-
#100 by yg1968 on 12 Jan, 2010 00:38
-
What do you mean by ISS2?
-
#101 by Jim on 12 Jan, 2010 00:41
-
1. Try the opposite. When the ISS is deorbited the development money is transferred from LV development to ISS2 development.
2. Even if the new spacestation is rented the operations money has to come from somewhere.
1. There isn't going to be an ISS2
2. It will between 2 and 3 magnitudes cheaper. NASA can pay by the experiment vs paying for a whole station -
#102 by A_M_Swallow on 12 Jan, 2010 00:43
-
What do you mean by ISS2?
Some sort of NASA operated manned LEO space station. There are 10 years to work out the details. -
#103 by yg1968 on 12 Jan, 2010 00:48
-
From the looks of this presentation, it seems that they would bring the space habitat with them to the asteroid, etc. Spending six months on Orion would be impossible for the astronauts.
-
#104 by kraisee on 12 Jan, 2010 01:29
-
Correct.
kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists. Won't work out. Never has.
Analyst
Speaking for myself, kraisee is just talking to the scientists involved in the various NASA projects underway over the last few years and integrating what they're asking for into a better, more thoroughly thought-out plan than he has seen anywhere else to date.
And kraisee is also wondering exactly where you were in the room during these discussions, in order to be able to claim to speak with any authority about any of them? Oh, that's right: You weren't in the room and didn't take part. Never mind then...
Ross. -
#105 by Lambda-4 on 12 Jan, 2010 07:34
-
Same goes for any missions with volume and/or mass constraints.
I am not aware of any currently funded unmanned mission that has a volume and/or mass constraint in so far that there isn't an existing launch vehicle available that fits the payload. Can you give an example of what you mean? I only know of budgetary constraints when it comes to choosing a launch vehicle for a mission.
JIMO is an example of an unmanned mission that was funded, was too big for an existing launch vehicle, and was canceled, in part, because of the need for on-orbit assembly (and being "too ambitious"). The link is to Wiki, so not authoritative, just by way of example. JIMO is something you could have flown on a single HLLV launch, if you'd had one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter
At the time JIMO's preliminary design contract was canceled (2005), an HLV was scheduled to be available in 2017 for a launch. JIMO was primarily canceled because there was no funding for it going forward.
You said "existing launch vehicle." For where I sit, Arev V as planned in 2005 was always going to be a paper rocket. Yes, no funding, but also that little problem of multiple DIVH launches.
My point was a. there was an HLV planed to be online by the date of launch, but the preliminary design of the mission didn't baseline it because it was too big, too costly and too uncertain to be available and b. JIMO was canceled due to funding, not due to mass and/or volume constraints on launch vehicles (oddly enough, JIMO - a prime example of an exploration mission - was canceled because funds were needed for Constellation, an exploration initiative; and while JIMO could right now be in development already, Constellation might be considering a NEO flight for a lot more money than JIMO was supposed to cost).
I have yet to hear of an example of any funded mission that required or requires an HLV due to mass or volume constraints. -
#106 by Analyst on 12 Jan, 2010 08:17
-
kraisee, you asking the scientists for their dreams does not make these real, nor does it generate any funds. Sure they have dreams: Big telescopes, large interplanetary probes. So have I. Does not make it realistic. JWST will launch 25 years after HST, a Europa orbiter (maybe) 25 years after Cassini. These are the intervalls of flagship missions in the $3 to $4.5 billion class, using EELV class launch vehicles. Now show me any realistic funding source for project being three or four times as big? Any? And no – the costs don’t come done because of going bigger.Quote
(1) For example, as I understand it, the MER missions required the unusual conjunction with Mars that had slightly lower than usual delta v. They wouldn't have made a normal Mars window without shaving some mass (either raising cost or losing some functionality).
(2) I believe most deep space probes are similarly mass constrained because they attempt to wring as much delta v out of the launch vehicle and boosters as possible.
(3) A number of the DoD missions are volume/fairing size constrained as was the Hubble telescope (and most other Great Observatories) and numerous ISS structural components.
(1) Correct. And because of this they had to make it in 2003. There wasn’t the budget for a larger launcher or for a delay to 2005.
(2) And yet they avoid the next biggest launcher like the plague, fighting for every (Atlas V or Delta II) SBR less. Because they would lose more science by going to the next larger vehicle when they would gain by relaxing mass constraints a bit. Understandable given a fixed budget to be devided between mission/science and launch.
(3) I don’t know about DoD, and I doubt you know. As for HST: Simply wrong. It went from a 3m mirror to 2.4m for – surprise – budgetary reasons. Compton and Chandra too were budget limited, although you could argue both were very heavy and Chandra used the whole payload bay. But again: Who would have paid for them being any bigger? Spitzer is a prime example (as are the EOS satellites) for budget induced downscaling: From Shuttle to Titan IV to Atlas II to finally Delta II. Big has simply not been affordable. And Spitzer still cost $1 billion.QuoteJIMO is an example of an unmanned mission that was funded, was too big for an existing launch vehicle, and was canceled, in part, because of the need for on-orbit assembly (and being "too ambitious"). The link is to Wiki, so not authoritative, just by way of example. JIMO is something you could have flown on a single HLLV launch, if you'd had one.
JIMO was never really funded, I am not sure it ever entered phase A. It would have been a $15 to 20 billion project. A pie in the sky from the beginning. A HLV would launch it in one piece, but a HLV would not have magically made the funding available. And the price tag would not have gone down because using a HLV. The problems were massive: Reactor, engines, rediation, instruments …QuoteSomebody here (Jim?) has pointed out payloads often cost more than the LVs they ride on. Wasn't Cassini around $3bln? So I could easily imagine a planetary probe that required an Ares V or J246SH in the billions, the cost of the LV not amount to a very big percentage of the whole. That's the other half of the problem (and it is for HSF, too).
I would go as far and say payloads always cost more than the launchers they use, with launch being about 20 to 30% (ballpark).
And you are pointing out exaxtly the problem many folks here like to ignore: Who pays for the payloads (and this being true for HSF too)? They think having a big launch vehicle is all there needed. Yet Delta IVH is barely used, and never for non militaray payloads. Titan IV was used once for a non military payload. Science missions barely use the larger EELVs, they were happy with Delta II, they often just use Pegasus. Why? Not because there aren’t bigger vehicles - there are today - but because they don’t have the budget for going bigger. A HLV won’t change anything in this equation.
So everyone who talks about using a HLV for science mission should consider the above – in particular the budget environment – and rethink his position.
Analyst -
#107 by khallow on 12 Jan, 2010 13:58
-
Analyst, I see no disagreement with my quote. I did note these missions were cost constrained. And while I don't know a lot about DoD missions, I do know that they need the capabilities of the Delta IV Heavy for some reason other than generating business for ULA. It's certainly not cost or reliability driving that decision.
As for being "realistic", it's worth noting that making your project a little cheaper won't make it more real. An order of magnitude drop might make the project more likely to be funded, but much smaller changes won't. Funding is just another thing to fill up, like available payload size. -
#108 by robertross on 12 Jan, 2010 14:08
-
kraisee, you asking the scientists for their dreams does not make these real, nor does it generate any funds.
...
So everyone who talks about using a HLV for science mission should consider the above – in particular the budget environment – and rethink his position.
Analyst
(the following is a personal observation, nothing more)
For everything Ross & the Direct team have been doing, to get this far and have their 'concept' as a leading contender is beyond phenominal.
It looks to me like Ross is HELPING to sell the 'concept', but also to bring the scientists on board. Right now, it seems much of what NASA & the politicians have been able to do is alienate one another from what could actually be accomplished in the HSF endeavour. Everyone seems to be falling over one another in a bid to make it to the top of the heap.
Now whether he is going to be there just to sell heavy lift, or sell Jupiter, or sell 'Direct', well, that's his call to make, and I for one will not stand in the way, or criticize his actions, which to date have been beyond exemplary considering where we were, and where we are now. If he can pull ANYTHING off to the betterment of NASA, that's kudos in my book. At least SOMEONE is doing something about this sad state.
What do we lose if we get scientists to back this 'concept' of a rocket with so much potential: I suppose nothing, and you will still have the status quo where science missions fly of EELVs or whatever.
What do we gain if the scientists back this 'concept': Either the same deal (nothing), but I would bet it's more than a few voices in favour of the PoR, which is even more useless to them, since it offers NOTHING. They definitely couldn't afford the launcher, but NASA would have no money, and may in fact have to steal more from Peter to pay Paul for the development of the Ares V.
Now there is a case that if we lose HSF, we could gain more in science missions, but I'll leave that one alone, because then I think we are losing more than what we gain.
So, you go Ross, with my blessings and best wishes. -
#109 by Lambda-4 on 12 Jan, 2010 15:14
-
What do we lose if we get scientists to back this 'concept' of a rocket with so much potential.
The best thing that can happen to scientists is that NASA's HSF budget shrinks. Please note that this is my opinion, something evidently not shared by everyone. One thing is however clear and should be acknowledged by everyone, the more NASA's focus is on science, technology and robotic exploration, the more money scientists can get, even if that means that overall NASA has a (much) smaller budget. This holds true for basically every funding decision in this world, the bigger the share of a taxpayer funded program within a public organization, the more prominent it is and the higher the likelihood is that it can get funded overall (political bargaining is mostly focused on the big programs within NASA that bring a lot of jobs to certain states, not the small programs).
HSF has been limited to microgravity research with very low cost-benefit profiles since the inception of spaceflight, with the exception of a few days of beyond LEO exploration on the surface of another planetary body which resulted in sizable knowledge gains in a very small area of science (lunar geology). Microgravity research and limited beyond LEO geology exploration will be all there is for the foreseeable future (next 3 decades = a professional lifetime) at any given HSF budget.
It is clear that there are no scientific payloads that will or can be funded that require a 100mt HLV. It is also clear that the development and operations of an HLV means NASA's HSF focus will remain as is (2/3rds of NASA => HSF) for the next decades, which is not good for the actual scientists' projects as explained above (while good for contractors and engineers of course). Objectively, scientists who want to maximize the science done in space should hope that no HLV is funded at all. -
#110 by robertross on 12 Jan, 2010 15:35
-
...with the exception of a few days of beyond LEO exploration on the surface of another planetary body which resulted in sizable knowledge gains in a very small area of science (lunar geology). Microgravity research and limited beyond LEO geology exploration will be all there is for the foreseeable future (next 3 decades = a professional lifetime) at any given HSF budget.
It is clear that there are no scientific payloads that will or can be funded that require a 100mt HLV. It is also clear that the development and operations of an HLV means NASA's HSF focus will remain as is (2/3rds of NASA => HSF) for the next decades, which is not good for the actual scientists' projects as explained above (while good for contractors and engineers of course). Objectively, scientists who want to maximize the science done in space should hope that no HLV is funded at all.
Umm..you know we did bring back lots of lunar samples...the science was done on the ground. Sure, we could have built and sent a robotic sample return mission, but with Apollo, we got 2 for the price of one. granted that was a race & a 'Flags & Footprints' PR stunt, but heck, I'll take it.
I would say it's a lot easier to have human 'realtime' interaction for a moving body like an asteroid for sample return, than it is for a radio-operated unmanned probe. -
#111 by Lambda-4 on 12 Jan, 2010 15:41
-
...with the exception of a few days of beyond LEO exploration on the surface of another planetary body which resulted in sizable knowledge gains in a very small area of science (lunar geology). Microgravity research and limited beyond LEO geology exploration will be all there is for the foreseeable future (next 3 decades = a professional lifetime) at any given HSF budget.
It is clear that there are no scientific payloads that will or can be funded that require a 100mt HLV. It is also clear that the development and operations of an HLV means NASA's HSF focus will remain as is (2/3rds of NASA => HSF) for the next decades, which is not good for the actual scientists' projects as explained above (while good for contractors and engineers of course). Objectively, scientists who want to maximize the science done in space should hope that no HLV is funded at all.
Umm..you know we did bring back lots of lunar samples...the science was done on the ground. Sure, we could have built and sent a robotic sample return mission, but with Apollo, we got 2 for the price of one. granted that was a race & a 'Flags & Footprints' PR stunt, but heck, I'll take it.
I would say it's a lot easier to have human 'realtime' interaction for a moving body like an asteroid for sample return, than it is for a radio-operated unmanned probe.
I said the Apollo program resulted in sizable knowledge gains, however they have been in a very limited area of space science. I tried to make a different point: objectively, scientists should be against any HLV development and rather hope that Constellation gets canceled indefinitely, which would leave a smaller NASA which however has a larger focus on non-HSF science missions. -
#112 by Analyst on 12 Jan, 2010 16:19
-
Bingo! Well said.
A HLV has pretty much nothing to do with science missions. Same for CxP. Claiming otherwise annoys me. I really have nothing against HSF in an affordable way - in which a HLV does not help. But talking about science pies in the sky to (co)justify a HLV does simply not hold any water.
Analyst -
#113 by Analyst on 12 Jan, 2010 16:31
-
I would say it's a lot easier to have human 'realtime' interaction for a moving body like an asteroid for sample return, than it is for a radio-operated unmanned probe.
And I say you are wrong. Sorry. There is sample return spacecraft currently on its way back to earth from an asteroid. It may or may not make it. Its cost (including development) - very a useful definition of "easy" - less than one manned spaceflight launch (of an already developed system).
One of the three current NF proposals is an asteroid sample return, for ~$700 million. How long does HSF "live" for this money? About a month at current budget levels. So much for talking "easy".
Analyst -
#114 by robertross on 12 Jan, 2010 16:32
-
Bingo! Well said.
A HLV has pretty much nothing to do with science missions. Same for CxP. Claiming otherwise annoys me. I really have nothing against HSF in an affordable way - in which a HLV does not help. But talking about science pies in the sky to (co)justify a HLV does simply not hold any water.
Analyst
Well I guess for once (at least) there's a difference of opinion between us.
But for me, it screams to the fact that we are doing something wrong that science & HSF are not colaborating. If they were (when required), then maybe we might get more out of our endeavours. -
#115 by mjcrsmith on 12 Jan, 2010 17:04
-
Both robotic and human capabilities are needed.
Per Steve Squyres:
"And when I hear people point to Spirit and Opportunity and say that these are examples of why we don't need to send humans to Mars, I get very upset. Because that's not even the right discussion to be having. We must send humans to Mars. We can't do it soon enough for me. You know, I'm a robot guy. I mean, I love Spirit and Opportunity - and I use a word like "love" very advisedly when talking about a hunk of metal.
But I love those machines. I miss them. I do. But they will never, ever have the capabilities that humans will have and I sure hope you send people soon."
-
#116 by Lambda-4 on 12 Jan, 2010 17:25
-
But for me, it screams to the fact that we are doing something wrong that science & HSF are not colaborating. If they were (when required), then maybe we might get more out of our endeavours.
HSF and science do have one goal they share - the exploration of the Martian surface which we can only do to a certain degree with robots and where science would really benefit from humans on site. However, costs prohibit a Mars surface mission any time soon (within the next 3-4 decades).
However any HLV that will be developed right now is probably not going to be used in that form for any human Mars surface mission (contrary to the claim made that we need to develop an HLV for such a mission). In 30-40 years that HLV will be phased out for a newer one. As a result, unless NASA's budget situation and stated goal severely changes and be focused on a Mars surface mission (which is not going to happen), scientists (apart from maybe lunar geologists...) should not support the development of an HLV. There is nothing scientists can gain from an HLV development now. But it's a moot point anyway, it's not like NASA's money is allocated within a democratic process where scientists can vote where the money should go to. If they could, I tell you, Cx won't be funded at any executable budget level. -
#117 by robertross on 12 Jan, 2010 18:56
-
But for me, it screams to the fact that we are doing something wrong that science & HSF are not colaborating. If they were (when required), then maybe we might get more out of our endeavours.
HSF and science do have one goal they share - the exploration of the Martian surface which we can only do to a certain degree with robots and where science would really benefit from humans on site. However, costs prohibit a Mars surface mission any time soon (within the next 3-4 decades).
See, you're missing the big picture.
Walking on the surface of any body is one thing, but you don't have to. Also, the costs of even landing on the moon are greater than a fly-by.
TELE-ROBOTICS.
The distance to Mars is so great, we can't do realtime rover driving. But imagine the same goals as the days of Apollo, where you practice your missions by a fly-by. We can do that for the moon, Mars, Venus, Asteroids...and we never have to land.
I'm saying we launch a manned mission to any of those destinations, send down one or more landers and/or rovers, and do the science realtime. You 'enable' more science by hitching a ride with the manned mission, and they can bring back the samples. You can also better ensure at least one sample gets back, because you can make realtime adjustments.You can also drop the science payload more accurately in the case of Mars, in the event a dust storm is located over the prime location.
We're never going to land on Venus, but we can sure do a lot of science in orbit by controlling the science on the ground. -
#118 by alexw on 12 Jan, 2010 20:31
-
TELE-ROBOTICS.
The distance to Mars is so great, we can't do realtime rover driving. But imagine the same goals as the days of Apollo, where you practice your missions by a fly-by. We can do that for the moon, Mars, Venus, Asteroids...and we never have to land.
I'm saying we launch a manned mission to any of those destinations, send down one or more landers and/or rovers, and do the science realtime. You 'enable' more science by hitching a ride with the manned mission, and they can bring back the samples. You can also better ensure at least one sample gets back, because you can make realtime adjustments.You can also drop the science payload more accurately in the case of Mars, in the event a dust storm is located over the prime location.
Telerobotics is cute, and probably quite worthwhile if it's science going along for the ride with a (necessarily political) decision to send men to the Martian moons. But it's hardly a justification. The cost of a manned mission even to the Martian moons is gigantic -- are you really confident that spending many tens of $billions to do telerobotics is the best way to get the science? How many MER, MSL, winged gliders, balloons, orbital penetrators, etc. could that buy? How much could you improve the rovers with a comparatively miniscule few tens of $millions in AI research on the automatic driving algorithms?
HSF cannot be justified on the basis of pure science. HSF can be justified, perhaps, on the basis of politics, or inspiration, or dreams, or eventual destiny, etc. But science-for-the-buck will be probes, robots, and telescopes every time.
Science will be happy to go along for the ride, if HSF gives them a little piece of a much larger pie. If there's any pie left to share.
-Alex
-
#119 by ChrisSpaceCH on 12 Jan, 2010 20:41
-
HSF cannot be justified on the basis of pure science. HSF can be justified, perhaps, on the basis of politics, or inspiration, or dreams, or eventual destiny, etc. But science-for-the-buck will be probes, robots, and telescopes every time.
Absolutely right. HSF can never be justified by science. So please stop refering to science when trying to justify HSF. If science is the goal, then we should immediately cease HSF and go all-robotic.
Fortunately, science isn't everything. There are other things that animate us than the desire to do science. Exploration is not equal to science. Not everything needs to be utilitarian, nor even cost-effective. Otherwise, how could you ever justify Formula One races, for example?
Anyway, science has lost much of its appeal to many, including myself. That's why I am now a proud former scientist. But that's another story and OT, I guess.
