-
#80 by robertross on 11 Jan, 2010 15:45
-
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
Yeah you're right - there's absolutely no use for a heavy lift launch vehicle and no science could be done using payloads that take advantage of the capacity.
Come on.
Well, Analyst has a point... without the $$$ to develop those possibilities into hardware and make use of the HLV capability, it's all just dreams...
Well, they could make missions like the MSL more realistic due to mass budgets. Same goes for any missions with volume and/or mass constraints. Sure the launcher costs more, but it frees your hands a little more. I know we discussed this at length in another thread, but at least there would be more flexibility now (assuming no commercial gets the opportunity to build a bigger rocket). -
#81 by Marsbug on 11 Jan, 2010 16:25
-
Great article, but I'm itching to know about the money! An asteroid visit has the 'cheapest cost of entry', but how cheap is that? I'm going to unashamedly cheer for any BEO exploration that stands a hope of getting funding. That said 2025 is a dissapointingly (and perhaps dangerously) long way off. I like the idea of lunar orbits and GEO construction as gap fillers...but what extra costs would they bring?
I think this will be decided by money and politics (stating the obvious I know), not by scientific merit. -
#82 by Analyst on 11 Jan, 2010 16:50
-
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
"kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists."
What's wrong with that?
It won't work. No budget. And we are not talking some small increases, but big spending. For starters: Double the SMD budget. Won't happen.
Analyst -
#83 by Lambda-4 on 11 Jan, 2010 18:12
-
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. -
#84 by dad2059 on 11 Jan, 2010 18:22
-
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
"kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists."
What's wrong with that?
It won't work. No budget. And we are not talking some small increases, but big spending. For starters: Double the SMD budget. Won't happen.
Analyst
Well, I guess you'll have to ask Ross why he wants to "appease the scientists."
I'm sure he might have some info even you might not have.
But I see why you have pessimism on this, it's hard not to be cynical about the politics. -
#85 by khallow on 11 Jan, 2010 18:32
-
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.
If I design a mission that can't be flown on any existing or near future (one that NASA is really confident will fly in a reasonable time) launch vehicle, why in the world would NASA fund me? They only fund missions that fit. Volume and mass constraints are just as real and as much trouble as budgetary, feature requirement, and risk constraints, especially since these constraints interact with each other.
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). 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. 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.
-
#86 by Chris Bergin on 11 Jan, 2010 18:42
-
Great article, but I'm itching to know about the money!
Thanks! And you and me both! I was kinda expecting them to name the presentation "things we could do with a blank check book".
I still like it as this is big time NASA forward thinking, but I also question if this Augustine Review related thinking has come a bit too late, as it would fit better about four years ago, as opposed to the final days (at present) of the US' only manned heavy lifter, a brilliant and hugely capable vehicle.
Bar the fact they are expensive (but what vehicles aren't - never mind resuable), not particularly safe (but a hell of a lot safer than before and what is "safe") and restricted to LEO (everything we're doing is LEO - like it or not - for the next 10 years), I wish there was a related presentation to say "maybe we should delay giving up what we have until we know what we're going to be doing afterwards".
Gap closure should be priority number one and the only way to close the gap is from the left, not least when there's a major role to fulfil if ISS is extended to 2020 if you want to get your $100 billion worth, when CRS/COTS appears to be failing to get anywhere near their milestones and the US have to rely on a Russian government behaving for over half a decade.
Otherwise, there's some exciting future potential, but will the agency survive what is currently five to seven years of outsourcing? Will the appetite still be there to fund these proposals when NASA's lost most of its public interest and support with no Shuttle and nothing much else going on with HSF?
I just hope someone - who knows who he is - doesn't require a wake up call over this and has shown some internal fighting to protect the present, because without that I question if there is a future. -
#87 by David AF on 11 Jan, 2010 20:13
-
Great article, but I'm itching to know about the money!
Thanks! And you and me both! I was kinda expecting them to name the presentation "things we could do with a blank check book".
I still like it as this is big time NASA forward thinking, but I also question if this Augustine Review related thinking has come a bit too late, as it would fit better about four years ago, as opposed to the final days (at present) of the US' only manned heavy lifter, a brilliant and hugely capable vehicle.
Bar the fact they are expensive (but what vehicles aren't - never mind resuable), not particularly safe (but a hell of a lot safer than before and what is "safe") and restricted to LEO (everything we're doing is LEO - like it or not - for the next 10 years), I wish there was a related presentation to say "maybe we should delay giving up what we have until we know what we're going to be doing afterwards".
Gap closure should be priority number one and the only way to close the gap is from the left, not least when there's a major role to fulfil if ISS is extended to 2020 if you want to get your $100 billion worth, when CRS/COTS appears to be failing to get anywhere near their milestones and the US have to rely on a Russian government behaving for over half a decade.
Otherwise, there's some exciting future potential, but will the agency survive what is currently five to seven years of outsourcing? Will the appetite still be there to fund these proposals when NASA's lost most of its public interest and support with no Shuttle and nothing much else going on with HSF?
I just hope someone - who knows who he is - doesn't require a wake up call over this and has shown some internal fighting to protect the present, because without that I question if there is a future.
CONCUR! -
#88 by robertross on 11 Jan, 2010 20:31
-
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
"kraisee is just looking for some work for his HLV. And he probably wants to apease the scientists."
What's wrong with that?
It won't work. No budget. And we are not talking some small increases, but big spending. For starters: Double the SMD budget. Won't happen.
Analyst
Well, I guess you'll have to ask Ross why he wants to "appease the scientists."
I'm sure he might have some info even you might not have.
But I see why you have pessimism on this, it's hard not to be cynical about the politics.
Not to speak on Ross' behalf, but if this were me, there would be 2 points.
1) I feel Obama will try and open the link between these two 'bodies' to get more science out of of capabilities. When you have a bunch of missions that then 'appease' what scientists would be looking for (planetary science, astrophysics, and the like) then you have them on board with your rocket.
2) To try and get more money out of Congress, the rocket has to (or should) do more than just HSF. If we can 'duplicate' (in some non-existing commercial capable ways) what the shuttle did (or has done) over its career, it helps sell the idea of what this rocket can do. Liek Gen Krantz said "I'm not interesting of what it was designed to do, I want to know what it can do", or something to that effect.
Ross is going to be at NASA giving a presentation at the end of the month, so I'm sure he's looking for ideas to put into a powerpoint presentation. Like the Augustine Commission presentation, covering the 'bases' helps to sell the idea, or sell it against the competition. -
#89 by William Barton on 11 Jan, 2010 20:40
-
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
-
#90 by Lambda-4 on 11 Jan, 2010 20:48
-
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. -
#91 by robertross on 11 Jan, 2010 20:49
-
Thanks for the fill-in William.
I'm not saying there will be 'tons' of missions that could take advantage of this, because clearly the difference in launcher costs would most likely be prohibitive. But if it made the difference in a Flagship class mission flying or not, there might be some money available from other projects.
I think the biggest savings would come from tele-operated robots (or even unmanned ones like Spirit & Opportunity) as a tag-along to a manned mission. -
#92 by William Barton on 11 Jan, 2010 20:58
-
Thanks for the fill-in William.
I'm not saying there will be 'tons' of missions that could take advantage of this, because clearly the difference in launcher costs would most likely be prohibitive. But if it made the difference in a Flagship class mission flying or not, there might be some money available from other projects.
I think the biggest savings would come from tele-operated robots (or even unmanned ones like Spirit & Opportunity) as a tag-along to a manned mission.
Somebody 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). -
#93 by William Barton on 11 Jan, 2010 21:01
-
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. -
#94 by E.P. Grondine on 11 Jan, 2010 21:13
-
A "filler" mission which I would like to know about, isn't even crewed.
How much, and how long, would it take to make a "simple" space telescope?
I'm not talking about something with all of the bells and whistles, but a stop-gap telescope who's entire purpose is to get operational for the lowest cost and in the shortest time.
Of course, even the most basic telescope -- assuming an 8.2m diameter mirror -- is going to produce some pretty impressive results, but the key is "can we get something in the air within 5 years for a very reasonable cost?"
Such a project would beg for a follow-on mission improving the technology and the capabilities -- and that would be a very special system. But we don't have to take a big jump when two smaller steps would get there, and would then result in two new telescopes too.
Just a thought... But probably a little OT here
Ross.
Hi Ross -
I'm going to go on here for a bit. The paradigm for manned flight is changing. In the 1950's it was based on an Earth-like Mars and unrealistically low transportation costs.
Mars in now known not to be Earth-like, and the radiation loads make it unlikely that it could even be terra-formed. Further, the discovery of new martian fossils has increased the risk to Earth from back contamination, or at least made clear the necessity of taking time to thoroughly checking out the potential hazard.
The new driver is the impact hazard, and whether dealing with that will require large free based space telescopes or Moon based instruments for detection is an open question. But there is little doubt that ach new telescope will reveal the hazard to be far more serious than earlier thought.
Most likely the best systems would be Moon based, requiring the use of lunar orbit propellant depots and landing frames for their construction. This project may be international, or China may do it itself.
Probes to determine asteroid and comet fragment composition, whether manned or unmanned will be necessary, and any mitigation method will require the use of the largest launch vehicles around, which I hope is Direct.
After ISS has served its purpose as an Earth-orbit laboratory, it may be used to test either closed loop life support systems, or power beaming from space, either in Earth orbit or in Lunar orbit.
While manned Mars flight enthusiasts are dedicated to Ares 5 use for Zubrin's Mars Direct architecture, IMO that architecture is no more realistic than the Ares1/Ares5 architecture. I think it far more likely that something along the lines of Dr. Aldrin's cyclers would have a better chance of working.
Thanks for your work on Directt, and Good Luck!
-
#95 by jml on 11 Jan, 2010 21:22
-
I know the HST talk in this thread is OT (mods - spin off into a new thread if warranted)
but.....
- HST was a really a modified KH-11 spy sat with a 2.4m mirror
- a Kodak produced backup 2.4m mirror without the optical distortion present in the original Perkin-Elmer mirror is on permanent display at the Smithsonian
- LM produced the HST, KH-11, and all known spy-sat followups (speculated to be called KH-12 and KH-12-8X or KH-13)
- the followups to KH-11 are rumored to have larger mirrors - around 3m
- Boeing won a contract to produce a next-gen "FIA" spysat, but lost it in 2005 after what the NY Times called "perhaps the most spectacular and expensive failure in the 50-year history of American spy satellite projects."
- LM has since been asked to restart production of a modernized "KH" series of satellites based on their previous models, and there is likely a bit of a rush to get this done before the lifespan of the existing spy-sats is reached.
- the previous KH series were launched on Titan IV, which no longer exists - presumably the Delta IV-H would be the launch vehicle for new spy sats.
Which all leads to this question:
How easy/fast/cheap would it be for LM to produce a new HST replacement on the same production line as these modernized KH satellites?
-
#96 by agman25 on 11 Jan, 2010 21:25
-
I don't believe there is a production line. Only one new bird was made from leftover spare parts.
-
#97 by yg1968 on 11 Jan, 2010 21:45
-
Great article, but I'm itching to know about the money!
Thanks! And you and me both! I was kinda expecting them to name the presentation "things we could do with a blank check book".
I still like it as this is big time NASA forward thinking, but I also question if this Augustine Review related thinking has come a bit too late, as it would fit better about four years ago, as opposed to the final days (at present) of the US' only manned heavy lifter, a brilliant and hugely capable vehicle.
Bar the fact they are expensive (but what vehicles aren't - never mind resuable), not particularly safe (but a hell of a lot safer than before and what is "safe") and restricted to LEO (everything we're doing is LEO - like it or not - for the next 10 years), I wish there was a related presentation to say "maybe we should delay giving up what we have until we know what we're going to be doing afterwards".
Gap closure should be priority number one and the only way to close the gap is from the left, not least when there's a major role to fulfil if ISS is extended to 2020 if you want to get your $100 billion worth, when CRS/COTS appears to be failing to get anywhere near their milestones and the US have to rely on a Russian government behaving for over half a decade.
Otherwise, there's some exciting future potential, but will the agency survive what is currently five to seven years of outsourcing? Will the appetite still be there to fund these proposals when NASA's lost most of its public interest and support with no Shuttle and nothing much else going on with HSF?
I just hope someone - who knows who he is - doesn't require a wake up call over this and has shown some internal fighting to protect the present, because without that I question if there is a future.
The money issue is tied to the ISS extension. Once the ISS is deorbited, I would imagine that new funds for human exploration become available. First because you don't have to pay for the maintainance of the ISS. Secondly because you stop paying for commercial crew and cargo to ISS.
Is Ares V more expensive than the Shuttle? Is the hardware for a NEO mission more expensive than the ISS. I would imagine that the contributions of international partners (except perhaps Russia) to ISS could also go to BEO. -
#98 by yinzer on 12 Jan, 2010 00:06
-
The article linked from wikipedia says nothing about multiple launches being a problem, just that JIMO was very expensive, JWST is sucking up tons of money, and that the CLV was supposed to have IOC in 2014.
-
#99 by A_M_Swallow on 12 Jan, 2010 00:23
-
The money issue is tied to the ISS extension. Once the ISS is deorbited, I would imagine that new funds for human exploration become available. First because you don't have to pay for the maintainance of the ISS. Secondly because you stop paying for commercial crew and cargo to ISS.
Try the opposite. When the ISS is deorbited the development money is transferred from LV development to ISS2 development.
Even if the new spacestation is rented the operations money has to come from somewhere.
