Author Topic: Space Access '11 Live Blog  (Read 25583 times)

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #40 on: 04/08/2011 03:58 PM »
Unless it involves a Jupiter flyby, 90 (km/s)^2 doesn't look enough for Uranus. Injection energies to Jupiter apparently range from 75-85, depending on if you have good winds that day.

Well, given that the entire reason Uranus was favored over Neptune in the Decadal was because it had better Jupiter gravity-assist opportunities, it's probably a given that they will use it. It's just that you wouldn't need an SEP stage in addition (which adds a lot of cost).

Though it could also be for JEO, again to eliminate the Venus-Earth flybys and fly directly to Jupiter.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #41 on: 04/08/2011 04:03 PM »
Keep in mind any of those outer planet missions beyond Jupiter (and Jupiter missions closer in than Ganymede) would need to have FH certified for nuclear payloads. Blackstar mentioned that is a very expensive and long process, in addition to actually certifying the vehicle for high cost, high low risk NASA missions.
« Last Edit: 04/08/2011 04:04 PM by ugordan »

Offline mrhuggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • East Yorkshire, UK
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #42 on: 04/08/2011 04:10 PM »
Keep in mind any of those outer planet missions beyond Jupiter (and Jupiter missions closer in than Ganymede) would need to have FH certified for nuclear payloads. Blackstar mentioned that is a very expensive and long process, in addition to actually certifying the vehicle for high cost, high low risk NASA missions.

With the inherent nature of the FH design ie been human rated, i wouldn't think it wouldn't take much more in terms of getting it nuclear rated. Most of the work to get it would be on the handling side.

The atlas 5 has to have gone through same procedures for New Horizons and MSL.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #43 on: 04/08/2011 04:17 PM »
With the inherent nature of the FH design ie been human rated, i wouldn't think it wouldn't take much more in terms of getting it nuclear rated.

Human-rated and nuclear-rated don't necessarily have the same requirements. Human-rated means a vehicle that would give a crew a high chance of surviving a failure, by monitoring health and picking up problems early enough to initiate an abort.

Unmanned probes don't have abort modes. When a vehicle fails, it goes down into the drink. Along with its plutonium.

So the vehicle design needs to be looked at closely to ensure it will actually be reliable enough to make such a failure very unlikely to be an allowable risk.

Quote
Most of the work to get it would be on the handling side.

I don't understand. What handling side? I'm not talking about payload processing.

Quote
The atlas 5 has to have gone through same procedures for New Horizons

I know. It wasn't a walk in the park, either.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4304
  • Liked: 1557
  • Likes Given: 1284
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #44 on: 04/08/2011 04:26 PM »
With the inherent nature of the FH design ie been human rated, i wouldn't think it wouldn't take much more in terms of getting it nuclear rated. Most of the work to get it would be on the handling side.

The atlas 5 has to have gone through same procedures for New Horizons and MSL.

You wouldn't think, but probably incorrectly. 

The process for getting a rocket certified to carry an RTG is well established and very involved.

The process for "human rating" a rocket is not yet fully defined, so "the inherent nature of the FH design" may count for little in either rating.
« Last Edit: 04/08/2011 04:27 PM by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #45 on: 04/08/2011 04:49 PM »
Change tracks to using neutron flux from a bomb to deflect an asteroid. Asking for a redacted version of classified report...
Really? What medium to transmit the pulse?

Vacuum. The neutrons ablate a layer of rock which expands off, carries momentum, and acts as an effective rocket.

Are you sure you're not thinking of x-rays ablating the surface? Neutrons would penetrate much deeper and transfer their momentum directly and more evenly, avoiding large structural stresses like those of x-ray-powered rocket propulsion.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #46 on: 04/08/2011 05:06 PM »
Jeff Greason on XCOR Aerospace

XCOR on track for best year yet, still a few unannounced contracts. ULA contract for 25,000 lb LOX/LH2 that resemble a certain engine on the market today. Parts of ULA don't act like big aerospace; try to build a better product rather than yelling to senators. ULA concentrated all the pro-commercial space people at LM and Boeing. Market for expendable rockets not as big as some may like. Has a mixed history with hydrogen. H2O on Moon means hydrogen is future for exploration. LH2 engine "going nicely". Conventional wisdom about handling LH2 makes it a bit worse than their experience.

Lynx engine fully up and running; testing new nozzle fabrication techniques for ULA (to reduce cost). Still have pump integration to go, but propulsion is not long pole for Lynx. Separate test stand for pumps. 3 markets for Lynx (people, payloads, and nanosats) equally. Certain interest in fixed vacuum payloads on dorsal pod (instrument testing?). Can put a Shuttle mid-deck locker in place of passenger seat. Separate companies for payload integration. Wet lease program for Lynx. Two announced customers, and a bunch of unannounced.

2004 Commercial Space Act had a moratorium on fantasy-based regulation at FAA. That moratorium is soon to expire. Interaction with State Department not as bad as expected, but don't surprise bureaucracy (because they'll just say no).

Couldn't be happier about the progress on Lynx. Progress based on profits from separate contracts, but getting better. Have enough to be able to build Lynx without further investment, but only slowly.

The more he works with wind tunnels, the more he likes them. MSFC tunnel folks are great. USAF might be giving him a bunch of tunnel time. No comparison to time for CFD.

Just a little bit of toxic props is still toxic. But, non-toxic RCS is very hard, though they have made progress. Highly oxygenated near-monoprop with a bit of GOX.

Dorsal pod removable from Lynx.

ITAR has a guilty until proven innocent mentality. Everything that has a rocket is on the munitions list. State can't publish past ITAR decisions, making it hard to figure what works.

XCOR does not accept cost plus contracts.

Considering LH2 for Lynx upper stage; ease of use determining factor.

WRT regulation, crashed spacecraft do not make money. That's the real regulation.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #47 on: 04/08/2011 06:05 PM »
Rick Wills on REFPROP

NIST propellant material properties database. License $200. Very useful for tank and engine design.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #48 on: 04/08/2011 07:35 PM »
Max Vozoff on ISP Systems and NOFBX

Hydrazine Sucks: ubiquitous, dangerous (hundreds of deaths), expensive, tremendous overhead, not a good monopropellant. But really no alternative.

Nitrous-oxide based monopropellant. Non-toxic and environment friendly; much less overhead and liability. Hydrazine-powered rocket a chemical weapon warhead worse than Agent Orange. Not export-controlled, thus international patents. Tested in up to 200 lbf rockets. ISP systems is a tech incubator to develop NOFBX. Better vac Isp than best hydrazine biprop systems (>320 sec vac). Spark-ignited, unlike hydrazine systems. Very fast kinetics relative to biprop systems; almost silent burning. Self-pressurizing, no He needed for RCS applications. Less than 5% of cost of hydrazine. Can be used to regen cool nozzle; thrusters <150 deg C when burning.

Initial products 5 lbf and 100 lbf thrusters. ISS flight experiment in 2012 to get "flight heritage" with 100 lbf thruster. Prop transfer simply a matter of differential heating (= differential pressure). International commercial and domestic military customers. NOFBX is a disruptive technology.

Right now a plan; ask again in 3 years how it goes. Nitrous Oxide with a "secret sauce" added. Separate NASA-funded and FAA-funded stability tests. Always a balance with monoprop. Hydrazines are all grandfathered in, wouldn't pass modern tests (which NOFBX has so far). Room temperature pressure is 700-800 psi. All gas-phase when it gets to the injector. Proprietary flash-back arresting hardware.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4286
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #49 on: 04/08/2011 08:18 PM »
Max Vozoff on ISP Systems and NOFBX

...
Right now a plan; ask again in 3 years how it goes. Nitrous Oxide with a "secret sauce" added.

Hmmm. Interesting.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #50 on: 04/08/2011 09:30 PM »
Max Vozoff on A Model for Successful Commercial Crew Procurement

Shuttle has set a pretty low bar for safety. Very hard to get past Soyuz on safety per cost. Innovation hard to incorporate in space industry. Bigelow needs 8 crew flights/per year. Purely commercial flight marginalizes NASA spaceflight. Killing people is very bad for business. Any government program longer than 8 years will get canceled. NASA's information base is owned by the US public and should be pushed out to private companies.

COTS is a funded Space Act Agreement -> removes a lot of overhead relative to FAR. If Space Act milestones are missed, USG can take property and IP. Goals rather than detailed requirements. Government-controlled IP scares investors. ISS safety is were USG should regulate, everything else is were it should not.

Fixed price only works if the bidders know what they're bidding. Draft requirements can't be too specific. Compete a funded Phase A. Then, drive down to 3-4 year program to demonstrate crew to station. Finally, make awards based on number of delivered crew to station, like CRS. Maybe $500 million per crew flight.

Multiple funded 9-month Phase As, like SMD. Needs to be skin in the game; if not, may not be market to support product.

"Radical left" is COTS office; "radical right" is traditional NASA HSF and Spaceflight Awareness.
« Last Edit: 04/08/2011 09:39 PM by simonbp »

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #51 on: 04/08/2011 10:01 PM »
Charles Pooley on Microlaunchers

Relocating to Las Vegas; business much easier than in California. Sending Nanosats to NEOs and Earth quasi-satellites. Attitude control with radiation pressure. Total mass less than 200 grams. 7 cm telescope for imaging. 100-300 kg GLOW launch vehicle.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4286
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #52 on: 04/08/2011 10:07 PM »
Charles Pooley on Microlaunchers

Relocating to Las Vegas; business much easier than in California. Sending Nanosats to NEOs and Earth quasi-satellites. Attitude control with radiation pressure. Total mass less than 200 grams. 7 cm telescope for imaging. 100-300 kg GLOW launch vehicle.

Geez!! 200 grams!

(appreciate your updates simon! Great job)
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #53 on: 04/08/2011 10:15 PM »
George Herbert on Wild and Crazy Propellants

SF6/NH3-Li rockets. SF6 relatively nontoxic, much denser than bulk air. Products are solid LiF and Li2S, both of which are solid phase. Used as torpedo propulsion system (with a turbine).

Add NH3 and get Isp of 271 sec (theoretically). Exhaust will sink, literally. Also little bit of hydrofluoric acid in exhaust. Li miscible in NH3. Self-pressurizing. Li expensive, but only 10% of prop mass. Rare hypergolic that isn't really deadly, and amateur-friendly.

Offline Malderi

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 529
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #54 on: 04/08/2011 10:36 PM »
Quote
Relocating to Las Vegas; business much easier than in California. Sending Nanosats to NEOs and Earth quasi-satellites. Attitude control with radiation pressure. Total mass less than 200 grams. 7 cm telescope for imaging. 100-300 kg GLOW launch vehicle.

Wow. If you can take 300kg on Earth and get anything to a NEO, why aren't we launching these twice a day and getting close up shots of everything?

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #55 on: 04/08/2011 10:46 PM »
John Garvey on Garvey Spacecraft

Nanosat launch vehicle. Close collaboration with Cal State. Semi-refurbishable rocket. Cubesat-derived avionics on rocket. Zigbee-based telemetry downlink. Reference config 10 kg to 250 km circular. Community wants 20 kg to 450 km, so cluster. 2009 launch with multichamber aerospike; 7/10 chambers ignited -> crash. Not deep enough pockets for fixed-cost projects. Under Class 2 waiver, working towards Class 3. Competing for NASA suborbital reusable contract. LOX/Propylene good compromise of density and power.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #56 on: 04/08/2011 11:56 PM »
Mike Kelly on FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST)

License and permit operations, rather the certification of vehicles. SS2 will fly under an experimental permit once it begins powered flight. 8 licensed launches since April 2010. Large learning curve on Dragon entry permit. Working with Bigelow. Commercial Space Transportation Center of Excellence; government-commercial-academia partnership.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #57 on: 04/09/2011 12:29 AM »
Jon Goff on Altius Space Machines

First time pitching the company in front of a large audience. :) Depots major motivation for starting Altius. Hunch: Many key spacefaring technologies can profitably developed today. Rather serial progression, attack from both ends. Didn't mean to create spacecraft mechanisms company, but did. Rendezvous and docking is key bottleneck for low-cost spaceflight.

Sticky boom electroadhesion docking. Will stick to wood, concrete, cats. Even better in vacuum. Long boom allows "contact at a distance". Tradition docking is controlled collision. F-15s don't ram the back end of a Tanker to dock.

Sticky boom for Mars Sample Return return vehicle. Sample collection from NEA mission. Allows you to capture a tumbling object.

For a depot, tanker is just a dumb tank. Enable daily "milk runs" for ISS.

Handheld demo mechanism; didn't have any videos, so brought working hardware instead. :) Want to get flying in next few years. Build custom sticky for third party spacecraft.

Possibility to combine with a Terminator Tape Electrodynamic tether for junk disposal.

(And I'm sure he can add much more if you ask)

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17804
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 4286
Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #58 on: 04/09/2011 12:32 AM »
Oh sweet! So that's what that electroadhesion doo-hickey thing was for!  :)
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline simonbp

Re: Space Access '11 Live Blog
« Reply #59 on: 04/09/2011 12:45 AM »
Frank Smith on KC Space Pirates

NASA space elevator power beaming challenge. Laser-power RC car. Laser sponsor pulled out, but don't have $1 million to replace. Challenge may be changed. Small (<1 kg) tether nanosat.

Ashes to orbit; spread ashes from polar orbit, land over entire Earth. Only $2000.

Tags: