Author Topic: Exploration Enterprise Workshop Day 1 and Day 2 Presentations released  (Read 19241 times)

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 9
I love the HLV Vehicle paper --

Quote
R&D on First Stage Launch Propulsion

Large hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene) engine capable of generating high levels of thrust exceeding roughly one million pounds of thrust at sea level. Improved robustness, efficiencies, affordability, operability

Explore partnership with DoD common engine for national security and civil space missions

Goal: Fully operational engine by 2020

Didn't we get RS-84 near flight testing before it was cancelled in what 2003?

So what's with the decade long delay before we can get RS-84 (plus)?

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
The 2015 lunar precursor is quite interesting, although I'm a little dismayed that Project M (humanoid robot on the Moon by December 2012) isn't in the current presentations; I'm guessing most of the Project M elements are being used for the 2015 mission instead. I came across a white paper from May 3, 2010 on Project M, which seemed somewhat promising:

http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/m-whitepaper.asp
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22560
  • Liked: 911
  • Likes Given: 333
I don't see the point in using flyback kerolox boosters, seem like a huge upfront development cost for at most marginal cost savings, unless the boosters are the core for the USAF partially reusable study LV.

is it me or does this entire plan sound like SLI part II?
« Last Edit: 05/25/2010 12:27 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I'd also like to point out that many of the items proposed in FY2011 have been worked in the past or are being worked.  I point this out because I believe too many think that these are brand new or impossible to work with a more focused program.  That is simply not the case. 
     Isn't the key difference that this plan budgets and schedules to actually launch missions, with actual in-space hardware, on actual launch vehicles?
    The whole point is that this technology has been "worked in the past" (as you say), in the lab and ground-tests, but there was little or no allocated money or plan to actually fly. Before now.
-Alex

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I'd also like to point out that many of the items proposed in FY2011 have been worked in the past or are being worked.  I point this out because I believe too many think that these are brand new or impossible to work with a more focused program.  That is simply not the case. 
     Isn't the key difference that this plan budgets and schedules to actually launch missions, with actual in-space hardware, on actual launch vehicles?
    The whole point is that this technology has been "worked in the past" (as you say), in the lab and ground-tests, but there was little or no allocated money or plan to actually fly. Before now.
-Alex

Prove to me any of this will actually fly. 

After all, if it so "game-changing", etc then that also means that still some more work needs to be done in order to get it to fly.  Now, as I stated, I have no problem working some of this stuff and have no delusions that we can do significant exploration without it.  However, note I said "significant" because we can do some exploration with what we have now and continue to mature other technologies.

The problem with die-hard supporters of FY2011 is that the wool is being pulled over your collective eyes.  Some fancy buzz words are thrown around to make it sound great but many of the details are missing, and like I said, it is completely possible to work some of these under a more focused program.  In addition, NASA's history is rittled with programs that were intended to fly and never did.  I could name them but it would be a long list.  The FY2011 proposals will be the latest, and possibly last, addition. 

Only if one wanted to not do something would one pursue this path where everything is stopped, excuses are made that we simply cannot do it with our current state of technology and decisions are deferred and notional missions do not start for another 15 years. 
« Last Edit: 05/25/2010 02:25 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 516
  • Likes Given: 163
I'd also like to point out that many of the items proposed in FY2011 have been worked in the past or are being worked.  I point this out because I believe too many think that these are brand new or impossible to work with a more focused program.  That is simply not the case. 
     Isn't the key difference that this plan budgets and schedules to actually launch missions, with actual in-space hardware, on actual launch vehicles?
    The whole point is that this technology has been "worked in the past" (as you say), in the lab and ground-tests, but there was little or no allocated money or plan to actually fly. Before now.
-Alex

Hate to break it to you but, STS has been "launching missions" for years if I recall. Oh and BTW you could do this stuff and still have SDHLV easily, with proper budgeting and managment (something NASA lacks at the moment). And you could fly heavier tech demonstraters on HLV (if need be).
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Hate to break it to you but, STS has been "launching missions" for years if I recall.
    We are discussing BEO technology hardware and demonstration missions in this thread, not doing laps in LEO. STS is not (did not become) a relevant BEO launcher.
Quote
Oh and BTW you could do this stuff and still have SDHLV easily, with proper budgeting and managment (something NASA lacks at the moment).
      That's nice to say, but show your numbers. DIRECT's alternative budget is a reasonable starting point, but even it does not do "all of this stuff". SDHLV means means mission hardware cuts.
Quote
And you could fly heavier tech demonstraters on HLV (if need be).
    Sure. And ponies, too.
-Alex

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Prove to me any of this will actually fly. 

After all, if it so "game-changing", etc then that also means that still some more work needs to be done in order to get it to fly.  Now, as I stated, I have no problem working some of this stuff and have no delusions that we can do significant exploration without it.  However, note I said "significant" because we can do some exploration with what we have now and continue to mature other technologies.
     "Prove it"?  Obviously you know that's nonsensical.

     It's true, we could do (some) exploration without any of this. If the old plans were credible, we could have put men on Mars /w Apollo-tech (and 10% of the US GDP?...)  But we need to raise the mission benefit/cost ratio, in order to get Congress to fund them. And I share your interest in doing near-term exploration pending better tech, but it would seem that most of that would require nontrivial SDHLV spending, necessarily starving at least some of the tech flight missions.

Quote
The problem with die-hard supporters of FY2011 is that the wool is being pulled over your collective eyes.  Some fancy buzz words are thrown around to make it sound great but many of the details are missing, and like I said, it is completely possible to work some of these under a more focused program.  In addition, NASA's history is rittled with programs that were intended to fly and never did.  I could name them but it would be a long list.  The FY2011 proposals will be the latest, and possibly last, addition. 
      I'm listening hard -- I respect that you've been in the business a long time. Can you be more specific about your warnings in the first two sentences? And I hope that everyone here is well versed in cancelled NASA missions; do you have some specific past tragedies in mind that closely parallel these "Exploration Enterprise" Proposals? Lastly, what do you mean by a more "focused" program -- which of these proposed missions would you choose to cut?

Quote
Only if one wanted to not do something would one pursue this path where everything is stopped, excuses are made that we simply cannot do it with our current state of technology and decisions are deferred and notional missions do not start for another 15 years. 
     As I understand it, even if we develop J-130, the only non-notional BEO mission we can definitely fly this decade is Orion-around-the-moon (using DIVHUS), which doesn't seem spectacularly worthwhile in itself. Perhaps we can also fly a NEO rendezvous, but JUS and a hab module will take even more from these FY2011 proposals. What do you want to fly sooner than 15 years, and what (keeping this thread on track) do you want to cut?

-Alex

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Any chance we could get some discussion of the actual workshop presentations in this thread?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2513
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 4
     Isn't the key difference that this plan budgets and schedules to actually launch missions, with actual in-space hardware, on actual launch vehicles?
    The whole point is that this technology has been "worked in the past" (as you say), in the lab and ground-tests, but there was little or no allocated money or plan to actually fly. Before now.
-Alex

You're kidding right?  One (less than 60 kg) robot to the moon in 2015 and a robot on the ISS are the only actual flights listed. Everything else is ground test.

Is it so hard to think you could cut CxP down to a simple SD HLV plus Orion, fund a moderate CCDev program, and still afford to increase the spend on R&D? And maybe throw in a little extra in 2011-2013 to stretch the Shuttle and close the gap.


Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
You're kidding right?  One (less than 60 kg) robot to the moon in 2015 and a robot on the ISS are the only actual flights listed. Everything else is ground test.

Huh? I think we're looking at different presentations. All of the FTD missions and robotic precursor missions are orbital or BEO flights, plus the ETDD autonomous atmospheric lander flights.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 519
Bump. Day 2 presentations released. Same url, below the Day 1 presentations.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/new_space_enterprise/home/workshop_home.html

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 519
From the CRYOSTAT presentation, page 14:
Quote
In-orbit transfer of propellants allows space vehicles to be refueled on-orbit.
  May reduce launch vehicle weight due to P/L being flown dry or reduced prop
Enables commercial providers to deliver on-orbit propellants.
  Enables on-orbit assembly, satellite servicing missions, and resupply or empty or partially filled
stages and spacecraft.

I wondered whether commercial launchers would be filling the depot, or the HLV itself would. Guess that answers that.

They also seem to be leaning towards a LOX/methane upper stage/depot (page 16).

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
They also seem to be leaning towards a LOX/methane upper stage/depot (page 16).

I'm not sure how much I agree with it, but here's the current rationale (presumably subject to change as the RFI proceeds) on preferring LOX/LCH4 over LOX/LH2:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458814main_FTD_CRYOGENICPropellantSTorageAndTransferMission.pdf
Quote
Cryogen Options Review: Why Methane (vs. Hydrogen)
A early LOX/Methane demo offers advantages:
Enables methane-based systems and mitigates risks for LH2 systems.
Allows direct comparison of active vs. passive cooling.
Leverages recent investments in LO2/LCH4 cryo fluid management
Leverages recent investments in pressure-fed engines
Breaks the barrier for long-duration cryo systems.
A LOX/Hydrogen demo in foreseeable future is possible.
Low cryo cooler TRL implies shorter mission duration.
No accurate gauging method for unsettled propellants.
Due to similarity of LOX and LCH4 properties (e.g. temp, density, etc.), the same components may be qualified and used for ground test and flight hardware.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2080
  • USA
  • Liked: 1441
  • Likes Given: 625
Why is there no scaled up BEO "dream chaser" type spacecraft concept included to fly atop a new liquid HLV? So much legacy knowledge afer 30 years of shuttle. Certainly we can "re-imagine" a more cost effective and technically  superior RLV at this point. I feel as if it should be part of their discussion.   
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 519
The 2nd thumbnail on page 8 of the Heavy Lift & Propulsion Technology (HL&PT) presentation shows something like that actually.

See the picture attached to this post.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17833
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 495
  • Likes Given: 4903
Wow, I think we have our answer for the Node 1 Test article that is in the Space Station Processing facility!

On page 13 of the Inflatable Module Mission document.

Node 4 (Option).

How cool is that!

Edit to add: Unfortunately it wouldn't be via shuttle. On page 27 of the Automated Autonomous Rendezvous & Docking document, they use a 5.0m Atlas fairing to launch Node 4. Oh well, still cool.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2010 12:58 am by robertross »
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Nancyloo

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
They also seem to be leaning towards a LOX/methane upper stage/depot (page 16).

I'm not sure how much I agree with it, but here's the current rationale (presumably subject to change as the RFI proceeds) on preferring LOX/LCH4 over LOX/LH2:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458814main_FTD_CRYOGENICPropellantSTorageAndTransferMission.pdf
Quote
Cryogen Options Review: Why Methane (vs. Hydrogen)
A early LOX/Methane demo offers advantages:
Enables methane-based systems and mitigates risks for LH2 systems.
Allows direct comparison of active vs. passive cooling.
Leverages recent investments in LO2/LCH4 cryo fluid management
Leverages recent investments in pressure-fed engines
Breaks the barrier for long-duration cryo systems.
A LOX/Hydrogen demo in foreseeable future is possible.
Low cryo cooler TRL implies shorter mission duration.
No accurate gauging method for unsettled propellants.
Due to similarity of LOX and LCH4 properties (e.g. temp, density, etc.), the same components may be qualified and used for ground test and flight hardware.

I still don't follow the desires for methane.  Every EDS supporting EM-L1, LLO, NEO, LMO, Lunar surface, Mars Surface (you get the picture) is base lined to use LH2 thanks to the much higher ISP.  We also have 50 years experience with handling LH2 on orbit, with existing flight hardware but relatively little experience with methane.  So what about cryo-cooler TRL, just use passive thermal protection and deal with the modest boil-off, performance wise you are still way ahead.

Offline Nancyloo

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Prove to me any of this will actually fly. 

After all, if it so "game-changing", etc then that also means that still some more work needs to be done in order to get it to fly.  Now, as I stated, I have no problem working some of this stuff and have no delusions that we can do significant exploration without it.  However, note I said "significant" because we can do some exploration with what we have now and continue to mature other technologies.
The problem with die-hard supporters of FY2011 is that the wool is being pulled over your collective eyes.  Some fancy buzz words are thrown around to make it sound great but many of the details are missing, and like I said, it is completely possible to work some of these under a more focused program.  In addition, NASA's history is rittled with programs that were intended to fly and never did.  I could name them but it would be a long list.  The FY2011 proposals will be the latest, and possibly last, addition. 
Only if one wanted to not do something would one pursue this path where everything is stopped, excuses are made that we simply cannot do it with our current state of technology and decisions are deferred and notional missions do not start for another 15 years. 

I'm curious what you mean by your above statements?
"We can do some exploration with what we have now" 
1) Are you referring to  Shuttle?  Good luck getting beyond LEO with shuttle.
2) Ares I? We've spent $4B down this path with billions to go, no guarantees it will work and when it is finally complete it will almost achieve Delta LEO capability, but provide a fraction of Deltas TLI performance.
3) EELV? Can support crewed LEO missions, but how does EELV as is support beyond LEO?
4) Ares V?  Hasn't even really started as a design.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17833
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 495
  • Likes Given: 4903

I still don't follow the desires for methane.  Every EDS supporting EM-L1, LLO, NEO, LMO, Lunar surface, Mars Surface (you get the picture) is base lined to use LH2 thanks to the much higher ISP.  We also have 50 years experience with handling LH2 on orbit, with existing flight hardware but relatively little experience with methane.  So what about cryo-cooler TRL, just use passive thermal protection and deal with the modest boil-off, performance wise you are still way ahead.


It's all about Mars. Using the Sabatier process, you can combine H2 & CO2 to produce methane and water: rocket fuel for the return trip & obviously drinking water (including supplies for surface stay & the return trip). So the less we rely on H2 for but the essentials, the better off we are.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Tags: