Author Topic: Manned Version of Discovery  (Read 8844 times)

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 5
Manned Version of Discovery
« on: 09/18/2011 03:43 am »
The SLS's proposed glacial launch scale leads me to wonder if it's time to rethink manned spaceflight and adapt the underlying concepts of the Discovery program.

Discovery was designed to recreate the spirit of the 1960's, when space probes were being launched regularly, as opposed to very expensive multui-billion dollar missions launched every few years.  GRAIL is the latest example.  So far, it seems to have worked.

The SLS shows NASA going to that extreme in manned space, building something big that launches so infrequently it's ridiculous.  (Hopefully, that can change.)  In contrast, Gemini had ten flights in 20 months.  Apollo landed on the moon 6 times in 3 years.  We should be able to do just as well today, given the Space Shuttle flew 130 times in 30 years, and that technology is used in SLS.

A vigorous launch schedule might start with a relatively simple capsule on the most efficient rocket for the job.  It could be Falcon Heavy.  It could be SLS.  It could be Atlas V Heavy.  But the point would be frequent missions Beyond Earth Orbit.  Putting something at L1 might be a start.  The capsule could be Orion, or a beafed up CST-100, dragon, even a reincarnated Gemin. 

The point is we've become so wrapped up in HOW to do this we've lost sight of WHAT.  The principles underlying Discovery give a road map for a vigorous, high-frequency manned program to replace or compliment what is already in the works. 
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline MP99

Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #1 on: 09/18/2011 10:08 am »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Discovery

Think you need to rename your thread!

cheers, Martin

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #2 on: 09/18/2011 12:00 pm »
The SLS's proposed glacial launch scale leads me to wonder if it's time to rethink manned spaceflight and adapt the underlying concepts of the Discovery program.



Not feasible.  Costs are too high for the little return on the missions you propose.  There is nothing a manned craft can do at L1 by itself worthwhile

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #3 on: 09/18/2011 12:02 pm »
In contrast, Gemini had ten flights in 20 months.  Apollo landed on the moon 6 times in 3 years.


Not valid points.  Gemini was in LEO and learning spaceflight, there is no equivilent tasks in BEO.

Apollo had unlimited budget, the opposite of the Discovery program

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #4 on: 09/18/2011 12:03 pm »

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • England
  • Liked: 336
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #5 on: 09/18/2011 12:22 pm »
Frequent manned missions and the development of the SLS are incompatible.  The US government wants a super-heavy lift rocket to retain leadership in space exploration, it has the funds to define an exploration scenario that requires its BFR.  Frequent BEO exploration is demonstrably possible without it but it's not going to happen from NASA. 

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #6 on: 09/18/2011 02:11 pm »
Frequent manned missions and the development of the SLS are incompatible ....

SLS's boosters and core stage use space shuttle hardware, and the shuttle flew several times a year.  SLS should be able to fly at least that often.

Quote
..... The US government wants a super-heavy lift rocket to retain leadership in space exploration .....

And, to be fair, it was an element in many options from Augustine comittee.

Quote
.... it has the funds to define an exploration scenario that requires its BFR.  Frequent BEO exploration is demonstrably possible without it but it's not going to happen from NASA. 

NASA could do it if it wanted to and started from what and not how.  It already did it with Discovery.  Start with the principles. 

"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #7 on: 09/18/2011 02:32 pm »

NASA could do it if it wanted to and started from what and not how.  It already did it with Discovery.  Start with the principles. 



No, it couldn't. 
Discovery principles were low cost, that and SLS missions are mutually exclusive.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #8 on: 09/18/2011 02:33 pm »

SLS's boosters and core stage use space shuttle hardware, and the shuttle flew several times a year.  SLS should be able to fly at least that often.


No, it can't, there are no payloads for that flight rate

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #9 on: 09/19/2011 03:59 am »

NASA could do it if it wanted to and started from what and not how.  It already did it with Discovery.  Start with the principles. 



No, it couldn't. 
Discovery principles were low cost, that and SLS missions are mutually exclusive.



I said SLS was one of the boosters they could use.  The goal is flight rate.  And lowER costs compared to recent manned programs would be good.
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #10 on: 09/19/2011 04:01 am »

SLS's boosters and core stage use space shuttle hardware, and the shuttle flew several times a year.  SLS should be able to fly at least that often.


No, it can't, there are no payloads for that flight rate

Yes, there's one payload: Orion.  With the basic design validated 40 years ago, we don't need to spend another five years "developing" it.  But that is getting away from my original point.
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #11 on: 09/19/2011 04:47 am »
This is a good idea, *in theory* but it implies a desire that is not there-- ie the desire for a rapid pace in exploration and numerous missions. 

All the evidence points to the contrary. 

I pointed this out in the DIRECT threads when low cost claims were based on unrealistic flight rates-- oh, the hardware and infrastructure could support such flight rates (though having payloads for all of them seemed doubtful) but there was no DESIRE on the part of NASA for such flight rates. 

You can't predicate the program on what you WANT to see, but only on what the PTB actually plan on doing...

IMHO... OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #12 on: 09/19/2011 07:58 am »
The SLS's proposed glacial launch scale leads me to wonder if it's time to rethink manned spaceflight and adapt the underlying concepts of the Discovery program.

Discovery was designed to recreate the spirit of the 1960's, when space probes were being launched regularly, as opposed to very expensive multui-billion dollar missions launched every few years.  GRAIL is the latest example.  So far, it seems to have worked.

The SLS shows NASA going to that extreme in manned space, building something big that launches so infrequently it's ridiculous.  (Hopefully, that can change.)  In contrast, Gemini had ten flights in 20 months.  Apollo landed on the moon 6 times in 3 years.  We should be able to do just as well today, given the Space Shuttle flew 130 times in 30 years, and that technology is used in SLS.

A vigorous launch schedule might start with a relatively simple capsule on the most efficient rocket for the job.  It could be Falcon Heavy.  It could be SLS.  It could be Atlas V Heavy.  But the point would be frequent missions Beyond Earth Orbit.  Putting something at L1 might be a start.  The capsule could be Orion, or a beafed up CST-100, dragon, even a reincarnated Gemin. 

The point is we've become so wrapped up in HOW to do this we've lost sight of WHAT.  The principles underlying Discovery give a road map for a vigorous, high-frequency manned program to replace or compliment what is already in the works. 

".....For the first time, scientists and engineers were called on to assemble teams and design exciting, focused planetary science investigations that would deepen the knowledge about our solar system.


As a complement to NASA's larger “flagship” planetary science explorations, the Discovery Program goal is to achieve outstanding results by launching many smaller missions using fewer resources and shorter development times. The main objective is to enhance our understanding of the solar system by exploring the planets, their moons, and small bodies such as comets and asteroids. The program also seeks to improve performance through the use of new technology and broaden university and industry participation in NASA missions."
http://discovery.nasa.gov/program.cfml

A Manned Version of Discovery, could mean something independent of “flagship” Manned exploration.
It could be something like explorer/astronauts are given a mission- do manned mission beyond LEO for less than 1 billion dollars. The explorer decide how where and how it's done. The program ends when they spend the 1 billion dollars. They aren't given 1 billion dollars to spend, instead they assigned to task of doing it, and under that program they get congress add whatever money is needed per year to be added to NASA budget, the cost of this program and all money spent ends once 1 billion dollars is spent, whether, it's 100 million per year for 5 year or 1 million for 5 years and 995 million in 6th year. Of course to get any year funding they need it needs to be added to that year's budget. 
« Last Edit: 09/19/2011 08:10 am by gbaikie »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #13 on: 09/19/2011 01:57 pm »

NASA could do it if it wanted to and started from what and not how.  It already did it with Discovery.  Start with the principles. 



No, it couldn't. 
Discovery principles were low cost, that and SLS missions are mutually exclusive.



I said SLS was one of the boosters they could use.  The goal is flight rate.  And lowER costs compared to recent manned programs would be good.


Flight rate is a meaningless goal in itself.  The lower costs of Discovery program were used to achieve a higher rate.

Flying something for the sake of flying more often is useless.

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #14 on: 09/19/2011 02:39 pm »
Yes, there's one payload: Orion.  With the basic design validated 40 years ago, we don't need to spend another five years "developing" it. 

Orion isn't the Apollo CM. It has the same shape, but it is a different vehicle made of different materials assembled with different methods. It does require some significant development.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #15 on: 09/19/2011 05:43 pm »
Discovery class missions are cost capped to $425 million this mean you can't use SLS as just the LV would eat the whole 425 million.
Orion also is too expensive I don't have an exact cost but it's tied to flight rates and $200M per copy was the lowest estimate I seen.

But you definitely could do some interesting manned missions for that cost but your choices are going to be limited to one the CCDEV vehicles.
Soyuz could be procured within the budget as well but I think the international red tape involved would end up causing delays and cost overruns.

Dragon could be sent on a lunar flyby or just about any of the commercial vehicles could carry a LEO science payload for that.

A GEO comsat servicing mission demonstration using one of the commercial vehicles probably could be done within a Discovery class budget.

Though most of these examples are just technical demonstrations vs exploration.
« Last Edit: 09/19/2011 05:48 pm by Patchouli »

Offline mikegro

  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Columbus, OH
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #16 on: 09/19/2011 11:32 pm »
Remember: In theory, BEO missions supported by SLS and Orion (plus future exploration elements yet to be developed) will probably rack up far more in-space time compared to the Space Shuttle (and Apollo+Skylab+ASTP) over 30 years.  So, yes, there will be fewer launches per year because the missions themselves may last a year or more!  And that's just crewed time in-space.  If you start talking about cargo/logistics launches sent up ahead of the crew it would be even (probably quite a bit) longer.  We could be talking about a single mission that lasts a few years from first cargo launch to crew return to Earth.  Obviously we won't see missions that long at first (SLS-1 and 2 should only last about as long as Apollo 13 did) but eventually we could see a Mars mission that has people away from Earth on a single mission for up to 2 years.

The GOAL is Mars.  The Moon and L-points along with NEOs are increasingly difficult and longer duration missions that add complexity as well (along with giving us a chance to test out the new exploration elements).  SLS and Orion will be integral to these missions and looking only at the notional launch manifest of the heavy lift vehicle is extremely short-sighted.

I've attached the HEFT presentation from September, 2010.  It shows the current thinking surrounding a heavy lift vehicle and what types of missions could be supported by it (along with the types of exploration elements and technology that still need to be developed).
Part time F-16 and KC-135 Crew Chief, full-time spaceflight enthusiast!

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 935
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #17 on: 09/20/2011 05:35 pm »
This is indeed an interesting thread and worthy of serious thought and discussion.

There are human missions that could be done cheaply (as compared to SLS missions) that would advance the cause of creating a permanent human presence in space.  In fact there are missions that would be worth attempting, for which the resource commitment of an SLS launch would be a waste of money.

Someone mentioned a Geosynchronous Satellite repair mission.  This strikes me as a great opportunity, not only for a manned effort but to be done in partnership with an unmanned effort where the human team on-site could immediately evaluate the positioning, movement, performance, etc of the automated system.  Such a partnership could also test out multiple teleoperation modes in direct comparison with how spacewalkers baseline the same repair/modification.  It would demonstrate deep space tracking and rendezvous techniques as well.

What other missions might fit this profile?
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #18 on: 09/20/2011 05:42 pm »


Someone mentioned a Geosynchronous Satellite repair mission.  This strikes me as a great opportunity, not only for a manned effort but to be done in partnership with an unmanned effort where the human team on-site could immediately evaluate the positioning, movement, performance, etc of the automated system.  Such a partnership could also test out multiple teleoperation modes in direct comparison with how spacewalkers baseline the same repair/modification.  It would demonstrate deep space tracking and rendezvous techniques as well.

What other missions might fit this profile?

Not worth the effort or cost.  Neither is the test mission.  It can be done in LEO anyways. 

No need for deep space tracking and rendevous testing, we have the know-how.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Manned Version of Discovery
« Reply #19 on: 09/20/2011 05:47 pm »
I just stumbled across this thread. The whole premise is, well, ludicrous. It is based upon a hazy and incorrect impression of what the Discovery program is.

First and foremost, Discovery is COMPETED.

Second, Discovery is a science program, with open objectives (meaning that any science team can propose their own science objectives).

Third, Discovery is cost-capped.

Fourth--and this should not be understated--Discovery is a SMALL PROGRAM.

You cannot really replicate Discovery at a much higher level. The next level up in planetary programs is New Frontiers, and there the rules are slightly changed. For example, the goals are selected by the scientific community from a list (it's a strategically selected mission). There's a reason for that: the assumption that because the winner will get a billion dollars in federal funds, they should not have as much freedom to simply do what they want.

There's a lot more as well, but that's for starters.

Tags:
 

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