Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 300147 times)

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.

Could you explain this comment? Are you claiming it would be 200 years before orbital propellant depots are useful?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 533
Could a 2012 extension be a workable compromise?

I think a stretch, using the remaining tank hardware and spares, is looking pretty likely at this particular moment. Shrinking the gap from 4+ years to 2+ without the costs of re-starting the whole support system sounds like a good compromise.

And as to Andy's point, I'm also very uncomfortable with the alledged Lori Garver comments. It mirrors the Griffin comments about extension back in 2008, which we now know were utterly false.
Garver in fact says the words "at least two-year gap" according to spacepolitics. In that statement, she's acknowledging that Shuttle flight is possible after 2011. This is also a non-trivial difference between "extension" and "restart" particularly from a budgetary perspective.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 04:49 am by Halidon »

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Why would Lori Garver go on the record to say shuttle can't be extended, when we know that's not true. That's troubling to me.
Some people stretch the truth when they start losing an argument they are heavily invested in.  Considering her position it is definitely troubling.

It's all about context and staying on message these days:

Sure there would be a 2 year gap before a new ET could be rolled out. But don't mention the 3 partials that can be completed much sooner.

Sure some orbiter spare parts would take two years to re-order. But don't mention spare parts in stock or that can be swapped from a de-commissioned vehicle.

Sure Shuttle people told her it was too late. But maybe they qualified that in several ways: e.g "... without extra spending", "... because assets are being moved to Constellation" etc.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.

Could you explain this comment? Are you claiming it would be 200 years before orbital propellant depots are useful?

Yeah, I'd be amused to see Simon's explanation too.  Once you've figured out how to transfer cryo propellants on orbit (and store/handle them), it would be pretty easy to modify existing stages to allow refueling.  There are missions that could be enabled within the next 5 years using only demo depots, not even the full-scale thing.

~Jon

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
It does not work like this:
Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration.

You do realise that is not what is being proposed here, don't you?
Hey clb,
I'm a bit confused, which J-xxx version did you mean when you said "One size fits all S-HLV"??


Any generic Super-HLV (yes S-HLV does not stand for Shuttle derived HLV...). But apparently some other posters seem to forget the realities right now. Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now and Ares V IS also proposed to be the exact same thing. People love to forget current realities and just replace them with their favorite paper rockets. Doesn't work. So yes, I was absolutely correct above talking about spiral development vs. Cx and the comment that Cx doesn't propose exactly what I was saying about "one size fits it all" is incorrect.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

P.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.

That's funny...

So the ISS is the same size as it was before, and nothing has been running since? I seem to recall a SARJ failure and a radiator delamination. Now we have a solar array mast issue and a swivel problem.

You're right...no problem waiting for 2012. (rolls eyes) 

You may first want to check out documentation on upmass requirements before making bold assertions here.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.

Could you explain this comment? Are you claiming it would be 200 years before orbital propellant depots are useful?

Yeah, I'd be amused to see Simon's explanation too.  Once you've figured out how to transfer cryo propellants on orbit (and store/handle them), it would be pretty easy to modify existing stages to allow refueling.  There are missions that could be enabled within the next 5 years using only demo depots, not even the full-scale thing.

~Jon

Claims that fuel depots wouldn't revolutionize the way reference missions for deep space would be planed are simply untrue. The fact of the matter is, fuel depots negate the need for Super-HLVs of the 100mt+ nature. As such they have now become a target for those who advocate those large vehicles.

I wonder why people can't stay objective, there are two alternatives here, both are viable alternatives, one involves large rockets and big funding to redo Apollo but won't really work for a Mars mission due to launch costs, the other one uses existing rockets and slight modifications of them and new technology to go to Mars. We need to chose which one we want, but BOTH are viable proposals.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline MP99

Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now

I don't believe that's correct - Orion is intended as a BEO spacecraft.

However, if it's available it can provide support for ISS in the short term. This provides valuable testing with easy aborts and an on-orbit "safe haven" (per post-Columbia Shuttle safety rules) before it is committed to missions where aborts are not possible (trans-Lunar, trans-Mars, etc).

Martin

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now

I don't believe that's correct - Orion is intended as a BEO spacecraft.

However, if it's available it can provide support for ISS in the short term. This provides valuable testing with easy aborts and an on-orbit "safe haven" (per post-Columbia Shuttle safety rules) before it is committed to missions where aborts are not possible (trans-Lunar, trans-Mars, etc).

Martin

Orion IS a "one size fits it all" spacecraft. It was and (at the moment) still is planned to be used for a. ISS flights b. lunar flights c. NEO flights d. Martian flights etc. There are a few modifications to Orion depending on the missions, but it is NOT the spiral development type of development that was originally envisioned in 2004 which I was talking about above which led to my "one size fits it all" comment.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Any generic Super-HLV (yes S-HLV does not stand for Shuttle derived HLV...). But apparently some other posters seem to forget the realities right now. Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now and Ares V IS also proposed to be the exact same thing. People love to forget current realities and just replace them with their favorite paper rockets. Doesn't work. So yes, I was absolutely correct above talking about spiral development vs. Cx and the comment that Cx doesn't propose exactly what I was saying about "one size fits it all" is incorrect.

FWIW, from what I've seen of the debate so far, they are not talking about Ares-V in either of its permutations (8.4 or 10m stretched tank) but a SSET with SSMEs on the bottom to launch an Orion (in other words a J-130).  If this is true, then we're looking at a scalable launcher with IMLEO between 70t and 120t depending on the exact configuration (length of SRM and whether or not an upper stage is fitted and which type).

Given that the wording of the bill refers to NASA having a government-operated system to support ISS until commercial comes proves itself reliable, then I'm thinking that the prime payload would be something analogious to the Orion + SSPDM proposed by the DIRECT team to allow ISS maintenance and resupply.  This isn't just sticking Orion on top of a S-HLV, it is building a CCB-based archetecture with multiple applications.  Building an Ares-V of any kind to launch just Orion to the ISS would be insane and I have no trouble presuming that NASA knows this.  However, using the DIRECT team's proposed psuedo-spiral path would well meet NASA's requirements should this bill become policy.

As Ross pointed out, following this path simply moves fuel depots to after the development of the HLV.  The technology negates the need for the stretch-tank version unless you want direct cargo launch to the Moon and allows for single-launch crew lunar access and NEO missions.  It also allows commercial providers with properly-equipped upper stages to launch heavier cargoes to the Moon too, something that would make a lunar outpost much easier: Instead of just J-24x but also the EELV-Heavies, F-9H and maybe even Ariane-5 launching cargo to the Moon.  I'm pretty sure that with all that capability, landing 1kt on the Moon every year would be possible.

Now, with respect to spacecraft, the situation is somewhat different.  Orion owes much, conceptually, to Apollo.  It is, indeed, a generic orbiter/crew return vehicle.  However, with mission modules, it is adaptable to any number of different applications from Earth-orbiting maintenance missions to, conceivably, Inner Planets flyby/orbiter missions.  Does that make it inferior? Not really.  The problem with spacecraft development (and I noted this over at Space Politics once) is that whilst specialisation can improve efficiency, you also increase cost, as you need to develop different spacecraft for different tasks.  This is what made the original STS plan so unfeasably expensive.  If you maximise the utility of the spacecraft, then you reduce development costs and allow them to be focussed on mission-specific equipment instead of a unique spacecraft for each different application.  This was a guiding common design philosophy from early on in the CEV project.  It is worth noting that, given the presence of mission modules, the Orion will make up less than half of the total crewed spacecraft volume/mass at Earth departure, sometimes a lot less.

So, in conclusion: "One Size Fits All S-HLV" - Definately no.  "One Size Fits All Spacecraft" - Sort-of yes, and, to the degree it is true, not a bad thing.
"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 clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
So, in conclusion: "One Size Fits All S-HLV" - Definately no.  "One Size Fits All Spacecraft" - Sort-of yes, and, to the degree it is true, not a bad thing.

Ben, the question was "spiral development" vs. current proposals. Spiral development means just that, you do one spiral after the other. A S-HLV right now isn't a spiral, it is a jump to the very end. Same thing for Orion, it's not just a LEO vehicle, it's a jump to the end.

There is a reason why spiral development was proposed, the reason is sustainability and costs. You start with little and build on that. Any incarnation of a S-HLV (bet it a DIRECT vehicle or Ares V etc.) would not be spiral development, regardless of whether you build your upper stage in parallel or in sequence. And sorry, the same applies to Orion.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Ben, the question was "spiral development" vs. current proposals. Spiral development means just that, you do one spiral after the other. A S-HLV right now isn't a spiral, it is a jump to the very end.

Debatable.  I consider it a jump to the middle.  Having an Orion launch on, say, an EELV would be a true spiral.  This is simply cutting out the first step.

Quote
Same thing for Orion, it's not just a LEO vehicle, it's a jump to the end.

Once again, debatable.  What you are proposing isn't a spiral, it is a dead end: Build an LEO vehicle and then, later, build a BEO vehicle.  Using Orion means that you start with a BEO vehicle used exclusively in LEO and then later, as you add mission modules to the spacecraft and an upper stage to the LV, you add BEO capability.

Don't forget, on its own, Orion is not a BEO spacecraft except in its ability to tolerate the environment.  It is not until you add specific mission capabilities that it can go beyond Earth orbit and it is not until you add mission modules that it can really perform more than the most nominal missions there.

Quote
There is a reason why spiral development was proposed, the reason is sustainability and costs. You start with little and build on that. Any incarnation of a S-HLV (bet it a DIRECT vehicle or Ares V etc.) would not be spiral development, regardless of whether you build your upper stage in parallel or in sequence. And sorry, the same applies to Orion.

I do not agree with that assessment.  Starting with little is risking ending with little because funding is withdrawn from the next steps because of massive lack of interest.  I merely propose a spiral with a steeper gradient, that is all.


[edit]

Added second paragraph about the nature of Orion.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2010 07:50 am by Ben the Space Brit »
"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 MP99

Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now

I don't believe that's correct - Orion is intended as a BEO spacecraft.

However, if it's available it can provide support for ISS in the short term. This provides valuable testing with easy aborts and an on-orbit "safe haven" (per post-Columbia Shuttle safety rules) before it is committed to missions where aborts are not possible (trans-Lunar, trans-Mars, etc).

Martin

Orion IS a "one size fits it all" spacecraft. It was and (at the moment) still is planned to be used for a. ISS flights b. lunar flights c. NEO flights d. Martian flights etc. There are a few modifications to Orion depending on the missions, but it is NOT the spiral development type of development that was originally envisioned in 2004 which I was talking about above which led to my "one size fits it all" comment.

Orion is not designed for ISS supply.

Early Lunar missions will require short habitation with ~14 day Lunar loiter.

Longer Lunar missions will require short habitation with ~200 day Lunar loiter.

Mars missions will require short habitation with long periods docked to the MTV.

NEO missions may also operate in a similar mode (although dual-docked Orions have also been mentioned).

What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?

Martin

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Orion is not designed for ISS supply.
Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008).

Quote
What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?
The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that?

Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline MP99


Orion is not designed for ISS supply.
Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008).

Quote
What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?
The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that?


??? Confused.

Block II is the exploration version.

Block I is designed to prove various sub-systems in LEO first.

Martin

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Orion is not designed for ISS supply.
Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008).

Quote
What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?
The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that?


??? Confused.

Block II is the exploration version.

Block I is designed to prove various sub-systems in LEO first.

Martin

Block I + II isn't what spiral develop is. Block I + II Orions are the same spacecrafts, only with some slight modifications. Same heatshield, same parachute systems, same everything. It's one big development effort instead of two sequential efforts. Spiral development is about setting a time period (usually 3-4 years) for an effort and getting things done in that time period, then use them and go for the next time period for the next effort.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline MP99


Orion is not designed for ISS supply.
Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008).

Quote
What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?
The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that?


??? Confused.

Block II is the exploration version.

Block I is designed to prove various sub-systems in LEO first.

Martin

Block I + II isn't what spiral develop is. Block I + II Orions are the same spacecrafts, only with some slight modifications. Same heatshield, same parachute systems, same everything. It's one big development effort instead of two sequential efforts. Spiral development is about setting a time period (usually 3-4 years) for an effort and getting things done in that time period, then use them and go for the next time period for the next effort.

OK, I understand that the heatshield for Lunar re-entry has higher requirements than for LEO re-entry. But is this a major overhead for Orion over LEO-optimised & Lunar-optimised versions? I understand the latter will be heavier, and will have some knock-on effect on launch requirements. Other than that, does it cost a lot more to build a Lunar-capable heatshield for LEO ops? Does it add greatly to short-term development costs?

I'd have thought that the parachute system would depend on spacecraft mass rather than whether the earlier re-entry was from LEO or Lunar speeds. I can see that heatshield mass would have some impact here, but again I'd have though not a huge difference.

And once again, the intention here is to test Orion in a benign environment before using it for exploration missions.

I understand that the crew-taxi vehicles are much lighter than Orion, but I'm having trouble seeing how you'd create a "LEO-only" Orion that was half the mass, and yet still tests Orion in a way that's meaningful for the BEO version.

Martin

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0

Orion is not designed for ISS supply.
Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008).

Quote
What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?
The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that?


??? Confused.

Block II is the exploration version.

Block I is designed to prove various sub-systems in LEO first.

Martin

Block I + II isn't what spiral develop is. Block I + II Orions are the same spacecrafts, only with some slight modifications. Same heatshield, same parachute systems, same everything. It's one big development effort instead of two sequential efforts. Spiral development is about setting a time period (usually 3-4 years) for an effort and getting things done in that time period, then use them and go for the next time period for the next effort.

Rather than argue about the meaning of the phrase "spiral  development" (which does mean something specific in my part of the software development world), here's what it meant in this specific context:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/cev02044.xml


Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Block I + II isn't what spiral develop is. Block I + II Orions are the same spacecrafts, only with some slight modifications. Same heatshield, same parachute systems, same everything. It's one big development effort instead of two sequential efforts. Spiral development is about setting a time period (usually 3-4 years) for an effort and getting things done in that time period, then use them and go for the next time period for the next effort.

Ok, I'm with you now. 3-4 years developments, low hanging fruit, etc.

So what you want is:

Spiral 1:  Develop J-130 and Orion, and have them start flying to ISS in 3-4 years. Get some flight experience with both while Spiral 2 is in development.

Spiral 2:  Develop JUS for J-246 and a lander over the next 3-4 years. Start flying sortie missions to the Moon while Spiral 3 is in development.

Spiral 3:  Develop Propellant Depot and Lunar Habitat over the third 3-4 years. Start long duration lunar exploration while Spiral 4 is in development.

Spiral 4:  Develop Deep Space Transfer Vehicle & propulsion over the fourth 3-4 years. Do asteroid & Phobos missions while Spiral 5 is in development.

Spiral 5:  Develop Mars Lander & over the fifth 3-4 years. Do Mars landing while Spiral 6 is in development.

etc.

Yes, I like Spirals too.  :)

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Also, unless there is Congressional buy-in, it doesn't matter whether the plan will work, or not.

Not that getting Congressional buy-in is a guarantee of success either (or we wouldn't be having this discussion).  I'm starting to wonder if the union of "can get congressional buy-in", "can get the budgets necessary", and "will actually work in practice" is actually a null set.

~Jon

I believe you are correct, Jon, about the possibility of a null set.

Archimedes famously said: "Give me a place to stand and I will move the Earth"

There may not be a place to be found within the United States that offers sufficient leverage to align all the necessary pieces to initiate the robust space exploration programs we all desire. The place to stand that offers sufficient leverage to move NASA (together with all the necessary stakeholders) might lie outside the United States.

This is why I advocate deployment of an EML-1 Gateway flagged to and operated by a small neutral power and for that facility to assist every spacefaring nation with the goal of achieving lunar surface access.

U.S. companies can make money selling "flags and footprints" to other nations using that revenue to develop our technology. To crib from General Patton: "Don't pay for space infrastructure only with our tax dollars, persuade other countries pay for our space infrastructure with their tax dollars!"

Anyway, in my opinion, winning ITAR reform and getting non-NASA destinations into LEO as soon as possible is more important than winning a NewSpace monopoly over NASA access to LEO. Don't squabble over how to divvy up NASA funding, work to make a larger pie.

I also assert that a solution which solves for three variables:

"Can get congressional buy-in", plus "at the necessary levels of funding", and "will actually work in practice"

will likely require revenue streams flowing into human spaceflight independent of what we can expect the taxpayers to pay by themselves.

Therefore, fighting with Senators over how to divvy up existing funding will not sufficiently increase funding to allow us to become spacefaring while distracting us from doing what is needful to become spacefaring.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Tags:
 

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