-
#40
by
JonClarke
on 11 Jan, 2006 08:12
-
Since the Mars mission plans (such as they are, which isn't much) don't mention ISRU, maybe the PTB consider that dropping methane from the options isn't going matter much anyway.
Jon
-
#41
by
lmike
on 11 Jan, 2006 09:38
-
True. Oh, well... The Moon recommendations do mention some (lunar) ISRU items. Section 13, para 13-4, table 10-1. Items 40 through 46. Oxygen and Hydrogen production seem to be the primary goals. Life support as well as propellants. These still are goals, aren't they? (not dropped?)
-
#42
by
stargazer777
on 11 Jan, 2006 09:38
-
Griffin is doing the only thing he can to keep this program alive and moving. This CEV propellant issue is just the first of many hard and fast decisions he will have to make. He is going to be a very unpopular fellow with many NASA constituencies before this is over. He is like an ER doctor with a dying patient -- he is going to have to take risks and be ruthless and laser like in his focus on saving this patient and the program. That is where O'Keefe was a catastrophe as NASA Administrator. Griffin's architecture for this program is inspired. Not because it is sleek and futuristic, it certainly is not, but because it come from a fundamental understand that the key is to get something up and flying ASAP and to get to the Moon as soon as possible after that. As much as anything, this country has a massive lack of self confidence in the manned space program. The only cure is (pardon the baseball metaphore) getting men on base. You don't have to hit home runs to score, but you can't score without men on base. He also knows that his funding problem in shifting NASA from the ISS/Shuttle focus to the exploration plan is closely shadowed by a huge timing problem. The CEV needs to be done by the end of the Bush Administration and the Lunar lander and HLV need to have made dramatic progress toward becoming a reality. That is perhaps the only thing that will prevent a future president, regardless of their political party, from canceling or radically scaling back the whole thing. Zubrin believes, and I must say I find him persuasive, that if we cut our losses on the shuttle and ISS and went full funding on the exploration program -- build the HLV and the other necessary equipment -- we could be ready to go by 2009. I think that is the only way to win this thing.
-
#43
by
possum
on 11 Jan, 2006 12:02
-
stargazer777 - 11/1/2006 4:38 AM
The CEV needs to be done by the end of the Bush Administration and the Lunar lander and HLV need to have made dramatic progress toward becoming a reality. That is perhaps the only thing that will prevent a future president, regardless of their political party, from canceling or radically scaling back the whole thing. Zubrin believes, and I must say I find him persuasive, that if we cut our losses on the shuttle and ISS and went full funding on the exploration program -- build the HLV and the other necessary equipment -- we could be ready to go by 2009. I think that is the only way to win this thing.
There is no way that a manned CEV flight could occur before 2011, which is doubtful in itself. The infrastructure modifications at KSC alone will take 5 years or more, and this can't even begin until the launch vehicle has reached PDR. There is no money to accelerate this effort. All the money in the world could not fly a manned CEV by 2009. Even if the hardware and infrastructure were done tomorrow, the software would take forever. My early prediction is the software is going to be the long pole in this tent.
As for methane/LH2/hypergols for propellant, it will be hypegols. It ALWAYS is hypergols. Every program ever conceived starts out with grandiose ideas about getting rid of hypergols, but in the end, we always end up with hypergols. It's what we have, it's what we know, and no amount of safety issues, or ISP issues, or ISRU issues is going to spare us the nightmare of another 3 decades of ground processing with hypergols. Bet your paycheck on it, it will be hypergols. There is no other operationally proven thruster, not CH4, not LH2, nothing but hypergols. It's long-term storage properties will outweigh other considerations in the end. ISRU production of propellants will take decades to develop and will cost tens of billions of dollars. It will be cheaper to launch fleets of fuel depots at $10,000 per pound than to develop and deploy such technology.
I don't mean to sound cynical, but I can't help it. I've seen too many grandiose plans never make it off the PowerPoint charts. As for Exploration, it is here to stay regardless of who is President or in control of Congress. The Shuttle must go away, everyone knows that. And the only thing we can do to replace it is what we are currently pursuing. The only other option is to do nothing and give up on manned space flight, that is not going to happen either. So, I strongly believe that we will do what is in the ESAS report, but as all NASA programs turn out, to a much lesser degree. But we will go back to the moon, we will have a lunar base on a much smaller scale (think early Space Station Freedom concepts vs. what we have today), and we will plant flags and footprints on Mars (but will not build a base there). By this time it will be 2040 and private enterprise will have started to commercialize human access to space for real. And then the real exploitation of the Moon and Mars will begin.
-
#44
by
CuddlyRocket
on 11 Jan, 2006 13:12
-
rmathews3 - 11/1/2006 1:02 PM
There is no other operationally proven thruster, not CH4, not LH2, nothing but hypergols.
The LOX/Methane engine on the CEV was to be used for EOI from lunar orbit, it has a seperate RCS system. For replacing this engine, how about LOX/Kerosene, as used on the Soyuz? Or perhaps LOX/Alcohol? Are there any existing US engines of the right size, or perhaps a design could be licensed from the Russians (not unknown) or someone else?
-
#45
by
Dobbins
on 11 Jan, 2006 14:10
-
The dropping of the Methane and the related story of not enough funds for Astronomy are part of a fundamental problem that NASA has had for some time, the agency is underfunded. NASA's funding peaked at almost 6 Billion dollars in FY 1966, almost 35 Billion dollars adjusted for inflation. Even that level of funding wouldn't allow NASA to do the kinds of things it did 40 years ago. In 1966 they didn't have two horribly expensive legacy programs to run while developing the Apollo program. Gemini was dirt cheap compared to the ISS and the STS programs. NASA also didn't have to face the morass of federal regulations that drive up their costs along with the costs of the vendors they buy from. One example is KSC itself, present day environmental laws would made the construction of launch complex 39, the crawlerway, and the VAB far more expensive than they were back in the 1960s if they didn't stop it altogether.
Another basic problem is the big project mentality. Things like the ISS or the VentureStar projects get most of NASA's attention instead of smaller projects. Dan Goldin recognized this but his cheaper, faster, better concept was the wrong answer to the problem, it just led to little one shot programs. NASA needs to look to it's past as the NACA for a development concept. The NACA airfoils are a prime example, an aircraft designer could select the performance traits he needed and simply select an airfoil design "off the shelf". Instead of sinking large amounts of money into a big project with lots of gadgets like the VentureStar NASA should have developing things like non-hypergolic thrusters and new design engines that could be used "off the shelf" on any future spaceship.
Decades of big project thinking resulted in one project after another getting canceled when the budget got tight, now we are facing the result. A Shuttle that is far past it's design lifetime (10 years) and having to start yet another big underfunded project to replace it. We don't have much choice here, we can't afford to keep flying the Shuttles forever. What we have to do is use as much existing technology as possible, and that means a replacement that is full of "old fashioned" technology instead of newer items that aren't on the shelf ready to use because of past mistakes.
The new design is modular, one of it's strongest points. That means it's going to be far easier to update it as new technology becomes available than it was to update the shuttle. The key point is making sure that new technology is developed instead of setting off on some new grand project after the ESAS becomes operational. We need revolutionary parts that can be fitted into ESAS modules in an evolutionary way instead of trying to develop some grand new revolutionary projects. We also need the funds to pay for those new systems that can be part of upgraded modules. In 1966 NASA not only got a bigger budget than it gets now, it got a far larger percentage of the federal budget, close to 5% of federal spending went to NASA. There is no way in Hell that NASA is going to get that large a percentage of the money Washington spends in the foreseeable future, but I do think it will be possible to get more funding if we are realistic about it. In the short term something like 1%, a penny out of every dollar is a realistic goal. By short term I mean within the next few years, not the FY 2007 budget. Achieving that goal will require a lot of grassroots effort by space advocates inside the USA.
-
#46
by
Justin Space
on 11 Jan, 2006 15:19
-
Thing is the Shuttles can't be retired until the ISS is has the elements it has commitments to. So why doesn't Griffin go to Congress and say "Money now or your space program's going to implode"?
-
#47
by
Martin FL
on 11 Jan, 2006 15:44
-
Justin Space - 11/1/2006 10:19 AM
Thing is the Shuttles can't be retired until the ISS is has the elements it has commitments to. So why doesn't Griffin go to Congress and say "Money now or your space program's going to implode"?
There's no money. NASA is pretty fortunate to have gotten what it has over the next year and projections.
They key for me would be to find a way out of international commitments on tthe ISS, but I assume they've already tried that.
-
#48
by
rsp1202
on 11 Jan, 2006 16:32
-
There were plans afoot during the Goldin and O'Keefe tenures that specified developing this wide technology base first and then seeing where they could take us outbound. It didn't get very far along before being pushed aside by the current plan, which is back to mission-first/technology-after. Money changes everything.
This budget vs. plan struggle is space exploration by lowest common denominator. Griffin is caught between "a rocket a hard place," and facing another administration and congress with too few real space advocates. In my worst imaginings I see the situation being compromised into a CEV stuck in LEO, with little of the shuttle's capabilities, with the only remaining fight being over whether an orbital tug and/or advanced launcher gets funded in less than two decades.
-
#49
by
Chris Bergin
on 11 Jan, 2006 16:45
-
"Caught between a rocket a hard place" - note to self, future headline must
-
#50
by
HarryM
on 11 Jan, 2006 16:46
-
I also imagine it will be hypergols. I hope it is hypergols (or some other storable propellant) not LOX/H2, in the latter case any hope of extended (weeks-long) lunar missions will be gone. It will be Apollo minus the Steroids and a dead-end in terms of long-term exploration. And once something is built and functional it becomes very hard to go back and get money to change it, even for the better, in terms of changing it to LOX/Methane or whatever. Like the 5 segment SRBs or a Liquid Flyback Booster option for STS. "It works now, right? Why do we need to spend more money on it? What did ya'll do wrong? You guys at NASA can't get anything right in the first place..."
-
#51
by
simonbp
on 11 Jan, 2006 17:09
-
Considering all the mass studies for ESAS were based around a CH4/LOX SM, wouldn't hypergolics mean a larger SM and lander, meaning larger upper stages for both the CLV and HLLV?
Simon
-
#52
by
Dobbins
on 11 Jan, 2006 17:49
-
In the short term the SM won't be any problem with hypergolics, getting to and from LEO isn't going to need the capabilities that a lunar mission will require. The mass problem won't rear it's head until we get to the lunar missions.
-
#53
by
NASA_LaRC_SP
on 11 Jan, 2006 17:56
-
LOX/Methane is changeing to LOX/LH2. Heard this from four people involved with the current design stages just today.
-
#54
by
hyper_snyper
on 11 Jan, 2006 18:04
-
Is there any word on how this will affect the schedule or anything else?
-
#55
by
HarryM
on 11 Jan, 2006 18:19
-
-
#56
by
NASA_LaRC_SP
on 11 Jan, 2006 18:34
-
hyper_snyper - 11/1/2006 1:04 PM
Is there any word on how this will affect the schedule or anything else?
There really isn't anything past the ESAS report's graph of a schedule. The downselect may help bring in clarification, but understand I'd love to be positive, I just can't as there's more information on the timeline and systems on websites like this than there is with the actual people that are sat on their hands waiting for someone to tell them to go build systems.
-
#57
by
Dobbins
on 11 Jan, 2006 18:44
-
NASA_Langley_spammer - 11/1/2006 1:56 PM
LOX/Methane is changeing to LOX/LH2. Heard this from four people involved with the current design stages just today.
Good. I'd rather deal with the storage problems of LH2 than with the toxicity problems of hypergolics. Even if we had stuck with Methane we would still have to deal with LOX storage just like we will with a LH2/LOX engine, so that means one less problem to deal with if it becomes possible to go back to Methane in a future design.
-
#58
by
Tap-Sa
on 11 Jan, 2006 19:03
-
HarryM - 11/1/2006 9:19 PM
Oh, well. Maybe an RL-60?
No need for thrust that high. If it's really going to be LH2 then it may be that SM and both the LSAM descent and ascent stages will utilize the same ~15000lbf RL-10 derivative.
I sure hope it's LH2, then lunar ISRU is back on map and actually even better than before since O/F ratio will be higher than methane would have. (Thinking LOX extraction from regolith here)
-
#59
by
HarryM
on 11 Jan, 2006 19:40
-
My concern would be the CEV in lunar orbit boiling off it's LH2, then you'd have to haul it up from lunar surface in a long-stay ISRU scenario.
