Author Topic: Report Selects 16 Highest Priorities to Guide NASA's Technology Development  (Read 23580 times)

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 1
It's illuminating to compare the items on the list to those that didn't make the cut.  For example, neither "autonomous rendezvous and docking" nor "low-boil-off cryogenic propellant storage" are on the list.

It is almost as if some of the reviewers were thinking "since NASA has a HLV", this technology is not needed--but both clearly reduce long term costs.

Alternatively, if one removes these two from consideration, however, then long term propellant storage facilities can be designed using *existing* *COTS* hardware so that NASA and *explore* sooner, for example using ISS hardware for a this long term storage propellant facility.   (only cool the LOX, etc)

As NASA shifts towards the depot centric architecture, it is easy to predict the same turf battles will arise again with the same old arguments. 

Stay Tuned!

Stay tuned indeed.  Maybe you should have read the rest of the thread before commenting...  the first two pages would have sufficed...

They're in there.  AR&D is "all over the report", and they specifically recommend an orbital demo of cryogen storage and handling, saying the technology is "close to a tipping point".

As for your middle paragraph, I have no idea what you're trying to say.  These technologies are recommended for near-term maturation to enable deployment, but if they weren't, we could just deploy them now?  This smells of a hidden assumption, and a rather weird one...
« Last Edit: 02/16/2012 08:30 pm by 93143 »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
I did, but was just trying to nudge the topic back to the 16 technologies or other new ones.

They may be "in there", but no too well how fast they can be "outta there".

(with no disrepect intended to the pyrolysis with this bump.  I have some comments on the pyrolysis, just have not had time to post.)

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 1
Okay, yeah, the thread has slid sideways quite a bit...

I still don't get what you mean in that middle paragraph...

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
@ John Fornaro
 As I repeatedly said - the size isn't what's important its the temp that can be achieved. This is dependent on mirror accuracy and size. You can by a 3 ft. fresnel lens and get temps over 3000 F in your backyard. The "StarFire" and "HighDive" solar thermal rocket developments and L'Garde all had concentrators capable of over 4000 F as part of their plans.
 Theory allows much more and AFRL has a 8000 F one. With non-imaging optics sunlight can be concentrated beyond that. Roland Wilson of U. of Chicago authored an article in a Scientific American in 1990 in which it was claimed that the concentration exceeded that at the surface of the Sun.
 If you had a concentrator of 20m dia. - the size of the Spartan-77 it would focus about - 3.14 x 10^2 = 314 m^2 x 1.3 KW/m^2 at 1 A.U. x .9(reflection efficiency) = 367.38 KW thermal
 A bigger concentrator more, a smaller one less, just like a big truck carries more than a small one. If I want to use small trucks to move dirt I suppose someone could point out that larger ones are more efficient but trucks would still be the only logical choice.
 In the same way concentrator specifics are important for a given desired result or mission, but the use of concentrators itself is the only or at least best logical choice.
 You only need to provide a counter example to refute an absolute. The only one provided has been the single word "nuclear" by Jim.
 This is on topic in the sense that nuclear is part of the recommendations.
 If you build and launch a nuclear reactor for power or propulsion - you only have that power to work with. If you can build by ISRU solar concentrators in space - I think by teleoperation in GEO - then the power  you have to work with is essentially unlimited and rapid industrialization becomes possible.
 We need to get beyond missions type thinking and into industrialization. It will happen one day - why not sooner than later?
 Waiting on a major government push to develop Lunar resources is something for the next generation if ever. Already more than 40 years has passed and we don't even have a base on the Moon.
 Does anyone here think anything will come of this report that changes that?
 Another alternative is for a private company to define the tech to minimize initial investment and aggressively use ISRU while earning revenue by OTV work and in space spacecraft manufacture at first and develop other revenue streams going forward.
 Minimize investment maximize return and use revenues to expand -  using ISRU to the greatest extent practical.

Steve   

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 361
@ John Fornaro
 As I repeatedly said - the size isn't what's important its the temp that can be achieved. This is dependent on mirror accuracy and size.

Steve:  I simply don't get what you are trying to prove.  Of course, temperature is important, and higher temps allow more flexibilty in the processes that can be considered.  But now you're presenting one of those pesky "absolutes": "Size isn't what's important".  Believe me, I'm quite into the solar concentrator concept, and have presented a number of ideas on this forum if you care to check my posting history.

Quote
We need to get beyond missions type thinking and into industrialization. It will happen one day - why not sooner than later?

Of course, industrialization is exactly what I've been pushing for over the last couple of years, but it's not very productive for me to say this sort of thing over and over.  It's very easy to say, but the details of any implementation are overwhelmingly complex.  Your notion of getting "beyond missions type thinking" starts sounding like a POG argument.  I'll read your comments from time to time.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Solman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 9
@ John Fornaro
 As I repeatedly said - the size isn't what's important its the temp that can be achieved. This is dependent on mirror accuracy and size.

Steve:  I simply don't get what you are trying to prove.  Of course, temperature is important, and higher temps allow more flexibilty in the processes that can be considered.  But now you're presenting one of those pesky "absolutes": "Size isn't what's important".  Believe me, I'm quite into the solar concentrator concept, and have presented a number of ideas on this forum if you care to check my posting history.

Quote
We need to get beyond missions type thinking and into industrialization. It will happen one day - why not sooner than later?

Of course, industrialization is exactly what I've been pushing for over the last couple of years, but it's not very productive for me to say this sort of thing over and over.  It's very easy to say, but the details of any implementation are overwhelmingly complex.  Your notion of getting "beyond missions type thinking" starts sounding like a POG argument.  I'll read your comments from time to time.

 I have read your comments re solar concentrators. Someone else may prefer larger ones than you mention or smaller. Both will work. Being specific in engineering detail is great but at the end of the day other considerations may mean significant changes from what one initially proposes.
 Considerations in the case of STOTV's with mining/refining capability include the desire for mass production of the initial units produced on the ground and launched and those follow-on vehicles assembled in GEO from dead sat parts and melted down parts for 3D printing along with parts produced on the ground. The former need to be small - the size of one of those 3 cubesat packages perhaps while the in space manufactured ones should be much larger for economies of scale.
I am not "just saying" industrialization of space I'm providing a plan in broad outline admittedly, but fairly specific tech - the illustration is intended to show a teleoperated spider-like robot able to move a solar furnace, solar thermal rocket engine, solar PV into and out of the focus of a solar concentrator mirror. How much more specific should I be knowing that engineers would probably make changes over the course of development?
 I thought of the old "teach a man to fish analogy" - fly a specific mission or learn to build spacecraft in space using mostly what's there.

 Steve

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 361
...I am not "just saying" industrialization of space I'm providing a plan in broad outline admittedly, but fairly specific tech ...

Interesting...
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags: