »
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #14 on: 12/09/2009 11:43 pm »

1.  Move all of JSC control functions to KSC.  This will improve synergy between the launch and control teams as well as cut down on costs.

2.  Move JPL from California to JSC.  First of all, if I had it my way, I would re-organize JPL and rename it because JPL hasn't met a budget or timeline in ages.  MSL comes to mind.  Operations costs in California or ridiculously high and Texas is cheaper.   


Non plausible and ridiculous. Shows complete lack of understanding the processes in launch and flight ops.

1.  There is little synergy between flight ops and launch ops.  Are there any other spacecraft control centers at the launch site.  No.  The USAF has them in CO (Buckley and Falcon), CA, DC, NM, etc.  NASA unmanned at JPL, GSFC, APL, etc.  NOAA in MD.  Commercial spacecraft are all over the place.

I sadly agree it is non plausible because of the culture and group think that prevails inside the board rooms at "The NASA" and not because of your notion that it cannot be done.   

I whole heartedly disagree to your idea that to move launch ops from JSC to KSC is ridiculous.  NASA is too stupid to realize it is the chicken with it's head on the chopping block.  You still have people who think Constellation is going to get everything Griffin wanted... and more.  The President is NOT NASA's friend and he is quietly trying to kill NASA.

Moreover, it is not ridiculous to want to integrate vehicle processing, launching, and flight operations to a single location.  If there is as little synergy as you say; I would say that is part of the NASA "culture" which is horrendous and needs to be changed... yesterday.  I am not saying processing, launching, and ops need to go drink beer every night; but they do need to find better processes and ways to conduct business.  Being closer together helps facilitae the process.  The way things are done now, despite what people think, is not as efficient as it could/should be.

Finally, a point which you complete fail to address is astronomical cost of launch processing, launching, and operations.  Inevitably in the move from JSC to KSC jobs would be reviewed and then be cut, restructured, or otherwise made more fiscally responsible.  It is going to happen one way or another, and if NASA does not take the lead on this some bureaucrat will.  Talk about ugly/scary.

Quote from: Jim
2.  JSC knows nothing about unmanned spacecraft, cost control or schedule either (See STS annd ISS development).  JPL is still a jewel for NASA and ranks as one of the highest centers to keep.
This is a changing the culture type of move, and while manned vehicles and unmanned vehicles are different; JSC is significantly more responsible when coming to its budget.  Studying Orion development, they were mostly on time and on budget until Constellation kept changing the requirements.  That same fiscal responsibility needs to rub off on the folks at JPL.  And we know that won't happen while JPL operates with impunity on the California coast.

I agree JPL is a jewel and I do appreciate the science, it is just too bad we cannot afford that jewel right now.  And if we do not act to restructure JPL, you change "right now" to "anymore". 

Quote from: Jim
FYI, APL is not a NASA center.

Is this why APL is head's and tails above all the NASA centers?  There is something here to be learned from this.

In conclusion, we cannot continue to have the costs we do at NASA today.  We do not have the Apollo 1% budget.  Moreover, the redundancy and bureaucracy of NASA needs to be addressed.  That is one thing that is out of control and rediculous. 

You can say I am ridiculous and you can say I don't understand.  That is fine.  Lets see where General Boldin takes NASA...

...I pray to God I am wrong but I have a sneaking suspicion (damn near validated) that NASA is about to become a hallowed shell of itself and that we, the United States, will no longer be a Space power.

VR
RS327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #15 on: 12/10/2009 12:19 am »

1.  I whole heartedly disagree to your idea that to move launch ops from JSC to KSC is ridiculous.  NASA is too stupid to realize it is the chicken with it's head on the chopping block. 

2.  Moreover, it is not ridiculous to want to integrate vehicle processing, launching, and flight operations to a single location.  If there is as little synergy as you say; I would say that is part of the NASA "culture" which is horrendous and needs to be changed... yesterday.  I am not saying processing, launching, and ops need to go drink beer every night; but they do need to find better processes and ways to conduct business.  Being closer together helps facilitae the process.  The way things are done now, despite what people think, is not as efficient as it could/should be.

Finally, a point which you complete fail to address is astronomical cost of launch processing, launching, and operations.  Inevitably in the move from JSC to KSC jobs would be reviewed and then be cut, restructured, or otherwise made more fiscally responsible.

3.   JSC is significantly more responsible when coming to its budget.  Studying Orion development, they were mostly on time and on budget until Constellation kept changing the requirements.  That same fiscal responsibility needs to rub off on the folks at JPL. 

I agree JPL is a jewel and I do appreciate the science, it is just too bad we cannot afford that jewel right now.  And if we do not act to restructure JPL, you change "right now" to "anymore". 

4. 
Quote from: Jim
FYI, APL is not a NASA center.

Is this why APL is head's and tails above all the NASA centers?  There is something here to be learned from this.


1.  The suggestion is ridiculous, it has nothing to do with NASA being stupid.  You don't know what you are talking about.
2. The point that vehicle processing, launching, and flight operations have little synergy has nothing to do with NASA culture.   I gave you examples that it is not.   
Being close would not facilitate any processes because they are not related.   Moving JSC to KSC would not reduce any engineering jobs, because there is no duplication.  Operating a spacecraft is not the same as launching one.  Having separate teams launching and operating spacecraft is industry standard.  The operations personnel have planning and training to deal with, while launch team are dealing with the hardware.   Manning a console for launch and for orbit ops are not the same tasks.   There are different skills and they concentrate on different areas.  Also sitting on console is a small part of the job. 

I did not address cost savings because there are none in this foolish idea.  The point which you fail to address is showing the actual personnel reduction that would occur.

3.  JSC is Constellation.  The CxP budget problem is JSC's problem.  We can afford JPL more than we can afford JSC/CxP.

4.  APL is not "head's and tails above all the NASA centers"
see Contour, FAME, Stereo (processing fiascos), etc.  It has its share of failures.

You make across the board accusations and don't back them up with an relevant data.  Standard practice for a basher.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2009 12:22 am by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #16 on: 12/10/2009 12:24 am »

...I pray to God I am wrong but I have a sneaking suspicion (damn near validated)


Nowhere near validated.  Just a bunch of hand waving and blowhard words. 

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #17 on: 12/10/2009 12:45 am »
While I have come to agree with you that moving JSC operations to KSC is not currently possible, during Mercury launch and spacecraft operations were all conducted at Cape Canaveral.  I think the entire Mercury-Redstone flight was controlled from the launch pad control center, while I also think that Mercury-Atlas flights were controlled first from the launch control center, and then it shifted to another facility at Cape Canaveral.

Therefore, there is no reason that both operations could not be controlled from KSC, it would "merely" require the construction of additional control facilities.  Whether launch and spacecraft operations could be conducted from the same facility, I don't really know. However, it looks like there is a lot of functional duplication and instrumentation.

I suppose there is no reason while JSC could not assume control of launch operations either, after all the "clear the tower" shift of responsibility was just one that was convienent at the time.  It could equally have been done when the spacecraft attained orbit and dumped the last stage.


50 years ago, it may have made more sense operationally to have the two facilities at the same location, but politics caused the operations to be seperated for manned spaceflight between KSC and JSC.  Now today, however much sense it may or may not make to collocate the two control teams, there is no political and certainly no fiscal reason (short term at least) to do so.

For unmanned flights, there is much less reason to try and collocate the two functions since the unmanned boosters fly many different payloads for many different customers, most of which are not as intimatly related as manned operations.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #18 on: 12/10/2009 01:40 am »
While I have come to agree with you that moving JSC operations to KSC is not currently possible, during Mercury launch and spacecraft operations were all conducted at Cape Canaveral.  I think the entire Mercury-Redstone flight was controlled from the launch pad control center, while I also think that Mercury-Atlas flights were controlled first from the launch control center, and then it shifted to another facility at Cape Canaveral.

Therefore, there is no reason that both operations could not be controlled from KSC, it would "merely" require the construction of additional control facilities.  Whether launch and spacecraft operations could be conducted from the same facility, I don't really know. However, it looks like there is a lot of functional duplication and instrumentation.

I suppose there is no reason while JSC could not assume control of launch operations either, after all the "clear the tower" shift of responsibility was just one that was convienent at the time.  It could equally have been done when the spacecraft attained orbit and dumped the last stage.


50 years ago, it may have made more sense operationally to have the two facilities at the same location, but politics caused the operations to be seperated for manned spaceflight between KSC and JSC.  Now today, however much sense it may or may not make to collocate the two control teams, there is no political and certainly no fiscal reason (short term at least) to do so.

I will note once more, just for the record, that neither you nor "RocketScientist327" address my objection that whatever positive synergy is gained by co-locating flight ops with launch ops is more than outweighed by the negative synergy of separating flight ops from spacecraft engineering. As it is, I see too many disconnects between flight ops and spacecraft engineering and moving flight ops to KSC would only make that situation worse. And moving spacecraft engineering to KSC Ain't Gonna Happen. Never. It wasn't politics that caused MSC to be established away from KSC. (It *was* politics that caused MSC to be established in Houston *in particular*. But the rationale for placing the spacecraft engineering center in a metropolitan area in proximity to universities, rather than a then-uninhabited swamp, was strong.)

Note also that Mercury was a relatively simple craft and the spacecraft engineering center had yet to be established. The Space Task Group was still largely working out of Langley at the time. So it wasn't that big a deal to fly people to the Cape. They were going to have to be flown in from *somewhere*, anyway.
JRF

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #19 on: 12/10/2009 02:19 am »
While I have come to agree with you that moving JSC operations to KSC is not currently possible, during Mercury launch and spacecraft operations were all conducted at Cape Canaveral.  I think the entire Mercury-Redstone flight was controlled from the launch pad control center, while I also think that Mercury-Atlas flights were controlled first from the launch control center, and then it shifted to another facility at Cape Canaveral.


They were controlled from the Mission Control Center which was separate from the launch control center and the spacecraft prep and test facilities. 

There was no synergism in collocating the facilties other than not having to buy land.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #20 on: 12/10/2009 02:28 am »
I suppose there is no reason while JSC could not assume control of launch operations either, after all the "clear the tower" shift of responsibility was just one that was convienent at the time.  It could equally have been done when the spacecraft attained orbit and dumped the last stage.


"launch" operations end at T-0.  What occurs after T-0 is flight operations.  For unmanned missions, the launch vehicle is autonomous and the only ground control is range safety.  The spacecraft control center takes control after separation, since there is nothing it can do before that.

With manned missions, it makes sense for the spacecraft control center to be in control at T-0 or tower clear since it had to preform abort calls and such.  This involves flight design which is not a launch base skill set.  This is a spacecraft or launch vehicle design center skill set.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #21 on: 12/10/2009 07:53 am »
"ten healthy centers"

Do you think the need to maintain ten centers "healthy" weight heavily over NASA budget ?
Would shutting one or two centers save money ? or maybe turn them into FFRDC ?

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/174/1

Quote

The Commission recommends a complete overhaul of NASA’s structure and culture, with both a more “integrated” approach to science needs and systems development, as well as transitioning ten NASA facilities along the model of the federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), which are generally managed in an open, competitive environment, under contract to a university, a non-profit, or a for-profit organization. They tend to be more entrepreneurial in their culture, with greater personnel flexibility.


The space review article concludes saying that NASA might be difficult to reform.

Shoud we use a "brute force" approach - reform or die ?
In other words, can budget cuts force NASA to reform in some way ?
« Last Edit: 12/10/2009 07:56 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #22 on: 12/10/2009 08:47 am »
but always... ALWAYS... have a business mindset at the top.
It is essentially impossible for NASA to operate like a business because it is not a business and there is no profit to be made. It sucks at the teat of the federal government. The people who work at NASA are not like the employees of most businesses -- they could often make much more elsewhere and it is more to do with a passion for the work that NASA does. You have to be very careful that your 'business' mentality does not destroy their motivation.

Quote
The greatest thing we have learned is that engineers and astronauts cannot manage big-time projects and budgets.  They are almost always late, they are always over budget, and many get canceled. 
This isn't necessarily anything to do with the fact that they are engineers and astronauts. Yes, there is an unhealthy culture of cost underestimation -- the DOD has had similar issues. Fundamentally though, this has very little to do with the type of people running NASA. It has more to do with the forces that motivate NASA; whereas businesses are motivated by profit, NASA is motivated by a strange mixture of science and politics. NASA projects have to (often deliberately) underestimate costs otherwise they would never get funded (Messenger, Dawn, MSL etc.). This cannot be fixed easily because pure science is not, and never will be profitable enough for a true business model to work. Sure, you can privatise NASA or install an aggressive CEO, but I don't think you would necessarily be left with much at the end.

Quote
I do not subscribe to the "NASA Jobs Program" or any government jobs program.  That is silly. 
Agreed.

Quote
The sooner this mentality is put to the weigh side the sooner NASA will become great again.
Not without more funding (or a lot less Congressional interference -- NOT going to happen).

I agree that NASA needs a big overhaul and needs to start taking a hard line on projects that don't budget properly/are poorly managed. I would certainly like to see an end to the 'Ten Healthy Centres' mentality, too. I just think that there are limits to how far you can take the business paradigm, especially while Congress/Senate keeps control of the purse-strings. I also suspect that it might be very easy to go too far and destroy the essence of what makes NASA NASA.
« Last Edit: 12/10/2009 08:49 am by madscientist197 »
John

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #23 on: 12/10/2009 11:38 am »
@ Jim

Thanks for setting me straight.

@Jorge

I wasn't trying to address that issue.  I was just pointing out that once all manned operations were controlled from Florida, but was mistaken as to where they were controlled from.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #24 on: 12/10/2009 12:50 pm »
A couple of comments:

NASA doesn't "suck at the Federal teat." NASA *is* an agency of the Federal government, so unless you're suggesting a form of autoeriticism... More accurate to say the Federal government sucks at the taxpayer teat, but then, that relationship is institutionalized in the US Constitution. One can fault the bureaucrats for not being better stewards of the money, and also fault the taxpayers for not paying better attention.

Although, as a so-called independent agency (i.e., not included in a Department, but instead in the bucket with other independent agencies such as VA), NASA doesn't "run like a business," there's no reason it could not be instructed to do so. See, USPS, for example. Personally, I don't like the idea, and don't think it worked out so well for the poor, old Post Office, either.

Finally, not all businesses are soulless profit machines sucking the life and spirit out of their employees. Most are, I grant you, but there are countereaxamples around, both large (e.g., SAS) and small (SpaceX seems a likely candidate).

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #25 on: 12/20/2009 01:33 pm »

2. The point that vehicle processing, launching, and flight operations have little synergy has nothing to do with NASA culture.   I gave you examples that it is not.   
Being close would not facilitate any processes because they are not related.   Moving JSC to KSC would not reduce any engineering jobs, because there is no duplication.  Operating a spacecraft is not the same as launching one.  Having separate teams launching and operating spacecraft is industry standard.  The operations personnel have planning and training to deal with, while launch team are dealing with the hardware.   Manning a console for launch and for orbit ops are not the same tasks.   There are different skills and they concentrate on different areas.  Also sitting on console is a small part of the job. 

I did not address cost savings because there are none in this foolish idea.  The point which you fail to address is showing the actual personnel reduction that would occur.

If there are no synergies, then it ought to be considered for outsourcing.

Flight operations can happen anywhere with good staff and good comms.

Bangalore?

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #26 on: 12/20/2009 01:39 pm »
A separate question, but what is the time frame for crossing the crossroads?

What is so disappointing is that Bush announced a descent Vision for Space Exploration in - what - 2003? NASA spent a few years to come up with a useless architecture to fulfil the mission. And has now wasted pretty much 5 years?

The Augustine Review was interesting for a while, but gave NASA no clearer sense of direction.

So what's going on? Is there going to be a big strategy announcement?

Put another way, WTFIGO?

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #27 on: 12/20/2009 01:58 pm »
Every fool can come up with a descent vision. Being at the same time realistic, within constraints, makes a vision possible. Talk is cheap, not descent.

Analyst

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #28 on: 12/20/2009 02:04 pm »
Put another way, WTFIGO?

I suspect that the broadest strategic decisions have been made and that Friday's leak was a 'trial balloon' to see how the community responds to this overall direction. 

Meanwhile, the Bolden/Obama meeting was to brief the President on the final details.  These would have been things like:

* What new toys can NASA offer the general public?
* What is the best BEO crewed exploration destination?
* What was the outcome of the HLV report?

I would suspect that, at the very highest levels, NASA is already running on the new plan.  The turn-around at the drawing-board and fabricator levels will probably take a while longer to achieve (maybe all of 2010).
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #29 on: 12/20/2009 02:44 pm »
Sorry to ask, but can you give a link to Friday's leak (or the report of it)?

Offline AlexInOklahoma

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #30 on: 12/20/2009 11:50 pm »
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/12/report-that-obama-decided-on-space-policy-may-be-premature.html

This may catch ya up a bit on the non-news, which may or may not be correct, LOL.  Talk about obfuscation  ;)

Alex

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #31 on: 12/21/2009 01:50 pm »
If there are no synergies, then it ought to be considered for outsourcing.

Flight operations can happen anywhere with good staff and good comms.

Bangalore?
If you are being sarcastic, I agree. If you are being serious, then no. There are massive synergies, yes, but they are between flight ops & spacecraft engineering. Unless the Indian Space Agency is designing & building your spacecraft, then Flight Ops in Bangalore doesn't make any sense.

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #32 on: 12/22/2009 06:05 pm »
If there are no synergies, then it ought to be considered for outsourcing.

Flight operations can happen anywhere with good staff and good comms.

Bangalore?
If you are being sarcastic, I agree. If you are being serious, then no. There are massive synergies, yes, but they are between flight ops & spacecraft engineering. Unless the Indian Space Agency is designing & building your spacecraft, then Flight Ops in Bangalore doesn't make any sense.

Paul
Without doing a process map, or working there for a few years, I can't tell whether there are synergies or not. Jim claimed not.

If there are synergies, then co-locating should be looked at.

If there aren't synergies, then outsourcing should be looked at (Note, I'm saying looked at, not done. There are plenty of other reasons not to out source).


Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #33 on: 12/22/2009 06:17 pm »
If there are no synergies, then it ought to be considered for outsourcing.

Flight operations can happen anywhere with good staff and good comms.

Bangalore?
If you are being sarcastic, I agree. If you are being serious, then no. There are massive synergies, yes, but they are between flight ops & spacecraft engineering. Unless the Indian Space Agency is designing & building your spacecraft, then Flight Ops in Bangalore doesn't make any sense.

Paul
Without doing a process map, or working there for a few years, I can't tell whether there are synergies or not. Jim claimed not.

Be careful with your quoting. That is the opposite of what Jim (and I) are claiming. There are far greater synergies between flight ops and spacecraft engineering than between flight ops and vehicle processing/launch ops, therefore it makes more sense to co-locate flight ops with the spacecraft engineering center (JSC) than with the launch site (KSC).

I haven't built a process map either, but with over two decades of flight ops experience (and with Jim having probably a tad more in launch ops) I think we understand it well enough without having to build one.
JRF

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #34 on: 12/24/2009 06:29 pm »
If there are synergies, then co-locating should be looked at.
As I, Jim & Jorge have said, there are defininte synergies, but they are between Flight Ops & Spacecraft Engineering, which are, indeed, co-located.
Quote
If there aren't synergies, then outsourcing should be looked at (Note, I'm saying looked at, not done. There are plenty of other reasons not to out source).
Again, if Spacecraft Engineering is outsourced, then outsourcing Flight Ops does make sense, but not at all otherwise.

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #35 on: 12/25/2009 09:06 pm »
If there are synergies, then co-locating should be looked at.
As I, Jim & Jorge have said, there are defininte synergies, but they are between Flight Ops & Spacecraft Engineering, which are, indeed, co-located.
Quote
If there aren't synergies, then outsourcing should be looked at (Note, I'm saying looked at, not done. There are plenty of other reasons not to out source).
Again, if Spacecraft Engineering is outsourced, then outsourcing Flight Ops does make sense, but not at all otherwise.

Paul
I'd very much like to charge NASA $X,000/day for a short project to confirm what you say; but I'll probably have to take your words for it :)

Of course, Sea Launch and Arianspace are good examples of launch being far away from every thing else.

If we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above. (Launch from factory?)

Offline Idol Revolver

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #36 on: 12/25/2009 09:11 pm »
If we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above. (Launch from factory?)
More than 300 launches per year = RLV. Nothing else is anywhere near as cost-effective in that launch frequency range.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #37 on: 12/25/2009 10:18 pm »

If we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above.


No, it still wouldn't make sense.  Launch ops is a short period in the lifecycle of spacecraft (few months vs years of development and years of flight ops).  Engineering needs to be near where most of the mission is performed, near flight ops.  Launch ops and flight ops are not even related.

launch ops would be too busy to be even a help to flight ops who would be too busy managing all the flights
« Last Edit: 12/25/2009 10:29 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #38 on: 12/25/2009 10:21 pm »

I'd very much like to charge NASA $X,000/day for a short project to confirm what you say; but I'll probably have to take your words for it :)


No need to do a project, the SOP (flight ops with engineering) is because it was found to be the right way.   All spacecraft and launch vehicles are supported from engineering centers away from the launch site.

Launch ops does not use the same processes nor people as flight ops.  Launch ops personnel are factory people, they only know assembly and test and nothing about operating the spacecraft.

Jorge and I (who are NASA) just charged you $000/day for this  short project, and you know our answer.
« Last Edit: 12/25/2009 10:28 pm by Jim »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #39 on: 12/25/2009 10:48 pm »
If there are synergies, then co-locating should be looked at.
As I, Jim & Jorge have said, there are defininte synergies, but they are between Flight Ops & Spacecraft Engineering, which are, indeed, co-located.
Quote
If there aren't synergies, then outsourcing should be looked at (Note, I'm saying looked at, not done. There are plenty of other reasons not to out source).
Again, if Spacecraft Engineering is outsourced, then outsourcing Flight Ops does make sense, but not at all otherwise.

Paul
I'd very much like to charge NASA $X,000/day for a short project to confirm what you say; but I'll probably have to take your words for it :)

Of course, Sea Launch and Arianspace are good examples of launch being far away from every thing else.

And the Russians. Flight ops in Star City near Moscow, launch ops in Baikonur.

And the Chinese. Flight ops in Beijing, launch ops in Jiuquan.

And the Japanese. Flight ops in Tsukuba near Tokyo, launch ops in Tanegashima.

Pattern's the same the world over: flight ops and spacecraft engineering near urban areas with lots of population and resources to draw on, launch ops in sparsely populated areas for safety.

If co-locating flight ops and launch ops is such a brilliant idea, why have all the world's space programs independently decided not to do it?
JRF

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #40 on: 12/26/2009 01:17 am »
US Spacecraft.

JPL and GSFC for unmanned
JSC for manned.

C. Springs and Sunnyvale for USAF.
Aurora, CO; Wash, DC; and White Sands for NRO

Denver for support for LM built spacecraft.
El Segundo for Boeing built spacecraft.

And many commercial center around the country.

Not one of the flight ops centers is co-located at the launch site.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #41 on: 12/26/2009 06:08 am »
If we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above. (Launch from factory?)
As Jorge & Jim have said even in this case, it doesn't make any sense to have & launch ops in the same place. I'm not sure what it is you think you'll save by having the two together?

At 300+ launches a year and, as has been said, probably flying an RLV, you actually will have probably eliminated our current concept of launch ops entirely and are doing nothing except flying a regularly scheduled service. At that point you are more like running an airline and there is nothing but flight ops with the Spacecraft Engineering boiling down to the equivalent of being the factory reps consulting to an airline.

But (big "but" here) we are nowhere near that sort of flight model. Not even close. Until flying in space is literally as safe & as easy as getting on a 787 & flying to India or Australia from New York (i.e. a long , significant trip, but still regular business) then there will be a need for separate flight and launch ops teams.

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #42 on: 12/26/2009 08:36 am »
If we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above. (Launch from factory?)
More than 300 launches per year = RLV. Nothing else is anywhere near as cost-effective in that launch frequency range.
Probably but not definitely.

An automated factory turning out one disposable rocket per day might be more cost effective than a fleet of 2 RLVs.

Or it could be a cheap mass produced air launched vehicle. Launch operations might be over the equator but payload integration would be at the factory.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #43 on: 12/26/2009 08:41 am »
But (big "but" here) we are nowhere near that sort of flight model. Not even close. Until flying in space is literally as safe & as easy as getting on a 787 & flying to India or Australia from New York (i.e. a long , significant trip, but still regular business) then there will be a need for separate flight and launch ops teams.

Paul
No one's ever got on a 787 and done that :)

I don't think space flight will ever be quite as safe as commercial flight. The energies are just so much higher. But if it were as safe as getting into an F-15, and flying across the USA, that would be fine.

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #44 on: 12/26/2009 02:00 pm »
If we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above. (Launch from factory?)
More than 300 launches per year = RLV. Nothing else is anywhere near as cost-effective in that launch frequency range.

while I might agree with you based on my own work, this is far from a closed issue.

http://web.mit.edu/spacearchitects/Archive/Reusable%20v%20Expendable%20Launch%20Vehicles.pdf

It is possible that manufacturing of expendables (especially with technological advances in manufacturing and materials) could get so cheap and reproducible (reliable) as to make refurbishment not cost effective.   Wertz tries to prove it, and provides a good analysis with good sensitivity.

Syringes are used at incredibly high rates, yet expendables beat reusables long ago due to operational and logistics reasons. The technologies of reusables are far from proven ... and until they are, expendables (with a different kind of technology thrust) have some chance of beating them out even at high flight rates.




Offline alphas

  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #45 on: 12/26/2009 02:51 pm »

It is possible that manufacturing of expendables (especially with technological advances in manufacturing and materials) could get so cheap and reproducible (reliable) as to make refurbishment not cost effective.   


When reusables are used, it does not automatically imply low manufacturing rates. In fact, the production rates may be higher than in case of expendables.

Refurbishment cost is dictated by the design. If the design already has maintenance factored into it (design for maintenance) then refurbishment costs are pretty low compared to manufacturing cost.

Classic example for high manufacturing rates and quick turnaround abound:

* Boeing 737
* Boeing 747
* Boeing 777
* Planned Boeing 787
* Airbus A 3xx series.

The goal of space faring human civilization will guarantee high manufacturing and high reuse rates.
In other words the goal of space faring human civilization implies supporting goals of high manufacturing and high reuse.
« Last Edit: 12/26/2009 03:12 pm by alphas »

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #46 on: 12/26/2009 03:37 pm »
Syringes are used at incredibly high rates, yet expendables beat reusables long ago due to operational and logistics reasons. The technologies of reusables are far from proven ... and until they are, expendables (with a different kind of technology thrust) have some chance of beating them out even at high flight rates.
There is a rather large difference between syringes & spacecraft...

Without being flippant, a better comparison is between aircraft & spacecraft. We do not use expendable aircraft for frequent flights. I would think that at 300 flights a year, the aircraft model becomes more likely. At 50 a year, I can see expendables being preferred, but at 300, I'm thinking the reusable model will have asserted itself. Somethere in there is an inflection point and the business/economic model will favour the more expensive reusable over the simpler expendable. Exactly where that is, I don't know, but I'd bet it's between those two numbers.

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #47 on: 12/26/2009 04:07 pm »
"The goal of space faring human civilization will guarantee high manufacturing and high reuse rates.  In other words the goal of space faring human civilization implies supporting goals of high manufacturing and high reuse. "

Yes, but today, the US population does not want this on a grass roots level, which seems to be why Congress and the WH don't support it all that much.  I'm not sure why these goals are met with such cynicism, but there it is.

I very much appreciate Jorge and Jim's discourse on launch and flight ops.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #48 on: 12/26/2009 04:57 pm »
Syringes are used at incredibly high rates, yet expendables beat reusables long ago due to operational and logistics reasons. The technologies of reusables are far from proven ... and until they are, expendables (with a different kind of technology thrust) have some chance of beating them out even at high flight rates.
There is a rather large difference between syringes & spacecraft...

Without being flippant, a better comparison is between aircraft & spacecraft. We do not use expendable aircraft for frequent flights. I would think that at 300 flights a year, the aircraft model becomes more likely. At 50 a year, I can see expendables being preferred, but at 300, I'm thinking the reusable model will have asserted itself. Somethere in there is an inflection point and the business/economic model will favour the more expensive reusable over the simpler expendable. Exactly where that is, I don't know, but I'd bet it's between those two numbers.

Paul

Agree, but the difference between aircraft and spacecraft (which is an incredibly easy and obvious parallel to draw, but not necessarily a correct one ... it is certainly unproven) may be enough to push the equation the other way.  Wertz's paper certainly suggests the possibility.  Did you read it, he addresses some of your points.

I said I believe in reusables.  I also thought that the Cowboys would win the Super Bowl a few years ago, and although they had a good team, it did not make it any more so. Belief is a powerful force among humans, and often times it does shape the future.

However, it does not make the impracticable practical ... and practical reusable spacecraft have not been show to be anywhere near economical yet despite a number of government and private attempts.  I estimate that we have poured close to $200B in today's dollars into reusable systems (counting everything from Space Access to Kistler to the Space Shuttle and SLI) and don't have an existence proof yet.

You assume there is an inflection point, and I think there is one too.  However, I also understand that IF manufacturing technologies or materials science bends a slightly different way that the inflection point (if it exists) could be well beyond our generation (which makes it moot to me).

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #49 on: 12/30/2009 03:06 am »
However, it does not make the impracticable practical ... and practical reusable spacecraft have not been show to be anywhere near economical yet despite a number of government and private attempts.  I estimate that we have poured close to $200B in today's dollars into reusable systems (counting everything from Space Access to Kistler to the Space Shuttle and SLI) and don't have an existence proof yet.
I personally don't think reusables will be economical any time soon at all. I actually can't think of a commercial need for enough launches to make reusables cross that inflection, wherever it may be, even down at 50 or so launches a year. And it will be commercial need that drives up the flight rate enough to make reusables even remotely economical. The one possible chink in that might be if the US Gov't goes the way of fuel depots & then openly competes to fill it. And even then, I'm not sure if enough fuel will be needed to go away from expendables.
[/quote]You assume there is an inflection point, and I think there is one too.  However, I also understand that IF manufacturing technologies or materials science bends a slightly different way that the inflection point (if it exists) could be well beyond our generation (which makes it moot to me).[/quote]
I'm thinking we will need some sort of "magic" new technology to really get the cost to orbit low enough to get the flight rates up high enough to make economical reusables a reality. And that technology isn't on the visible horizon. Yet.

Hopefully it's in the back of someone's head...
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #50 on: 12/30/2009 05:37 am »
If we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above. (Launch from factory?)
More than 300 launches per year = RLV. Nothing else is anywhere near as cost-effective in that launch frequency range.

while I might agree with you based on my own work, this is far from a closed issue.

http://web.mit.edu/spacearchitects/Archive/Reusable%20v%20Expendable%20Launch%20Vehicles.pdf

It is possible that manufacturing of expendables (especially with technological advances in manufacturing and materials) could get so cheap and reproducible (reliable) as to make refurbishment not cost effective.   Wertz tries to prove it, and provides a good analysis with good sensitivity.

Wow.  A guy running a company (Microcosm) trying to make money by selling people on the concept of mass produced expendable launch vehicles came up with an analysis supporting mass produced expendable launch vehicles?  :-)

Seriously though, while the basic cost model seems reasonable enough, and even gives some insight into the areas where an RLV needs to focus on in order to make their case, I think his assumptions about relative costs are unrealistic.  Admittedly, we've only been working on low-performance RLVs so far, but there's no way in hell you could've designed a single-use vehicle to do the same mission for 4-6x less development cost or 20x lower per-unit cost.  While orbital RLVs do introduce TPS and landing systems, most of the rest of the systems are ones you need for an ELV as well.  And if you do your development process cleverly, you don't have to have the whole system work full-up 100% the first time with an RLV.  You can afford to iterate and learn, instead of analyzing everything to the Nth degree.  While I agree it's possible to spend tons more on RLV development than on ELV development, it's not clear at all that it *has* to be that way.

But 9 years after his paper, there aren't exactly a lot of examples of reusable launch vehicles or super-cheap mass-produced ELVs either.

~Jon

Offline Robo-Nerd

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 107
  • Luna City
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #51 on: 12/30/2009 05:58 am »
However, it does not make the impracticable practical ... and practical reusable spacecraft have not been show to be anywhere near economical yet despite a number of government and private attempts.  I estimate that we have poured close to $200B in today's dollars into reusable systems (counting everything from Space Access to Kistler to the Space Shuttle and SLI) and don't have an existence proof yet.
I personally don't think reusables will be economical any time soon at all. I actually can't think of a commercial need for enough launches to make reusables cross that inflection, wherever it may be, even down at 50 or so launches a year. And it will be commercial need that drives up the flight rate enough to make reusables even remotely economical. The one possible chink in that might be if the US Gov't goes the way of fuel depots & then openly competes to fill it. And even then, I'm not sure if enough fuel will be needed to go away from expendables.
- snip -

I think it may be worth making a strong distinction between reusable spacecraft and reusable launch vehicles. The one "existence proof" that I can cite (the Space Shuttle) is a combination of the two, and therefore muddies the water somewhat. My contention is basically this: A manned spacecraft (such as Orion or Altair) can probably be made reusable economically if it is designed that way from the beginning. Here are some reasons behind my opinion:

1. Any reasonable manned spacecraft is going to be designed to survive the "corners of the envelope" because of the fact that it has a crew onboard, but will then be operated (to the greatest extent possible) in the most benign manner possible ("the center of the envelope") again because it has a crew onboard. Thus, by design the manned spacecraft will likely have as much margin as the mission can stand. Most of the systems onboard (avionics, etc.) will not be anywhere near the end of their useful service lives at the end of the first mission. Propellant (for OMS, RCS, etc.) and other expendables are obvious counter-examples, but other reusable manned systems (airplanes, cars, boats, etc.) are designed to have the expendables replenished, so we ought to be able to design manned spacecraft along these lines as well.

2. For a spacecraft designed for reentry (Orion, Shuttle, Soyuz, Apollo Command Module, etc.), at least part of the onboard systems come home with the crew. A properly designed recovery (e.g. Shuttle not Apollo -- salt water landings tend to invalidate this concept) gets these systems back on the ground where they can be repaired, refurbished, and/or reused. Ideally the whole spacecraft that reentered can be reused, but under certain mission scenarios (e.g. reentry upon lunar return) there may be expendable components, such as the heat shield. Properly designed however, this could be a refurbishable or replaceable module.

3. For a spacecraft designed for pure deep space operations (Altair, Apollo LM), the design of the spacecraft for reusability also needs to couple with a concept of operations (CONOPS) for reusability. Thus, you wouldn't normally try and bring a lunar lander back from the Moon to low Earth orbit, but instead might have it stationed in low lunar orbit, or at one of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, etc. The reusability CONOPS might then look something like:
A. Crew in Orion (carrying necessary expendables) arrives at the Altair station.
B. Orion rendezvous and dock with Altair.
C. Initial Altair check-out: is it in good enough shape to continue?
D. Transfer expendables to Altair (e.g. refueling, etc.).
E. Crew transfer to Altair.
F. Complete Altair check-out: OK for lunar mission.
G. Altair undocks from Orion and executes lunar mission.
H. Crew in Altair completes lunar mission and arrives back at Orion (waiting at Altair station) -- Altair expendables depleted, but systems otherwise OK.
I. Crew places Altair in "standby" or "hibernate" mode, and transfers to Orion.
J. Orion undocks from Altair and executes return to Earth (or other mission as assigned).
K. Altair remains on station awaiting arrival of next crew / additional expendables.

Bottom Line (in my opinion): Reusable manned spacecraft should be considered separately from reusable launch vehicles because they have different economic models of operation. To the extent we conflate them, we (potentially) cut ourselves off from hybrid economic models that could save a lot of money (e.g. reusable Orion on expendable Atlas V Heavy). Manned spacecraft are going to be expensive, and being able to reuse them even a few times is likely to reduce the overall cost of a series of manned missions.

Cheers,
     - Osa

EDIT: Cleaned up some quotes that weren't germane, added final sentence.
« Last Edit: 12/30/2009 06:07 am by Robo-Nerd »
Osa E. Fitch
"Garden Earth, Industrial Moon, Resource Space" - William Barton

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • V
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #52 on: 12/30/2009 06:47 pm »
Wow.  A guy running a company (Microcosm) trying to make money by selling people on the concept of mass produced expendable launch vehicles came up with an analysis supporting mass produced expendable launch vehicles?  :-)

...

~Jon

Well Jon, maybe he started the company _after_ he completed this analysis.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #53 on: 12/30/2009 09:39 pm »
Wow.  A guy running a company (Microcosm) trying to make money by selling people on the concept of mass produced expendable launch vehicles came up with an analysis supporting mass produced expendable launch vehicles?  :-)

~Jon

Well Jon, maybe he started the company _after_ he completed this analysis.

The paper is 16 years younger than the company.  BTW, snarkiness aside, I actually have a lot of respect for Wertz and Microcosm.  I was just trying to point out that for someone who has been focusing on one part of the problem, it may be easier to see solutions for that corner of the design space, while not seeing obvious solutions for other corners. 

~Jon

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #54 on: 12/30/2009 11:02 pm »
That is true of many people and organizations in this business -- and many, many other fields too.

Being able to see the whole tapestry is a surprisingly unique and rare skill.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 12/30/2009 11:02 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #55 on: 12/30/2009 11:24 pm »
That is true of many people and organizations in this business -- and many, many other fields too.

Being able to see the whole tapestry is a surprisingly unique and rare skill.

Honestly, it's almost impossible *not* to fall into this trap.  You'll *always* know more about the system you are working on than you will about alternatives.

It reminds me of a story that a now-departed former professor of mine once related from his time working at one of the nuclear weapons facilities in the country (I think Los Alamos).  One day he had to take something down to the machine shop, and saw a guy there machining a chunk of explosives for use in an implosion device for a warhead.  The whole idea of *machining* an explosive scared him a bit, and he asked the guy "isn't that pretty dangerous?"  The guy was like "Dangerous?  Not if you use coolant and treat it the way it wants.  You'd have to be an inaccurate to actually get it to blow up.  Now, it's those guys machining the plutonium that scare me.  They've gotta have a death wish!"

A week or two later he was back in the machine shop and saw someone machining the plutonium for a warhead.  Remembering what the other guy said, and how toxic he had heard Plutonium dust was he asked "isn't that really risky?".  The guy was also really nonchalant "Not at all, boss.  So long as you use a nice suction system to keep the plutonium dust out of the air, its perfectly safe.  It's those guys machining the explosive charges that are nuts." 

:-)

~Jon
« Last Edit: 12/30/2009 11:25 pm by jongoff »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #56 on: 12/30/2009 11:27 pm »
Good story Jon.

Remind me to wait in the next State over from either of those facilities though :)

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

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #57 on: 12/31/2009 01:14 am »
Good story Jon.

Remind me to wait in the next State over from either of those facilities though :)

Heh.  That wasn't his scariest story, either.  :-)

~Jon

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #58 on: 12/31/2009 01:36 am »
That is true of many people and organizations in this business -- and many, many other fields too.

Being able to see the whole tapestry is a surprisingly unique and rare skill.

Ross.

Yep. ;-)

And in a "NASA at crossroads" thread seeing the "big picture" requires that we foresee how NASA will interact with other nations such as Russia, China, India, Europe's ESA and Japan's JAXA and now - it would seem - the British. As well as the private sector.

Pretending that we (NASA) will be the only folks up there reminds me of an old joke about Catholics in heaven. ;-)

IMHO, far too many US space enthusiasts -- both LegacySpace and NewSpace -- ignore the unavoidable international component because it falls outside what they are working on day-to-day.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2009 01:37 am by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #59 on: 12/31/2009 12:13 pm »
If we got to the stage of a daily launch of a standard payload, then we should review the above. (Launch from factory?)
As Jorge & Jim have said even in this case, it doesn't make any sense to have & launch ops in the same place. I'm not sure what it is you think you'll save by having the two together?

At 300+ launches a year and, as has been said, probably flying an RLV, you actually will have probably eliminated our current concept of launch ops entirely and are doing nothing except flying a regularly scheduled service. At that point you are more like running an airline and there is nothing but flight ops with the Spacecraft Engineering boiling down to the equivalent of being the factory reps consulting to an airline.

But (big "but" here) we are nowhere near that sort of flight model. Not even close. Until flying in space is literally as safe & as easy as getting on a 787 & flying to India or Australia from New York (i.e. a long , significant trip, but still regular business) then there will be a need for separate flight and launch ops teams.

Paul
I never claimed that the two should be put together. I simpler said if there are significant synergies, then it should be looked at, but Jorge and Jim claim there aren't and based on their experience I believe them.

If we move to a new situation, like a daily launch, then this experience can sometimes be a block to progress. You are correct that we will have to have eliminated the current concept of launch operations.

As per the re-usable / mass produced expendable debate, a hybrid is quite likely. The Pioneer Rocket Plane and related concepts have a reusable hypersonic stage. The operation of this is as close to airliner operation as possible.

Then there is a low cost upper disposable stage. This would be "mass" produced. The concept is the the opposite of an airliner.

Starting from a blank sheet of paper, you'd probably want the "Rocket Plane" operating from low latitudes. You would then employ an Airbus A380 cargo variant to collect the upper stage rocket from the factory, or build the factory at the base.  Jim/Jorge's point about assembly being near a big city with skilled resources is correct - but for a mass produced rocket to a standard design the big City can be anywhere. Design will be where it is now. (Much of the cleverest technology on the planet is designed in California, and built in China).

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #60 on: 12/31/2009 12:28 pm »
Wow.  A guy running a company (Microcosm) trying to make money by selling people on the concept of mass produced expendable launch vehicles came up with an analysis supporting mass produced expendable launch vehicles?  :-)

~Jon

Well Jon, maybe he started the company _after_ he completed this analysis.

The paper is 16 years younger than the company.  BTW, snarkiness aside, I actually have a lot of respect for Wertz and Microcosm.  I was just trying to point out that for someone who has been focusing on one part of the problem, it may be easier to see solutions for that corner of the design space, while not seeing obvious solutions for other corners. 

~Jon

I don't hear that criticism for supporters of RLV's. 

Just sayin'.  :)

I think that it is a murky area, and Wertz put the paper out there for the same reason I suggested it ... the discussion is SO unbalanced in favor of how obviously superior RLVs will be that his analysis tries to balance the scale.

I don't find him a supporter as much as someone taking the road less traveled.  And he did a good job exploring that trade space.

True believers refuse to look outside of the answer they have already arrived at.  Wertz is not that.



Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #61 on: 12/31/2009 12:31 pm »
IMHO, far too many US space enthusiasts -- both LegacySpace and NewSpace -- ignore the unavoidable international component because it falls outside what they are working on day-to-day.

Or because they have painful experiences of wasted efforts and time on things like ISS.

It is very painful to take an engineering project that you think should have taken 7 years and turn it into a multi-decade group hug designed as a (very successful) experiment in foreign policy.

Sometimes the answers are not blindness.  Sometimes it is seeing too much of the truth.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7691
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #62 on: 12/31/2009 01:52 pm »
IMHO, far too many US space enthusiasts -- both LegacySpace and NewSpace -- ignore the unavoidable international component because it falls outside what they are working on day-to-day.

Or because they have painful experiences of wasted efforts and time on things like ISS.

It is very painful to take an engineering project that you think should have taken 7 years and turn it into a multi-decade group hug designed as a (very successful) experiment in foreign policy.

Sometimes the answers are not blindness.  Sometimes it is seeing too much of the truth.


One thing is for certain, we seem to have time on our hands...

1) The 'exploration class' rockets won't be ready anytime soon. When they are, we may only afford 4-8 a year; still plenty of time to build hardware.
2) Money is tight everywhere
3) Agencies across nations will still want to do fun, meaningful, and exciting things.
4) Through colaborative efforts, we all advance our capabilities a certain amount, usually in a forward direction
5) We hopefully have something to show for it in the end (ISS). What we choose to do with that capability is just as telling as the path to get there.

Question: Are 'we' stronger for joining in to get the ISS up there? I think so. The downsides have been & are many, but we cannot deny it has brought the space community closer together.

The biggest challenge I think is the same as the ludicrous idea of massive rockets being proposed...we need to keep our ideas in check (IE: affordable) so we can actually build upon our ideas, not tear them apart when the lofty goals get unfunded over the years as the challenges mount.

Slow steady growth. That's the ticket.

Offline Nascent Ascent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #63 on: 12/31/2009 02:01 pm »
Slow steady growth. That's the ticket.

Agreed.  IMHO the only real advantage of long term international efforts is that it tends to dampen the local political and budgetary whims and swings we see.  In other words, if we make a long term commitment with treaties and contracts our fickle politicians will generally stay away.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: NASA at crossroads
« Reply #64 on: 12/31/2009 06:06 pm »
I don't hear that criticism for supporters of RLV's. 

Just sayin'.  :)

For what it's worth, I started out as a big fan of the low-cost expendable route (my undergrad was in manufacturing engineering, and the idea of a rocket assembly line sounded like just what the doctor ordered at the time).  Over the years I talked myself out of it.  I'm a fan of RLVs not because I think there are big showstoppers that minimum cost ELVs can't overcome, but because I think that RLVs really do have the potential to be a lot cheaper and more reliable in the long-run.  I haven't studied minimum cost design ELVs anywhere near as long as Mr Wertz (I was barely old enough to read when he founded SMAD), but this is an area that I've thought a lot about both sides of the equation.

Quote
I think that it is a murky area, and Wertz put the paper out there for the same reason I suggested it ... the discussion is SO unbalanced in favor of how obviously superior RLVs will be that his analysis tries to balance the scale.

I don't find him a supporter as much as someone taking the road less traveled.  And he did a good job exploring that trade space.

True believers refuse to look outside of the answer they have already arrived at.  Wertz is not that.

And it was an interesting work.  It did show some good areas to focus on if you want a cost-competitive RLV, as well as pointing out yet again why the Kistler approach (design an RLV that's perfect, build a fleet of them right at the front to make sure your up-front capital costs are ridiculously high, and target them at an industry that will take a long time to ramp-up flight-rate in response to lower launch costs) was unlikely to be as revolutionary as most people thought.

The original reason I became interested in RLVs over ELVs is the realization that flight testing can get really expensive if you have to build and expend a whole new LV every time you do a test.  I still think that a properly done RLV can provide big cost benefits over ELVs (there's no way you could've developed a single-use lunar lander of similar performance to Xoie for less money than a reusable one for instance), but it's many of the other features of RLVs that I find most interesting--not just magical claims of $100/lb to orbit.

~Jon

Tags:
 

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