Author Topic: Challenges and Opportunities for Human Space Exploration: April 23rd Hearing  (Read 10266 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
Senate Hearing Link

Apr 23 2013 2:30 PM

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space will hold a hearing titled "Challenges and Opportunities for Human Space Exploration."

Witness Panel 1

Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier
Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lieutenant General Thomas P. Stafford
United States Air Force (Ret.)
Astronaut (Ret.)

Mr. Stephen A. Cook
Director, Space Technologies
Dynetics
« Last Edit: 04/23/2013 06:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 514
It's 2:40 pm Eastern so the hearing should be happening now, but the webcast is showing a replay of a NOAA and Coast Guard hearing from earlier today. Maybe they're running late?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
Cook is talking about commercial BLEO opportunities. He mentions the need for cargo and crew for a lunar outpost. Speaks of mining possibilities: helium 3 and platinum. But says that SLS could be used for that.  He also spoke of Planetary Resources and B612.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2013 07:31 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11646
  • Liked: 3205
  • Likes Given: 1
Ugh. As soon as anybody mentions Helium-3 it's time to change the channel.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11657
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8755
  • Likes Given: 7375
Ugh. As soon as anybody mentions Helium-3 it's time to change the channel.

Nod.

Water is far more valuable than helium-3 OR platinum, at least at the present time in our space infrastructure development.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
Stafford mentions that SLS is essential because it is not possible to use many small rockets because of the boiloff of LH2. 

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
Gerst mentions that you could get a Mars sample and bring it back to a retrograde orbit and eventually retrieve it.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
Hearing is over.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6304
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2515
  • Likes Given: 844
Stafford mentions that SLS is essential because it is not possible to use many small rockets because of the boiloff of LH2.

So I guess that's the new B$ excuse de jour for not following an affordable space exploration plan that actually has any chance of getting us anywhere. I'm getting sick of playing whack-a-mole with lame anti-depot FUD.

To be clear, I'm not trying to insult Stafford, just sort of annoyed at dismissive answers like that when research we've been discussing here on NSF.com over the past several years pretty clearly shows ways of dealing with the problem.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 04/23/2013 11:12 pm by jongoff »

Offline Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 545
Stafford mentions that SLS is essential because it is not possible to use many small rockets because of the boiloff of LH2.

So I guess that's the new B$ excuse de jour for not following an affordable space exploration plan that actually has any chance of getting us anywhere. I'm getting sick of playing whack-a-mole with lame anti-depot FUD.

To be clear, I'm not trying to insult Stafford, just sort of annoyed at dismissive answers like that when research we've been discussing here on NSF.com over the past several years pretty clearly shows ways of dealing with the problem.

~Jon

Agreed. Without overdoing the whole debate, that small sentence is not enough and overlooks all the ideas about hypergolics depots, the Lox-only depots, other fuels or just the heap of giant improvements that can be made to LH2 depots and cooling. Sigh.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2013 11:15 pm by Silmfeanor »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
Stafford mentions that SLS is essential because it is not possible to use many small rockets because of the boiloff of LH2.

So I guess that's the new B$ excuse de jour for not following an affordable space exploration plan that actually has any chance of getting us anywhere. I'm getting sick of playing whack-a-mole with lame anti-depot FUD.

To be clear, I'm not trying to insult Stafford, just sort of annoyed at dismissive answers like that when research we've been discussing here on NSF.com over the past several years pretty clearly shows ways of dealing with the problem.

~Jon

Senator Cruz said that he wanted to explore ways to increase commercial activity in space. But none of the witnesses made any suggestions in that regard.

Stafford said that NASA has always done everything commercially. NASA never builds anything, the work is contracted to commercial companies. He said that a LH2 upper stage stage was essential because of its higher ISP over LOX/RP-1 or solids.

Cook was not entirely clear on what he considers commercial. But he gave Dynetics an example of a commercial company that is successful.
« Last Edit: 04/24/2013 02:46 am by yg1968 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8830
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3832
  • Likes Given: 916
Senator Cruz said that he wanted to explore ways to increase commercial activity in space. But none of the witnesses made any suggestions in that regard.

Stafford said that NASA has always done everything commercially. NASA never builds anything, the work is contracted to commercial companies. [..]

Cook was not entirely clear on what he considers commercial. But he gave Dynetics an example of a commercial company that is successful.

I used to be surprised that answers like this actually worked, but they do. It suggests people who accept these answers didn't really know what they were asking about. When I hear Senator Cruz say he wants to "increase commercial activity in space", I think about activities that don't necessarily involve the government, like communications satellites. Most importantly, I think about activities which are not funded by NASA. To answer this question with a comment about NASA contracting is to completely miss the point.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
I forgot to mention that both Stafford and Cook said that it would be a huge mistake to move away from the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. These witnesses are invited because the Senators know that they will answer what they want to hear. Although to be fair, I think that both Senators Cruz and Nelson are pro-commercial crew and cargo.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6304
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2515
  • Likes Given: 844
Stafford said that NASA has always done everything commercially. NASA never builds anything, the work is contracted to commercial companies.

I have to say that argument is almost as lame as the "if only we had consistent long-term plans with destinations and timetables, commercial companies and VC money would be flocking to support NASA's wise exploration initiatives" logic that Steve Cook was suggesting.

Quote
He said that a LH2 upper stage stage was essential because of its higher ISP over LOX or solids.

I actually agree with this part. I just think that the "we have to use SLS because of boiloff" argument is lame and unsupported FUD. Is boiloff an issue that shouldn't be ignored when dealing with LH2? Of course. Is it some sort of magic showstopper? No. Not anymore than "EELV black zones" were for crew launch.

~Jon

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
Quote
He said that a LH2 upper stage stage was essential because of its higher ISP over LOX or solids.

I actually agree with this part. I just think that the "we have to use SLS because of boiloff" argument is lame and unsupported FUD. Is boiloff an issue that shouldn't be ignored when dealing with LH2? Of course. Is it some sort of magic showstopper? No. Not anymore than "EELV black zones" were for crew launch.

~Jon

What about a methane upper stage as SpaceX is contemplating?

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6304
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2515
  • Likes Given: 844
I forgot to mention that both Stafford and Cook said that it would be a huge mistake to move away from the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. These witnesses are invited because the Senators know that they will answer what they want to hear. Although to be fair, I think that both Senators Cruz and Nelson are pro-commercial crew and cargo.

Congressional hearings are rarely about actually trying to learn and seek honest advice or feedback on plans. They're usually just about lining up yes-men to tell you that what's most politically convenient also happens to have a fig-leaf technical argument to go with it that sounds plausible enough to snow the casual observer.

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6304
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2515
  • Likes Given: 844
What about a methane upper stage as SpaceX is contemplating?

I think that while Methane isn't as bad as storables or solids, I'm not convinced it's actually better than LH2 except in some limited situations (like when you can easily make Methane via ISRU such as on Mars). Especially with XCOR's comments that LH2 doesn't seem to be the Cryogenic Satan Juice that some people make it out to be, my take is that LH2 still makes a lot of sense for in-space large-deltaV-propulsion.

That said, while I think LH2 makes more sense, CH4 isn't as bad as most of the other alternatives, and might even win out in some corner cases.

~Jon

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898
What about a methane upper stage as SpaceX is contemplating?

I think that while Methane isn't as bad as storables or solids, I'm not convinced it's actually better than LH2 except in some limited situations (like when you can easily make Methane via ISRU such as on Mars). Especially with XCOR's comments that LH2 doesn't seem to be the Cryogenic Satan Juice that some people make it out to be, my take is that LH2 still makes a lot of sense for in-space large-deltaV-propulsion.

That said, while I think LH2 makes more sense, CH4 isn't as bad as most of the other alternatives, and might even win out in some corner cases.

~Jon

Doesn't methane have less boiloff?

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 514
Democrats in Science and Space Subcommittee
Bill Nelson - Chairman, Florida
Barbara Boxer - California
Mark Pryor - Arkansas
Amy Klobuchar - Minnesota
Mark Warner - Virginia
Richard Blumenthal - Connecticut
William Cowan - Massachusetts

Republicans  in Science and Space Subcommittee
Ted Cruz - Ranking Member, Texas
Roger Wicker - Mississippi
Marco Rubio - Florida
Dean Heller - Nevada
Dan Coats - Indiana
Ron Johnson - Wisconsin

Witnesses
William Gerstenmaier - NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations
Gen. Thomas Stafford - ex astronaut, e.g. Commander of Apollo–Soyuz mission
Steve Cook - Dynetics Director Space Technologies
« Last Edit: 04/24/2013 12:34 am by deltaV »

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 68
This was a SLS pep rally.

The other side of the argument was never offered or wanted for that matter.

Gerst tiptoed around the question Cruz asked about what hardware is needed to go exploring by pumping up SLS/Orion like it's all NASA needs and then making a small remark about needing a hab to go to Mars, nothing about landers of any kind. Big black mark on him for that one.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6304
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2515
  • Likes Given: 844
What about a methane upper stage as SpaceX is contemplating?

I think that while Methane isn't as bad as storables or solids, I'm not convinced it's actually better than LH2 except in some limited situations (like when you can easily make Methane via ISRU such as on Mars). Especially with XCOR's comments that LH2 doesn't seem to be the Cryogenic Satan Juice that some people make it out to be, my take is that LH2 still makes a lot of sense for in-space large-deltaV-propulsion.

That said, while I think LH2 makes more sense, CH4 isn't as bad as most of the other alternatives, and might even win out in some corner cases.

~Jon

Doesn't methane have less boiloff?

Sure. But boiloff isn't everything. I don't think it's worth contorting a design just because some people are too afraid of the right answer.

~Jon

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8830
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3832
  • Likes Given: 916
Sure. But boiloff isn't everything. I don't think it's worth contorting a design just because some people are too afraid of the right answer.

Now that's getting personal.

Storable propellant depots could be done right now with existing technology. The engines that use storable propellants are available from more suppliers and cost a lot less too.

Boiloff isn't everything, but neither is ISP.

The fact is, NASA's not planning on using either because the goal isn't to actually get into space, go anywhere or do anything.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6304
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2515
  • Likes Given: 844
Sure. But boiloff isn't everything. I don't think it's worth contorting a design just because some people are too afraid of the right answer.

Now that's getting personal.

No, that's me being an opinionated pain in the ***.

Quote
Storable propellant depots could be done right now with existing technology. The engines that use storable propellants are available from more suppliers and cost a lot less too.

Yes, but stages that use cryogenic propellant depots exist right now, while appropriately sized storable propellant stages for human exploration don't. For that matter, demonstrated capability to transfer storable propellants on a scale needed for human spaceflight isn't off the shelf either. I don't think that scaling up storable propellant depots or stages has any real showstoppers, but I also don't think it's really that much easier than finishing the job on proving out cryo propellant transfer technologies.

For satellite fueling/refueling, definitely stick with storables. For refueling small upper stages (like say Launcher One) stick with the propellants they're using. But for manned spaceflight, reuse the stages with all of the experience, and just finish dotting the i's and crossing the t's on cryo propellant storage/transfer.

Quote
Boiloff isn't everything, but neither is ISP.

I totally agree. I think that different mission elements care about different propellant attributes differently. I just happen to think that for manned deep space missions, other than Mars Ascent/Descent, that LH2 deserves serious consideration (and would likely win an honest trade in most cases, especially when ISRU and economics are factored in).

Quote
The fact is, NASA's not planning on using either because the goal isn't to actually get into space, go anywhere or do anything.

Well sure. But admit it--you like pointless academic debates just as much as I do, or you probably wouldn't be here. ;-)

~Jon

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 898

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 361
Quote from: Jon Goff
I made the mistake of reading about a Senate Commerce "hearing" held today [April 23, 2013] regarding NASA’s human spaceflight plans. While some of the points made I actually agree with, one of the witnesses (Steve Cook of Dynetics) made an argument that I think merits some skepticism. The argument, which you’ve likely seen a lot recently, goes like this "If only NASA had a stable long-term exploration program, with established destinations and dates, the private sector would be jumping all over itself to create business plans supporting NASA’s exploration efforts"” At its core, this argument and others like it seem to imply that if only we hadn’t cancelled the Constellation Program, everything would’ve been better.

Wrong. 

That is, wrong in the sense that a stable NASA long-term exploration program would not be only attributed to the Constellation program.

There simply hasn't been a stable NASA long-term exploration program for forty years, so we don't really know how the private sector would have responded to it. 

It's not about Constellation.  It's about NASA's intent to explore.  There is no intent for HSF, therefore there can be no exploration.  The USG has no stated need for HSF.

His article is pretty much spot on, in that:

Quote from: Jon Goff
If Congress really wants commercial industry to more actively engage themselves in NASA’s exploration efforts, and to invest private money in ways that are synergistic with their exploration goals, they could try establishing a realistic long-term plan for NASA that fits within realistic budgets, they could try to seriously work with industry to understand what markets industry sees as viable that are also synergistic with NASA’s exploration desires, and work with them to retire the technological risks that are impeding the commercial development of those markets.

Not much point in me listening to the hearing, is there?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 68
Right now I'd settle for beyond the radiation belts for the next 20 years.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll see even that.

The talk of ISS extension was a bit disheartening. Year long spaceflights in LEO aren't that exciting. It's a safe haven, we already know what zero-g does to the human body.

ISS might be good business for commercial but the bar has to be set higher.

This new asteroid mission is designed so NASA doesn't need to go to deep space so doesn't need a DSH.

I can't help thinking this same thought again.

"Bill Nelson is dreaming of Mars. Is NASA?"

How can they justify SLS without a DSH? NASA doesn't want to go to deep space.

SLS looks like a worse idea every day as I see so many promising new technologies progressing well.

The price gap between commercial and SLS will only widen as time goes on.

When you can get the same amount of total impulse from low ISP fuel to LEO as you can from LH2 in the largest SLS upper stage for a better price without worrying about boil off how does SLS survive?

Is there some way to predict when that will happen?

I think Falcon Heavy will launch around 2015 and be fully operational by around 2017.

As the Falcon Heavy fantasy missions reach fever pitch perceptions might change. Mine certainly does  :D

I'm getting to that 3rd year NSF poster phase.... I still love NASA they just don't look like getting their act together any time soon.

Still waiting for a good reason for SLS and I'm starting to wonder if there's ever going to be one.

I'm still excited about space but I simply can't be a SLS cheerleader any longer. This little pep rally made me realise how fickle the arguments for it's existence really are.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5812
  • Liked: 1309
  • Likes Given: 786
Stafford mentions that SLS is essential because it is not possible to use many small rockets because of the boiloff of LH2. 

My first reaction to this was that Stafford must have just stepped out of a time machine from 1969.  But then I remembered that even in the mid-1960s, people were proposing assembling Saturn V-derived, hydrogen-fuelled stages in orbit to go to Mars.  In other words, even way back then serious people thought the boil-off problem was soluble.

And it's really odd for an SLS supporter to make this argument.  Mars is supposedly SLS's ultimate destination.  Multiple SLS launches would be needed for this.  If a multi-launch lunar mission isn't possible, how can a multi-launch Mars mission be possible?

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Ugh. As soon as anybody mentions Helium-3 it's time to change the channel.

As has been noted long ago, the appropriate substitution is s/Helium 3/snake oil/g .
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 361
Ugh. As soon as anybody mentions Helium-3 it's time to change the channel.

As has been noted long ago, the appropriate substitution is s/Helium 3/snake oil/g .

Nahhh... just change the channel.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11657
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8755
  • Likes Given: 7375
And it's really odd for an SLS supporter to make this argument.  Mars is supposedly SLS's ultimate destination.  Multiple SLS launches would be needed for this.  If a multi-launch lunar mission isn't possible, how can a multi-launch Mars mission be possible?

Easy.. Moon doesn't require SLS, can be done with multiple launches of cheaper (and likely more reliable by then) launchers. Which is bad. Because it's not SLS.[1].

Mars does require SLS[1]. Multiple launches, but they're SLS launches... See the difference???

1 - Or so Stafford thinks
« Last Edit: 04/25/2013 03:01 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4446
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 814
  • Likes Given: 32
Ugh. As soon as anybody mentions Helium-3 it's time to change the channel.

As has been noted long ago, the appropriate substitution is s/Helium 3/snake oil/g .

Nahhh... just change the channel.
Are you sure? I thought it was a "Drink!" moment every time it was mentioned?

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4446
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 814
  • Likes Given: 32
The idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 514
The idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?

From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4446
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 814
  • Likes Given: 32
The idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?

From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?
The "political" incompatibilty seems to be the basis for the conflict, rather than any serious "budget" conflicts but given an "assumption" of conflict in the first place they DO "seem" to be mutually exclusive systems :)

However it is like Jon noted, SLS is going to need technologies like "boil-off" control itself among others that would be useful to either system. So there is a synergy on working both systems at the same time since there is no direct need to "add" items to the budget. As long as the research isn't too "focused" on one specific system more than neccessary it can be applied to others.
About the ONLY "specific" technolgy that isn't something directly related is propellant transfer technologies, and I would argue that this is something with long term benifits we WANT to develop anyway.

The tricky part comes in getting the people who are currently lined up on either side of the "debate" to stop making it a "political" issue and get them to understand there is lots of "value-added" to both sides in developing the technology. The budget can handle a lot of technological research and development as long as it keeps an "open" approach rather than being forced to focus on a single "system" approach as has been the habit in the past.

The problem is short of going to Washington and visiting a lot of people with liberal applications of a "clue-bat" I'm not sure how to convince the necessary parties involved to get out of their ruts and start thinking longer-term instead of short-term :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 774
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 4
The idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?

From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?
The "political" incompatibilty seems to be the basis for the conflict, rather than any serious "budget" conflicts but given an "assumption" of conflict in the first place they DO "seem" to be mutually exclusive systems :)

However it is like Jon noted, SLS is going to need technologies like "boil-off" control itself among others that would be useful to either system. So there is a synergy on working both systems at the same time since there is no direct need to "add" items to the budget. As long as the research isn't too "focused" on one specific system more than neccessary it can be applied to others.
About the ONLY "specific" technolgy that isn't something directly related is propellant transfer technologies, and I would argue that this is something with long term benifits we WANT to develop anyway.

The tricky part comes in getting the people who are currently lined up on either side of the "debate" to stop making it a "political" issue and get them to understand there is lots of "value-added" to both sides in developing the technology. The budget can handle a lot of technological research and development as long as it keeps an "open" approach rather than being forced to focus on a single "system" approach as has been the habit in the past.

The problem is short of going to Washington and visiting a lot of people with liberal applications of a "clue-bat" I'm not sure how to convince the necessary parties involved to get out of their ruts and start thinking longer-term instead of short-term :)

Randy

Randy - in theory, I agree with you, when the issue is labeled as HLV vs depots.  The problem is that the current plan has you locked into a closed system, not an open system.
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5812
  • Liked: 1309
  • Likes Given: 786
The idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?

From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?

And, given that depots are effectively a launch-vehicle multiplier, what foreseeable affordable mission is there that will require a multiplied SLS?

Offline Warren Platts

The idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?

From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?

And, given that depots are effectively a launch-vehicle multiplier, what foreseeable affordable mission is there that will require a multiplied SLS?

With an annual m-dot to LEO of only ~100 mT/year and a cost to LEO in excess of ~$35K/kg, it's hard to think of any such missions....
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Warren Platts

http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/the-elephant-in-the-room/

Quote
While they strained to connect all the dots and make the case for each of these various and sundry activities and programs, it struck me how the witnesses and Senators were feeling around (but not touching) the biggest issue of all:  Why human spaceflight? ...

Now that we sit amongst the smoldering ruins of a once-great space program, perhaps we should take time once again to re-examine this issue from a different perspective.  Just as the barbarian hordes lived in squalor after the fall of Rome because they could not repair the aqueducts built by their predecessors, we gaze at reposing Saturn Vs as strange artifacts of a former golden age, now reduced to tourist attractions ...

This is the elephant in the room: Why should there be a national human spaceflight program?  While this beast is clearly seen by many of us, it appears to be largely invisible to some elected and appointed officials and space experts whose concerns seem to be near-term, and focused solely on how much things cost.

Our space budget will continue to shrink because there is no compelling rationale to fly stunt missions (no matter how skillfully logic is twisted).  To regain our lost footing we must begin with the understanding that becoming a space faring people is the long-term goal, not “Mars” nor the “Quest for Life Elsewhere.”

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 361
There is no intention to fly, Warren.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Warren Platts

I agree, John. As I pointed out in a comment on Dr. Spudis's blog, I think the situation is actually much worse. Obviously, I'm a long-standing proponent of building a cis-lunar, "transcontinental railway" complete with a permanently crewed Lunar research station and more abundant chemical ISRU propellant than we currently know what to do with; but the question of whether we should be doing that or flags 'n' footprints stunt missions to Mars orbit or wherever is moot at this point: we ain't gonna be doin' neither. They had better extend ISS indefinitely, because that's going to be the only game in town for as long as General Bolden Eros V is still alive....
« Last Edit: 04/27/2013 10:49 am by Warren Platts »
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4446
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 814
  • Likes Given: 32
The idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?

From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?
The "political" incompatibilty seems to be the basis for the conflict, rather than any serious "budget" conflicts but given an "assumption" of conflict in the first place they DO "seem" to be mutually exclusive systems :)

However it is like Jon noted, SLS is going to need technologies like "boil-off" control itself among others that would be useful to either system. So there is a synergy on working both systems at the same time since there is no direct need to "add" items to the budget. As long as the research isn't too "focused" on one specific system more than neccessary it can be applied to others.
About the ONLY "specific" technolgy that isn't something directly related is propellant transfer technologies, and I would argue that this is something with long term benifits we WANT to develop anyway.

The tricky part comes in getting the people who are currently lined up on either side of the "debate" to stop making it a "political" issue and get them to understand there is lots of "value-added" to both sides in developing the technology. The budget can handle a lot of technological research and development as long as it keeps an "open" approach rather than being forced to focus on a single "system" approach as has been the habit in the past.

The problem is short of going to Washington and visiting a lot of people with liberal applications of a "clue-bat" I'm not sure how to convince the necessary parties involved to get out of their ruts and start thinking longer-term instead of short-term :)

Randy - in theory, I agree with you, when the issue is labeled as HLV vs depots.  The problem is that the current plan has you locked into a closed system, not an open system.
"Technically" the current plan actually doesn't have us "locked" into anything (other than getting SLS/Orion up and "running" :)) and the system is only "closed" because of "political" rather than "technical" issues.

We're kind-of in an interesting "spot" at present because there is NOT a "directed" goal (Moon, Mars, etc) hanging over our heads which means no "specific" path/system/program has to be laid out and adheared to. However, on the other hand since we do not have that kind of "pressure" that can be understood and/or used towards justification/politics in arriving at a "specific" path/system/program the problem of selling "capability-building" multiple objective infrastructure is exceedingly difficult.

"We" need to sell an "open" system, but in the current political climate that is going to be difficult, if not impossible to do without a REALLY, really good sales pitch.

The idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?

From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?

And, given that depots are effectively a launch-vehicle multiplier, what foreseeable affordable mission is there that will require a multiplied SLS?
None for SLS really, but a large part of that is the very lack of incentive or motivation to have "multiple" SLS missions. It is after all a "big-government-launch-vehicle" that is specifically being built to ensure that "government-employees" will have a "government-vehicle" to launch on, and so that "government-money" flows to the right places to do so. So there is no incentive or support from anywhere to fly the SLS any more often than minumully "needed" to get that result.

So the SLS isn't really a "capability-expanding" system but more exactly what it was supposed to be: A "Shuttle" replacement system. That however does not mean that those in charge of space policy should fall into the rut of "assuming" that SLS should also be the "sole" means of space access for all needs. We have been down that road before and it bit us (and them) in the butt the last time. Even worse from a political/budget perspective SLS is not going to be a very 'fleixable' system and its quite obvious that large scale extensions of its building and flight rate are not going to be supportable.

An "open" system with SLS supported by other launch vehicles is a self enhancing system which allows more flexiabilty at lower cost but this is NOT going to be "self-evident" to the folks inside and outside the government who have fallen for the "SLS-vs-Everthing-else" argument.

If the issue remains defined as being an "either/or" equation then the conclusion ends up being forgone. If it can be redefined and more inclusive the options become easier to see and understand.


And, given that depots are effectively a launch-vehicle multiplier, what foreseeable affordable mission is there that will require a multiplied SLS?

With an annual m-dot to LEO of only ~100 mT/year and a cost to LEO in excess of ~$35K/kg, it's hard to think of any such missions....
Actually it's impossible because the "capability" is far in excess of what the other factors (budget, politics, etc) can handle. That's a major reason why the discussion has to be changed from "either/or" to something else. Something more inclusive and flexiable. If not the current "inertia" will continue...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
The idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?

From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?
The "political" incompatibilty seems to be the basis for the conflict, rather than any serious "budget" conflicts but given an "assumption" of conflict in the first place they DO "seem" to be mutually exclusive systems :)

However it is like Jon noted, SLS is going to need technologies like "boil-off" control itself among others that would be useful to either system. So there is a synergy on working both systems at the same time since there is no direct need to "add" items to the budget. As long as the research isn't too "focused" on one specific system more than neccessary it can be applied to others.
About the ONLY "specific" technolgy that isn't something directly related is propellant transfer technologies, and I would argue that this is something with long term benifits we WANT to develop anyway.

The tricky part comes in getting the people who are currently lined up on either side of the "debate" to stop making it a "political" issue and get them to understand there is lots of "value-added" to both sides in developing the technology. The budget can handle a lot of technological research and development as long as it keeps an "open" approach rather than being forced to focus on a single "system" approach as has been the habit in the past.

The problem is short of going to Washington and visiting a lot of people with liberal applications of a "clue-bat" I'm not sure how to convince the necessary parties involved to get out of their ruts and start thinking longer-term instead of short-term :)

Randy - in theory, I agree with you, when the issue is labeled as HLV vs depots.  The problem is that the current plan has you locked into a closed system, not an open system.
"Technically" the current plan actually doesn't have us "locked" into anything (other than getting SLS/Orion up and "running" :)) and the system is only "closed" because of "political" rather than "technical" issues.

We're kind-of in an interesting "spot" at present because there is NOT a "directed" goal (Moon, Mars, etc) hanging over our heads which means no "specific" path/system/program has to be laid out and adheared to. However, on the other hand since we do not have that kind of "pressure" that can be understood and/or used towards justification/politics in arriving at a "specific" path/system/program the problem of selling "capability-building" multiple objective infrastructure is exceedingly difficult.

"We" need to sell an "open" system, but in the current political climate that is going to be difficult, if not impossible to do without a REALLY, really good sales pitch.

The idea that it is "depot" vs "SLS" and an "either/or" situation has to be changed. Any ideas on how to get that through "peoples" heads?

From an engineering standpoint SLS could presumably use depots, but from a budgetary standpoint they seem incompatible. Where are we going to find the budget to develop SLS, depots, and payloads?

And, given that depots are effectively a launch-vehicle multiplier, what foreseeable affordable mission is there that will require a multiplied SLS?
None for SLS really, but a large part of that is the very lack of incentive or motivation to have "multiple" SLS missions. It is after all a "big-government-launch-vehicle" that is specifically being built to ensure that "government-employees" will have a "government-vehicle" to launch on, and so that "government-money" flows to the right places to do so. So there is no incentive or support from anywhere to fly the SLS any more often than minumully "needed" to get that result.

So the SLS isn't really a "capability-expanding" system but more exactly what it was supposed to be: A "Shuttle" replacement system. That however does not mean that those in charge of space policy should fall into the rut of "assuming" that SLS should also be the "sole" means of space access for all needs. We have been down that road before and it bit us (and them) in the butt the last time. Even worse from a political/budget perspective SLS is not going to be a very 'fleixable' system and its quite obvious that large scale extensions of its building and flight rate are not going to be supportable.

An "open" system with SLS supported by other launch vehicles is a self enhancing system which allows more flexiabilty at lower cost but this is NOT going to be "self-evident" to the folks inside and outside the government who have fallen for the "SLS-vs-Everthing-else" argument.

If the issue remains defined as being an "either/or" equation then the conclusion ends up being forgone. If it can be redefined and more inclusive the options become easier to see and understand.


And, given that depots are effectively a launch-vehicle multiplier, what foreseeable affordable mission is there that will require a multiplied SLS?

With an annual m-dot to LEO of only ~100 mT/year and a cost to LEO in excess of ~$35K/kg, it's hard to think of any such missions....
Actually it's impossible because the "capability" is far in excess of what the other factors (budget, politics, etc) can handle. That's a major reason why the discussion has to be changed from "either/or" to something else. Something more inclusive and flexiable. If not the current "inertia" will continue...

Randy

It ends up that even with the $35K/kg IMLEO cost, a depot is still a cost effective consideration for the HLV architecture.

Five or six HLV flights for a mars trip would boil way ~70,000 kg of prop, so at 35,000/kg = 2.5B, one could break even building a depot for only one mission.

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 114
One thing I don't quite understand about these hearings - what are they for? What is their purpose? So far it sounds like a casual blah-blah-blah without any tangible results...

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 361
A legitimate question, which you already partially answered yourself!
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
One thing I don't quite understand about these hearings - what are they for? What is their purpose? So far it sounds like a casual blah-blah-blah without any tangible results...

In theory, they're held for the purpose of developing information that's relevant to the drafting of legislation. That, in fact, does sometimes happen, but often they're held to show the members' constituents that they're doing something, to stake out or further political positions and agendas, etc.

For my part, I like to think of them as similar to Zen koan. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan

"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1316
    • Klyde Morris dot com
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 11
These hearings are a part of the "process" from which policy is constructed. Without them, people (such as many here) would be barking that ALL of this is being done "behind closed doors." In fact if one follows the process closely, you can learn many things that lead to other things and thus not jump to uninformed conclusions.

What you hear in these sessions is what officially goes into the Congressional record.

It is too bad that we live in a microwave world where everyone expects everything to happen right now and to come out just the way that THEY individually want it to. We also exist in forums where usernames act as if they carry as much weight as the persons actually making the policy... strange times indeed.
« Last Edit: 05/02/2013 02:37 am by zerm »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 361
These hearings are a part of the "process" from which policy is constructed. Without them, people (such as many here) would be barking that ALL of this is being done "behind closed doors." In fact if one follows the process closely, you can learn many things that lead to other things and thus not jump to uninformed conclusions.

What you hear in these sessions is what officially goes into the Congressional record.

It is too bad that we live in a microwave world where everyone expects everything to happen right now and to come out just the way that THEY individually want it to. We also exist in forums where usernames act as if they carry as much weight as the persons actually making the policy... strange times indeed.

There's no legal question at all that the hearing transcripts go into the Congressional Record.

The decision making, however, does go on "behind closed doors", because that's the way the legal system is structured.

The only way an individual voice can be heard is to donate large sums of money to the politicians whom you wish to influence.  Most corporations have more money than individuals, hence, by law, they get to have a louder voice in policy decisions.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1654
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 58
Here is Jon's opinion of the hearing:
http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/04/hobgoblins/

Dick Eagleson posted in that forum his hopes that Musk will be our saviour. Musk is the revolutionary that will overturn the evil SLS empire.

So far as I know, Musk has never subscribed to the depot meme. Like Griffin and Zubrin, he's a BFR to Mars guy. I give Musk's Mars retirement community for dot com billionaires the same odds as Zubrin's colony. In this revolution Musk would be like the pigs in Orwell's animal farm.

There've been some credible ULA advocates for depots. But Boeing is part of SLS and Lockheed is part of Orion. It's not in the interests of ULA's parent companies to back Zegler, Kutter and Barr.

I don't see a commercial revolution changing our direction.

In the testimony they talk about using SLS to land on the moon and lunar resources. Which would be well and good but said resources are He3 and platinum! Doesn't seem like the cold traps are even on their radar screen. I don't think this horse will even cross the starting line, much less the finish line. Seems more like public relations to justify pork.

They've also talked about sending SLS and humans to an asteroid parked in lunar orbit. I don't particularly care for SLS but this would help Planetary Resources. So far as I know Planetary Resources is one of the few players  advocating mining in situ propellant in our neighborhood.

As it now stands I'm undecided whether to call Goff's race-horse Alpo or Elmer's. Planetary Resources offers a chance to get Goff's horse past the finish line. But Jon has been lukewarm to the asteroid mission.

Since I want to see propellant depots I support any NASA efforts that help Planetary Resources.
 
« Last Edit: 05/04/2013 05:49 pm by Hop_David »

Tags: