Author Topic: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview  (Read 498841 times)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #320 on: 12/12/2010 04:02 am »

NASA's number 1 priority should be to get an Orion flying to the international Space Station on a J-130.{snip}

Wrong target.  Dragon on Falcon 9 will be cheaper than Orion on J-130 for trips to the ISS.  if used more than once that will kill of SLS.

Orion to EML1 gateway on J-246 is a better target since it uses the deep space ability of both machines.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #321 on: 12/12/2010 04:18 am »

NASA's number 1 priority should be to get an Orion flying to the international Space Station on a J-130.{snip}

Wrong target.  Dragon on Falcon 9 will be cheaper than Orion on J-130 for trips to the ISS.  if used more than once that will kill of SLS.

Orion to EML1 gateway on J-246 is a better target since it uses the deep space ability of both machines.

SLS Block I flight(s) to ISS will be for "shakedown" purposes, and possibly to bring up large items (or a large number of smaller items) that an F9 would be unable to fly. SLS would not be used for normal crew rotation.

ISS will not be the final destination for SLS. ISS will be a proving ground, a waystation, and possibly a staging area for BLEO missions. But access to ISS is not the reason for SLS, just a very nice side benefit.

Mark S.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #322 on: 12/12/2010 04:42 am »

NASA's number 1 priority should be to get an Orion flying to the international Space Station on a J-130.{snip}

Wrong target.  Dragon on Falcon 9 will be cheaper than Orion on J-130 for trips to the ISS.  if used more than once that will kill of SLS.

Orion to EML1 gateway on J-246 is a better target since it uses the deep space ability of both machines.

SLS Block I flight(s) to ISS will be for "shakedown" purposes, and possibly to bring up large items (or a large number of smaller items) that an F9 would be unable to fly. SLS would not be used for normal crew rotation.

ISS will not be the final destination for SLS. ISS will be a proving ground, a waystation, and possibly a staging area for BLEO missions. But access to ISS is not the reason for SLS, just a very nice side benefit.

Mark S.


Yep, "a very nice side benefit." But for folks who may not want any competition at all in LEO or BLEO, the best option is 'no SLS and no Orion'. Such is life.

Cheers!

Edited.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2010 04:45 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #323 on: 12/12/2010 04:55 am »
Wrong again.  F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V.   There is no need for the SSME.   And Atlas V CAN do everything better.  That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available

True.

Interestingly though, during the same period of time, NASA also bought 12 flights of Falcon-9 for CRS, in addition to the 3 test flights which were already planned for COTS.

In terms of numbers of contracted missions for NASA, Falcon-9 seems to be doing about twice as much business compared to Atlas-V.

They're doing something right.

Ross.

It is good to have 'friends' in high places. Maybe you should explain it to Jim. He doesn't seem to be getting it.

Which 'friends' are you referring to? You seem to be implying Obama and/or Garver, I'm guessing. Neither was involed in the SpaceX COTS contract that was signed in 2006. And the CRS contract was awarded in Dec 2008, before Obama became president.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2010 04:56 am by Lars_J »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #324 on: 12/12/2010 09:41 am »
Wrong again.  F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V.   There is no need for the SSME.   And Atlas V CAN do everything better.  That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available

True.

Interestingly though, during the same period of time, NASA also bought 12 flights of Falcon-9 for CRS, in addition to the 3 test flights which were already planned for COTS.

In terms of numbers of contracted missions for NASA, Falcon-9 seems to be doing about twice as much business compared to Atlas-V.

They're doing something right.

Ross.

It is good to have 'friends' in high places. Maybe you should explain it to Jim. He doesn't seem to be getting it.

Which 'friends' are you referring to? You seem to be implying Obama and/or Garver, I'm guessing. Neither was involed in the SpaceX COTS contract that was signed in 2006. And the CRS contract was awarded in Dec 2008, before Obama became president.

Jim used to be quite dismissive of SpaceX. lately he has become a convert. I wonder why... 

Look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX   and a little light may come on. Ross once or twice said something to the effect that if you want a successful large launcher you need to get the politics right. How did Elon and SpaceX suddenly come from nowhere and leave the excellent and experienced ULA, the Atlas V, and the Delta IV eating its dust? You got it. Elon and SpaceX got the politics right. If you really want answers, follow the money. I learned that one in my High School Economics class. The teacher was a politician.

Perhaps we won't find out who all the 'friends' of SpaceX are and why they are so friendly. Who, what, when, where, why, and how are such difficult questions these days. No one likes difficult questions. Hey! What's on TV tonight?  Yeah, let's all enjoy some TV. No thinking required for that.

Cheers!  :)
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37647
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21727
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #325 on: 12/12/2010 12:16 pm »
Wrong again.  F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V.   There is no need for the SSME.   And Atlas V CAN do everything better.  That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available

True.

Interestingly though, during the same period of time, NASA also bought 12 flights of Falcon-9 for CRS, in addition to the 3 test flights which were already planned for COTS.

In terms of numbers of contracted missions for NASA, Falcon-9 seems to be doing about twice as much business compared to Atlas-V.

Remember ULA was excluded from COTS.  CRS requires a spacecraft which ULA does not provide.

Again, CRS is contracting for cargo to ISS, and not spacecraft to orbit.  There is little risked on each CRS flight.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37647
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21727
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #326 on: 12/12/2010 12:19 pm »

SLS Block I flight(s) to ISS will be for "shakedown" purposes, and possibly to bring up large items (or a large number of smaller items) that an F9 would be unable to fly. SLS would not be used for normal crew rotation.


What items and where?  Orion is not a logistics vehicle.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37647
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21727
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #327 on: 12/12/2010 12:23 pm »

Wrong target.  Dragon on Falcon 9 will be cheaper than Orion on J-130 for trips to the ISS.  if used more than once that will kill of SLS.

Orion to EML1 gateway on J-246 is a better target since it uses the deep space ability of both machines.

There isn't and won't be an EML1 station.  It is not in NASA's plans.  An EML gateway would be and end in itself and kill any further exploration
« Last Edit: 12/12/2010 01:33 pm by Andy USA »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12071
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7411
  • Likes Given: 3777
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #328 on: 12/12/2010 12:57 pm »
As many of us have stated so many times, getting the politics right is job number 1 for any HSF project. For that reason I think it far more likely that the Chinese will staff any EML-1 station sooner than we will for the simple reason that the American political realities absolutely require that re-election cycles *must* be able to benefit from long term projects like this or there will not be sufficient political support to sustain the funding. Political structures that do not have to consider that are free to plan out a project that won't show any return for a decade or more, but that is just not going to happen like that here. For any such long term project there needs to be a national compelling reason that over-rides the re-election cycles in the way that Apollo did. Perhaps national embarrassment would also get the job done should the Chinese or Russians actually accomplish it. But barring that I just don't see any American EML-1 station becoming a reality, and the economics worldwide being what they are I seriously doubt that there would be any international effort in that regard either.

Having said that I personally think an EML-1 station is a very good idea as part of a much broader HSF program of BEO exploration. There should be an EML-1 station for human-based missions and a similar station at EML-2 for cargo-based missions. BTW, it has been said, and quite correctly, that once you are docked at EML-2, you are literally halfway to nearly any location in the solar system. It is the perfect location for earth departure and arrival spacecraft on interplanetary missions.

But politically, I just don't see it happening barring some national embarrassment from some other nation that gets our Legislators as a whole beyond the re-election cycle mindset. Don't get me wrong. I am not beating up on them. I'm just stating a reality that needs to be considered and the way I personally see that reality affecting any such project.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Andy USA

  • Lead Moderator
  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1030
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #329 on: 12/12/2010 01:48 pm »
Thread went off track into a "Jim's current opinion is" without it actually coming from Jim. Trimmed back.

Remember the thread title. Keep it on topic.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10986
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1260
  • Likes Given: 725
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #330 on: 12/12/2010 04:14 pm »
Is it wrong? When they are influenced by lobbyists, telling them that it 'NEEDS' to be 130t, THAT is designing the launch vehicle.

Yeah, I think it is wrong for the lobbyists to insist that we "NEED" a 130T LV, right out of the chute.  But that's still a performance specification.  You and I can quibble about what a "design" means, but it would be a pointless discussion, in that it would take your and my eye off the ball.  The ball being, which LV should be our next LV.  And the technical detail about your being from Nova Scotia is simply a technical detail, aside from the LV discussion.

Quote
To me, Congress' first order is really to debate & then fund what the President requests, for the good of the nation.

Absolutely.  And I think it really is wrong to insist on Godzilla at this time.  I am open to an argument along the lines of:  Assuming that SpaceX continues its path of accomplishment, then the ISS resupply chain is redundantly assured as best as can be expected, including the multi-decadal accomplishment of Soyuz. Then, assuming, or more accurately, hoping, that the DIRECT cost estimates are correct, chose the larger vehicle.

But this choice would quietly rest on the dubious assumption that managerial issues could be corrected.  Worse, the "first" mission they are considering shows all the pre-decisional symptoms of eventual "godzillesity", starting with cost assumtions.  If we can grant the "sound" HEFT assumption of the "unconstrained budget scenario", then it would make some kind of sense to begin with a larger vehicle.  I just can't believe that they are actually allowing such ridickles assumptions to be included in their analyses.

SpaceX got the politics right...

Maybe so on that first contract, to some extent.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but they have delivered.  Somewhat late, maybe, but within the time latitude allowed by their contracts.  It is the delivery of milestones which leads NASA to believe that they will be able to deliver services.  Suggesting that they produced their manufacturing capabilities "out of nowhere" is to admit to not paying attention to these long brewing developments.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2010 04:20 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #331 on: 12/12/2010 05:26 pm »
Having said that I personally think an EML-1 station is a very good idea as part of a much broader HSF program of BEO exploration. There should be an EML-1 station for human-based missions and a similar station at EML-2 for cargo-based missions. BTW, it has been said, and quite correctly, that once you are docked at EML-2, you are literally halfway to nearly any location in the solar system. It is the perfect location for earth departure and arrival spacecraft on interplanetary missions.

I would like spacestations at both EML-1 and EML-2 but suspect that in the next decade NASA will only be able to afford one.  A deep space probe launched from EML-1 can get to EML-2 with a delta-V of 0.14 km/s.  So with thought one spacestation may be able to do both jobs.

To stop the EML-1 spacestation from becoming an end in its own right mind games could be played.  Reduce its construction from a project in its own right to a milestone on the Moon or Mars mission.  Keep the budget down to say one billion dollars and instruct the managers to buy  as much as possible off the shelf.  Call it the Control Module of the EML propellant depot.

From this side of the pond NASA appears to be under mammoth pressure to build a large rocket.  I am not going to comment on the wisdom of this but the upper stage of the LV can be used as an Earth Departure Stage.

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #332 on: 12/12/2010 08:06 pm »

If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.


Wrong,  Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner.  It is a political manner.  And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too.   And what say we should go back to the moon?
 

Didn't they all work on constellation? Did you think constellation was cost effective and efficient?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39389
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32989
  • Likes Given: 8610
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #333 on: 12/13/2010 06:25 am »
BTW, it has been said, and quite correctly, that once you are docked at EML-2, you are literally halfway to nearly any location in the solar system. It is the perfect location for earth departure and arrival spacecraft on interplanetary missions.

That's not what I learnt from orbital mechanics. You want departure and arrival for interplanetary missions to have as low a perigee to Earth as possible, not way up there at EML-1 or EML-2.

From Zubrin's presentation to the Augustine Committee.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2010 06:33 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #334 on: 12/13/2010 10:47 am »
BTW, it has been said, and quite correctly, that once you are docked at EML-2, you are literally halfway to nearly any location in the solar system. It is the perfect location for earth departure and arrival spacecraft on interplanetary missions.

That's not what I learnt from orbital mechanics. You want departure and arrival for interplanetary missions to have as low a perigee to Earth as possible, not way up there at EML-1 or EML-2.

From Zubrin's presentation to the Augustine Committee.

That map doesn't show EML-1 or 2. They're about 3.8 & 3.5 km/s from LEO respectively, and about 0.75 from either to Mars orbit.

Sure it's slightly more delta-v than from LEO (0.35 km/s), but you get to assemble &/or fuel much closer (in delta-v) to your destination, and have much more frequent departure windows.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2010 10:48 am by kkattula »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #335 on: 12/13/2010 12:16 pm »

If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.


Wrong,  Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner.  It is a political manner.  And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too.   And what say we should go back to the moon?
 

Didn't they all work on constellation? Did you think constellation was cost effective and efficient?

While I flattered by the comment from Happy Martian, I do not expect that to ever become even a possibility.  Besides there are many talented people out there as well.

For tel, my goodness.  That's all I will say because you are not worth any more time. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10986
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1260
  • Likes Given: 725
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #336 on: 12/13/2010 12:48 pm »
Obviously, I don't quite get orbital mechanics:

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Interplanetary

From LEO to Mars Transfer Orbit: 4.3 km/sec
LEO to EML-1: 3.77 km/sec

Steven's chart seems to indicate LEO to Mars surface at 3.9 km/sec?  What is it that I'm not getting here?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #337 on: 12/13/2010 03:42 pm »
Steven's chart seems to indicate LEO to Mars surface at 3.9 km/sec?  What is it that I'm not getting here?

Part of it is that orbital mechanics is too complex to be expressed as a simple table, and part of it is that neither really define their terms. So, they are likely talking about two very different initial LEO orbits (with different inclinations and/or altitudes), and two different transfer trajectories (with different transfer times)...
« Last Edit: 12/13/2010 03:43 pm by simonbp »

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #338 on: 12/13/2010 03:58 pm »
That's not what I learnt from orbital mechanics. You want departure and arrival for interplanetary missions to have as low a perigee to Earth as possible, not way up there at EML-1 or EML-2.

To get from EML1 to a circular LEO orbit takes ~4 km/sec. About .7 km/sec to drop and then a 3.2 circularization burn at perigee.

But with no circularization burn, you're moving 10.8 km/sec at perigee, just under escape. From this speed another .5 km/sec suffices for Trans Mars Insertion.

The path from EML1or2 does exploit the Oberth effect and EML1or2 is much, much closer to Mars than LEO.

Here is a EML1 to LEO:


See how the orbit with an EML1 apogee is moving ~3 km/sec faster than LEO?

Here is LEO to Mars:


and here is EML1 to Mars:
« Last Edit: 12/13/2010 04:19 pm by Hop_David »

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #339 on: 12/13/2010 04:15 pm »
Part of it is that orbital mechanics is too complex to be expressed as a simple table, and part of it is that neither really define their terms. So, they are likely talking about two very different initial LEO orbits (with different inclinations and/or altitudes), and two different transfer trajectories (with different transfer times)...

My models (as well as some other models) assume circular, coplanar orbits. So they ignore the plane changes mandated by inclined orbits. However, plane changes are less expensive when apogee is high, another argument for EML1 and EML2.

Tags:
 

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