Author Topic: NASA Request for Information Synopsis for the Flagship Technology Demonstrations  (Read 38394 times)

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 519
« Last Edit: 07/07/2010 04:00 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8479
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 349
  • Likes Given: 147
This RFI looks like the missions that will invent the technology for Moon and Mars missions.

Quote
The following general Principles guide the preliminary selection and implementation of the four (4) demonstration missions:

Costs, from initiation to launch, should range from $400M to $1B each

Project lifetime no longer than five years (initiation to launch)

First in-space demonstration is targeted for no later than 2014, with the next three (3) to be launched by 2016. Thereafter, a FTD mission will be flown every 12-18 months.

International, commercial and other government agency partners should be actively pursued as integrated team members where appropriate

No single NASA Center should implement all demonstration missions

and

Quote
The first set of missions will target the following technologies, with the goal of establishing new capabilities:

Advanced Solar Electric Propulsion: This will involve concepts for advanced high-energy, in-space propulsion systems which will serve to demonstrate building blocks to even higher energy systems to support deep-space human exploration (crew and cargo) and eventually reduce travel time between Earth’s orbit and future destinations for human activity.

In-Orbit Propellant Transfer and Storage: The capability to transfer and store propellant—particularly cryogenic propellants—in orbit can significantly increase the Nation’s ability to conduct complex and extended exploration missions beyond Earth’s orbit. It could also potentially be used to extend the lifetime of future government and commercial spacecraft in Earth orbit.

Lightweight/Inflatable Modules: Inflatable modules can be larger, lighter, and potentially less expensive for future use than the rigid modules currently used by the International Space Station (ISS). NASA will pursue a demonstration of lightweight/inflatable modules for eventual in-space habitation, transportation, or even surface habitation needs.

Aerocapture, and/or entry, descent and landing (EDL) technology: This involves the development and demonstration of systems technologies for: precision landing of payloads on “high-g” and “low-g” planetary bodies; returning humans or collected samples to Earth; and enabling orbital insertion in various atmospheric conditions.

Automated/Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking: The ability of two spacecraft to rendezvous, operating independently from human controllers and without other back-up, requires advances in sensors, software, and real-time on-orbit positioning and flight control, among other challenges. This technology is critical to the ultimate success of capabilities such as in-orbit propellant storage and refueling, and complex operations in assembling mission components for challenging destinations.

Closed–loop life support system demonstration at the ISS: This would validate the feasibility of human survival beyond Earth based on recycled materials with minimal logistics supply.

Offline stealthyplains

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
super exciting!

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
super exciting!

Indeed! I'm rather perplexed at all of those (in this forum, Congress, and elsewhere) who are claiming that developing and demonstrating these key technologies (at a cost of $400M-$1B per mission) isn't a good investment for NASA.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Also, since the text wasn't selectable in the PDFs, I took the liberty of typing out the mission descriptions and goals/objectives for each of the missions/technologies. Feel free to copy this elsewhere, and let me know if there's any typos.

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=230948/Section3.pdf
Quote
FTD 1 - Advanced In-Space Propulsion Demonstration

Mission Description:
Expand capability of future space exploration by demonstrating Multi-Use High-Energy Upper Stage based on emerging advanced space propulsion and high performance photovoltaic array technologies - First Mission Opportunity to Demonstrate AR&D [autonomous rendezvous & docking]
* >> 10 km/sec Delta-V Capability at GTO on Falcon 9 class launchers
* Demonstrate SEP Stage Operations -- leaving LEO
* Leverage DoD partnership

Applications: NASA: Step toward direct ESMD Human and Robotic Operations; Science. DoD: Earth-Space Operational missions. Commercial: OTV, OS, Orbital Debris Removal, GEO

Goals and Objectives:
Deliver revolutionary benefits by combining advanced space propulsion with lightweight array technology

Notional Key Mission Milestones:
* Start-Up 2011
* Mission Launch 2014
* Mission Duration: 2 Years
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=230949/Section4.pdf
Quote
FTD 2 - In-Space Propellant Transfer and Storage Demonstration

Mission Description
* ARDV (AR&D Vehicle) and Tanker demonstrate AR&D
* Tanker demonstrates cryo-propellant fluid management for No Less Than 180 days.
** Baseline concept is LOX/Methane for mission.
** Option for LOX/H2 (this or more likely for a later mission)
* Demonstrate quick disconnect capability
* Internal to tanker: Demonstrate propellant transfer
** Potential to develop an international standard propellant transfer interface
* Tanker engine demonstrates a series of thrusts-on-need

Goals and Objectives
* Mission will demonstrate key technologies required for the development of propellant depots thus supporting exploration beyond LEO.
* Specifically the mission will:
1. Demonstrate in-space cryogenic fluid management systems
2. Demonstrate in-space propellant transfer
3. Demonstrate LOX/Methane engine in-space thrust-on-need.
4. Demonstrate Automated/Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking

Notional Key Mission Milestones:
* Start-up 2011
* Mission launched in 2015
* Mission Duration: No Less Than 200 days
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=230950/Section5.pdf
Quote
FTD 3 - Inflatable ISS Mission Module Demonstration

Mission Description:
The ISS Inflatable Mission Module provides the demonstration of a human-rated flexible, deployable module for habitation & storage in the space environment under full structural and human applied loads.
* Begins as structural demonstration, evolves to advanced systems accommodation module, AR&D, ECLSS, EVA suitport, and other interfaces.
* Once those systems have been validated, it can be used as a Mars/NEO mission duration analog.
* Applicable to pressurized function (habitats, logistics, laboratories, airlocks), or location including ISS, lunar and Mars surface, and in-space transfer vehicles

Goals and Objectives: Advance, demonstrate and integrate technologies needed for lightweight/inflatable modules

Flagship will:
* Demonstrate ability to deploy a human scale inflatable structure in space
* Demonstrate long duration of an inflatable habitat in space environment (MMOD, thermal) while being occupied daily by humans
* Demonstrate integration of advanced technology systems for ECLSS/waste management and reduced logistics with an inflatable structure... advanced lightweight materials

Notional Key Mission Milestones:
* Start-up 2011
* May include Small Structural inflatable on ISS (2013)
* Large inflatable mission module launched and connected to ISS in 2015
* ECLSS closed-loop system delivered post 2015
* Mission Duration: 36-48 months (possibly to end of ISS life)


http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=230958/Section6.pdf
Quote
FTD 4 - Aero-Assist Demonstration

Mission Concept 1 - Inflatable Aerodynamic Declerators (IADs) at Mars

Mission Description
* Advanced aero-capture and large mass delivery EDL technologies using instrumented in-situ Mars based flight technology demonstration system
* Can use either rigid or flexible vehicles
- Hypersonic inflatable Aero Decelerators (HIAD)
- Supersonic Inflatable Aero Decelerators (SIAD)
- GN&C - Ability to control "flexible structure"
- TPS -- flexible performance
- Deployment after extended storage
- Fluid-Structures Interactions
- Terminal Descent and Landing ALHAT demo

Mission Concept 2 - Slender Rigid Mid Lift-to-Drag (L/D) Ratio Aeroshell at Mars

Mission Description
* Advanced aero-capture and large mass delivery EDL technologies using instrumented in-situ Mars based flight technology demonstration system
* Can use either rigid of flexbiel vehicles
- Rigid Slender Mid L/D Shape
- Control of slender structure via Body Flap & RCS
- TPS -- Dual Heat-Pulse capable rigid
- Supersonic Inflatable Aero Decelerators (SIAD)
- SIAD Deployment after extended storage
- Fluid-Structures Interactions
- Terminal Descent and Landing ALHAT demo

(below is listed for both Mission Concept 1 & Mission Concept 2)

Goals and Objectives
Enable higher mass missions -- and higher altitude landing sites -- on Mars and other destinations with atmosphere and enhance the Earth-EDL stage of round-trip missions to the moon and elsewhere.

Mars Surface Payload: 1mT SOA [state of the art], 10mT Post-Flagship
Landing Accuracy: 10km SOA, 1km Post-Flagship
Mars Destination Altitude: 0km SOA, +1km Post-Flagship

Notional Key Mission Milestones:
* Start-up 2011
* Mission launched in 2016/2018
* Mission Duration: 13 months

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=230952/Section7.pdf
Quote
AR&D Demonstration Vehicle

Mission Description:
* Primary platform for AR&D demos on missions
* Multi-purpose vehicle used across Flagship Technology Demonstration (FTD) Missions
- De-orbit/dispose of completed missions
- Carrier, with services, for ETDD & OCT demonstration missions as secondary payloads
- delta-V capability scalable for mission
- Option for reusable architecture with on-orbit refueling (hypergolic & cold gas)
- Delivers FTD Missions to destinations

...
Timeframe and ROM Resources: Developed as part of 1st FTD mission with additional builds for subsequent missions that require it

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=230953/Section8.pdf
Quote
Closed-Loop Environmental Control System

The current Point of Departure Mission for the Flagship advanced ECLS hardware would be as follows. The hardware would be launched onboard one of the current or future unmanned ISS cargo vehicles in the 2014 to 2016 time frame. Once aboard the ISS, the hardware would be deployed inside one of the station modules where the hardware’s performance can be demonstrated in a micro-gravity environment. An additional goal will be to deploy this technology in the Flagship inflatable module where the equipment’s performance can be demonstrated while being exposed to both reduced pressure and elevated oxygen. The hardware is not planned to be returned to Earth after all demonstration tasks have been completed.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Also, it looks like one potential secondary mission for the FTD-1 Advanced In-Space Propulsion Demonstration would be to have it operate as a simple space tug:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=230948/Section3.pdf
Quote
Mission concepts might include (but are not limited to) currently planned and future human spaceflight or robotic missions to: a) Mars, Asteroids, or Deep Space; b) Cis-Lunar operations; c) Earth-space operations such as orbit transfers, orbital repositioning, orbital rendezvous and docking operations, or orbital servicing (e.g. – of an observatory or spacecraft too large or too fragile to launch, replace scientific instruments, replenish consumables such as propellant or coolant).

Technologies considered for a mission may include, but are not limited to, a) scientific, communications, or other payloads enabled by the SEP Stage; b) Autonomous Rendezvous, Navigation, and Docking; and c) robotic systems for on-orbit servicing; etc. With the exception of the NEXT Ion Propulsion System and the advanced array technology, all proposed bus technologies must be at a NASA Technology Readiness Level 6 (TRL6) by PDR, assumed to be June 2011.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline stealthyplains

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
this is the most excited i've been about nasa's spaceflight direction in a long time -- i'm just going to read this and smile and forget the HLV debate exists

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28477
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8351
  • Likes Given: 5483
...
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=230953/Section8.pdf
Quote
Closed-Loop Environmental Control System

The current Point of Departure Mission for the Flagship advanced ECLS hardware would be as follows. The hardware would be launched onboard one of the current or future unmanned ISS cargo vehicles in the 2014 to 2016 time frame. Once aboard the ISS, the hardware would be deployed inside one of the station modules where the hardware’s performance can be demonstrated in a micro-gravity environment. An additional goal will be to deploy this technology in the Flagship inflatable module where the equipment’s performance can be demonstrated while being exposed to both reduced pressure and elevated oxygen. The hardware is not planned to be returned to Earth after all demonstration tasks have been completed.
I'm glad that NASA is willing to explore the whole trade space for atmospheric conditions instead of JUST sea level pressure. Apollo saved weight by using just oxygen for most of the time, and ISRU would probably be easier without having to worry as much about nitrogen. Also, it may provide some logistical synergies if you could completely eliminate nitrogen once beyond LEO (except for launch and landing) since you could possibly use LOX from prop tanks for crew consumption and cabin pressurization, thus allowing more flexibility in emergencies or contingencies.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
this is the most excited i've been about nasa's spaceflight direction in a long time -- i'm just going to read this and smile and forget the HLV debate exists

Reading and smiling is all well and good, but if you actually want it to happen be sure to also phone and write letters/emails to your congresspersons. :)
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline stealthyplains

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Reading and smiling is all well and good, but if you actually want it to happen be sure to also phone and write letters/emails to your congresspersons. :)

Just emailed my congressperson!  But I think Nancy has a thing or two besides NASA to worry about.  :)

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 519
Also, since the text wasn't selectable in the PDFs, I took the liberty of typing out the mission descriptions and goals/objectives for each of the missions/technologies.

Isn't there a "select text" button on the toolbar? I know there is one in Foxit Reader, not sure of there's one in Adobe Reader. Which PDF reader do you have?

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
super exciting!

Indeed! I'm rather perplexed at all of those (in this forum, Congress, and elsewhere) who are claiming that developing and demonstrating these key technologies (at a cost of $400M-$1B per mission) isn't a good investment for NASA.

I don't think anyone on this forum has claimed that.  This isn't the part we're complaining about...

Offline simonbp

I don't think anyone on this forum has claimed that.  This isn't the part we're complaining about...

Yep, there's a difference between "demonstrating technology" for the sake of demo'ing tech and actually using that technology. Aerocapture, inflatable modules, and automated docking is fine and good, but none of it is actually new, and none of it means anything if it's not used in a mission. The FY11 budget is annoying because it eschews the use of the tech for cheap but pointless demos...

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Also, since the text wasn't selectable in the PDFs, I took the liberty of typing out the mission descriptions and goals/objectives for each of the missions/technologies.

Isn't there a "select text" button on the toolbar? I know there is one in Foxit Reader, not sure of there's one in Adobe Reader. Which PDF reader do you have?

There is, but the text I retyped is in a table embedded as an image and thus non-selectable. Of course, if it actually can be selected, I guess I just gave myself a nice typing workout. ;)
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
I don't think anyone on this forum has claimed that.  This isn't the part we're complaining about...

Yep, there's a difference between "demonstrating technology" for the sake of demo'ing tech and actually using that technology. Aerocapture, inflatable modules, and automated docking is fine and good, but none of it is actually new, and none of it means anything if it's not used in a mission. The FY11 budget is annoying because it eschews the use of the tech for cheap but pointless demos...

Just to be clear, but do you consider these Flagship Technology Demonstrators and the ETDD demonstrators "cheap but pointless demos"?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline MP99

Quote
The first set of missions will target the following technologies, with the goal of establishing new capabilities:

Advanced Solar Electric Propulsion: This will involve concepts for advanced high-energy, in-space propulsion systems which will serve to demonstrate building blocks to even higher energy systems to support deep-space human exploration (crew and cargo) and eventually reduce travel time between Earth’s orbit and future destinations for human activity.

In-Orbit Propellant Transfer and Storage: The capability to transfer and store propellant—particularly cryogenic propellants—in orbit can significantly increase the Nation’s ability to conduct complex and extended exploration missions beyond Earth’s orbit. It could also potentially be used to extend the lifetime of future government and commercial spacecraft in Earth orbit.

Lightweight/Inflatable Modules: Inflatable modules can be larger, lighter, and potentially less expensive for future use than the rigid modules currently used by the International Space Station (ISS). NASA will pursue a demonstration of lightweight/inflatable modules for eventual in-space habitation, transportation, or even surface habitation needs.

Aerocapture, and/or entry, descent and landing (EDL) technology: This involves the development and demonstration of systems technologies for: precision landing of payloads on “high-g” and “low-g” planetary bodies; returning humans or collected samples to Earth; and enabling orbital insertion in various atmospheric conditions.

Automated/Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking: The ability of two spacecraft to rendezvous, operating independently from human controllers and without other back-up, requires advances in sensors, software, and real-time on-orbit positioning and flight control, among other challenges. This technology is critical to the ultimate success of capabilities such as in-orbit propellant storage and refueling, and complex operations in assembling mission components for challenging destinations.

Closed–loop life support system demonstration at the ISS: This would validate the feasibility of human survival beyond Earth based on recycled materials with minimal logistics supply.

I'm rather perplexed at all of those (in this forum, Congress, and elsewhere) who are claiming that developing and demonstrating these key technologies (at a cost of $400M-$1B per mission) isn't a good investment for NASA.

Some of those are inextricably embedded in the DIRECT proposal - rendezvous (phase 2) & depots (phase 3).

With Orion now added back into FY2011, Earth aerocapture seems less relevant to Lunar & NEO exploration, or return from Mars. Reliable aerocapture at Mars would be very valuable, but only for robotic missions for at least the next 20 years. This work needs to be done, but not *right now* if (*if*) it's at the expense of assured continuance of ISS (for instance).

FY2011 doesn't propose BEO exploration until at least 2025, so stuff like GTO + 10Km/s won't be required until then (it will take time to mature).

These are all things which would be most valuable towards a space-faring society, but FY2011 prioritises sexy research over boring ISS supply, despite that NASA can't even list the requirements for a more heavily utilised ISS. It might be OK, but we just don't know yet.

cheers, Martin

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Just to be clear, but do you consider these Flagship Technology Demonstrators and the ETDD demonstrators "cheap but pointless demos"?

All this stuff should have been done over the last 20, 30, 40 years.

It should still be done now, but NOT at the expense of ongoing development and operations.

<soapbox>

IMNSHO, NASA should have a substantial minimum budget each year for each of:

  Advanced Technology R & D
  New Systems Development
  HSF Operations
  Science Operations
  Infrastructure maintenance
  Admin

None of them should be shorted to pay for 'high priority' projects. Those projects could get extra funding if the politics allow, but not at the expense of the other areas.

Over time, tech R&D should flow into new systems dev, into operations and science. It shouldn't be this crazy method of massively funding the flavour of the month. Which is then useless because every other area has fallen apart.

</soapbox>

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9168
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 326
I don't think anyone on this forum has claimed that.  This isn't the part we're complaining about...

Precisely.  What I hope I hear you saying is that the idea of misallocated budget priorities in the BSE is finally catching on, as well as the idea of emphasizing the use of current abilities and de-emphasizing future possibilities.

Yep, there's a difference between "demonstrating technology" for the sake of demo'ing tech and actually using that technology...

Precisely.  What I hope I hear you saying is: Ditto.

...This work needs to be done, but not *right now* if...

These are all things which would be most valuable towards a space-faring society, but FY2011 prioritises sexy research over boring ISS supply...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you just said "Ditto".

All this stuff should have been done over the last 20, 30, 40 years.

It should still be done now, but NOT at the expense of ongoing development and operations....

Over time, tech R&D should flow into new systems dev...

There's many different ways to express the same thing.  Ditto is a convenient shortcut for that expression.  Were there to be a vote among sensible players, another similar word would be "Aye".
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Some of those are inextricably embedded in the DIRECT proposal - rendezvous (phase 2) & depots (phase 3).

Yup, that's one of the good things about DIRECT.

Quote
With Orion now added back into FY2011, Earth aerocapture seems less relevant to Lunar & NEO exploration, or return from Mars. Reliable aerocapture at Mars would be very valuable, but only for robotic missions for at least the next 20 years. This work needs to be done, but not *right now* if (*if*) it's at the expense of assured continuance of ISS (for instance).

Aerocapture is actually the only one of the FTD missions which I think could be delayed -- that's also probably why it's the last of the initially-planned missions. It's main multiplier effects are for potential use in reentry capsules more cost-effective than Orion, various robotic missions, and planning of a Mars architecture. It doesn't have the same urgency as depots, rendezvous, inflatable modules, or advanced propulsion. It is of extreme relevance though to the question of what sort of HLV (if any) is needed for exploration.

Quote
FY2011 doesn't propose BEO exploration until at least 2025, so stuff like GTO + 10Km/s won't be required until then (it will take time to mature).

Sure, that's why it's important to start now. It'll also be invaluable for increasing the cost-effectiveness and capability of robotic missions in the interim, with its usefulness increasing as the technology progresses. Advanced propulsion is also an enabler for space tugs and other forms of reusable spacecraft, which are key to cost-effective space exploration.

Quote
These are all things which would be most valuable towards a space-faring society, but FY2011 prioritises sexy research over boring ISS supply, despite that NASA can't even list the requirements for a more heavily utilised ISS. It might be OK, but we just don't know yet.

ISS supply is quite important of course, and must be assured (whether through Shuttle extension or commercial capabilities), but it's rather besides the topic. There's also an aside about people who want to prioritize a "sexy" HLV over the boring technology development required to make space exploration sustainable.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline MP99

Edit: this post was temporarily removed, as it was based on calculations which were badly incorrect. Now restored with note of the faulty section.


FY2011 doesn't propose BEO exploration until at least 2025, so stuff like GTO + 10Km/s won't be required until then (it will take time to mature).

Sure, that's why it's important to start now. It'll also be invaluable for increasing the cost-effectiveness and capability of robotic missions in the interim, with its usefulness increasing as the technology progresses.

I tried working up some rough numbers for the robotic delta-V that could be achieved by the Boeing HLV with a DIVHUS kick stage.

Edit: These numbers were badly incorrect:-
Ignoring the "start from GTO, then add 10Km/s" restriction (which is understandable for a SEP demonstration, but not for chemical), it seems to be able to lob 5mT+ through 12.5Km/s (gross) delta-V. For a 1mT payload, which I'd assume is more in line with mid-term SEP capabilities (??), almost 20Km/s.

An expensive launch, but I suspect it will be a long while before SEP can match that performance, and be mature enough for flagship missions.




Quote
Advanced propulsion is also an enabler for space tugs and other forms of reusable spacecraft, which are key to cost-effective space exploration.

Yes, I see the dilemma here. This is a capability we want, regardless.



Quote
Quote
These are all things which would be most valuable towards a space-faring society, but FY2011 prioritises sexy research over boring ISS supply, despite that NASA can't even list the requirements for a more heavily utilised ISS. It might be OK, but we just don't know yet.

ISS supply is quite important of course, and must be assured (whether through Shuttle extension or commercial capabilities), but it's rather besides the topic. There's also an aside about people who want to prioritize a "sexy" HLV over the boring technology development required to make space exploration sustainable.

Guilty!

cheers, Martin
« Last Edit: 05/20/2010 09:04 PM by MP99 »

Tags: