Author Topic: COTS Cuts (Read 33732 times)

vt_hokie · « **Reply #80 on:** 08/01/2006 03:46 am »

So, what does the other "A" in NASA stand for then, if not aeronautics?

Jim · « **Reply #81 on:** 08/01/2006 06:30 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 31/7/2006 11:33 PM

So, what does the other "A" in NASA stand for then, if not aeronautics?

That doesn't support your argument . There is no basic research needed for an RLV. Only a business case. Just like the US gov't did not fund an SST (whereas Europe did and it failed commercially), it shouldn't fund RLV development

vt_hokie · « **Reply #82 on:** 08/01/2006 08:05 am »

Quote

Jim - 1/8/2006 2:17 AM

That doesn't support your argument . There is no basic research needed for an RLV. Only a business case. Just like the US gov't did not fund an SST (whereas Europe did and it failed commercially), it shouldn't fund RLV development

I wasn't talking only about RLV's, although I do think NASA should be investing in RLV technology instead of trying to revive Apollo. But I was speaking more about NASA's general role in research and development, and responding to your comment about the EU funding airplanes. And I do think it was a shame that NASA killed its "High Speed Civil Transport" research.

What is the business case for CEV? There isn't one, and there need not be. NASA is not a profit driven corporation, and exists to perform the kind of scientific and technological research and development that private industry cannot realistically be expected to do. Unfortunately, I think this latest lunar exploration program is going to suck up all of NASA's funds and kill a lot of other worthwhile research programs. In the grand scheme of things, it is a strategic advantage for the United States to maintain its leadership in aerospace, and that certainly makes the investment worthwhile.

HailColumbia · « **Reply #83 on:** 08/01/2006 05:57 pm »

vt_hokie... What exactly do you plan to do with your much vaunted RLV if you had one? All you talk about is how we need a Winged RLV. ok. fine. If we built one, whats it for?

vt_hokie · « **Reply #84 on:** 08/01/2006 08:20 pm »

Quote

HailColumbia - 1/8/2006 1:44 PM

vt_hokie... What exactly do you plan to do with your much vaunted RLV if you had one? All you talk about is how we need a Winged RLV. ok. fine. If we built one, whats it for?

(A) Transporting researchers to and from the ISS on a rountine basis so we can actually get something out of the space station that we've spent many years and many billions of dollars to obtain. NASA reminds me of a spoiled kid right now, for years saying "I want a space station" and then when the parents save enough to buy one, the kid says, "I'm bored with that, I want something else now."

(B) Servicing the space station and transporting large replacement components such as CMG's that a Progress or ATV could not deliver.

(C) Hubble servicing type missions.

(D) Delivering lunar or interplanetary payloads into orbit, such as the shuttle launched Galileo.

(E) Delivering the components for beyond-LEO manned spacecraft to be assembled in LEO.

(F) High speed transportation between destinations on Earth (although such might be provided by a different, suborbital vehicle, but the technology would be applicable).

Essentially, a reusable launch vehicle is for doing whatever NASA plans to do with its human spaceflight program, be it research at a space station in LEO or human missions to the moon or Mars. The point is that at half a billion dollars or a billion dollars per flight, or even more, with currently planned launch systems, NASA is going to be spending the bulk of its budget on launch vehicle operations and won't have much left over to actually do anything once we get to the moon. And flight rates will be so low that only two or three lunar missions per year will actually occur, if NASA is lucky.

aero313 · « **Reply #85 on:** 08/01/2006 09:56 pm »

Quote

vt_hokie - 1/8/2006 4:07 PM

Quote
HailColumbia - 1/8/2006 1:44 PM

vt_hokie... What exactly do you plan to do with your much vaunted RLV if you had one? All you talk about is how we need a Winged RLV. ok. fine. If we built one, whats it for?

(A) Transporting researchers ...

(B) Servicing ...

(C) Hubble servicing type missions.

(D) Delivering lunar or interplanetary payloads into orbit, such as the shuttle launched Galileo.

(E) Delivering the components for beyond-LEO manned spacecraft to be assembled in LEO.

(F) High speed transportation ...

Essentially, a reusable launch vehicle is for doing whatever NASA plans to do with its human spaceflight program, be it research at a space station in LEO or human missions to the moon or Mars. The point is that at half a billion dollars or a billion dollars per flight, or even more, with currently planned launch systems, NASA is going to be spending the bulk of its budget on launch vehicle operations and won't have much left over to actually do anything once we get to the moon. And flight rates will be so low that only two or three lunar missions per year will actually occur, if NASA is lucky.

Yeah, and except for your last one (high speed transport) we've got one of these now. How is a new RLV going to be the all-singing, all-dancing workhorse that the shuttle was supposed to be but isn't? I thought we learned from the shuttle that it made no sense to use the same large vehicle to deliver people and cargo. A paper rocket is ALWAYS less expensive to operate than a real one. These are the same arguments that got us the shuttle in the first place.

Should the CEV be winged instead of ballistic? That's at least a reasonable discussion to have. Should one vehicle be used for both crew and cargo? Not a chance. Will whatever comes next be as inexpensive to operate as the studies suggest? Get serious.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #86 on:** 08/01/2006 10:25 pm »

Well, I think I'll respond to that by posing another question. What do you see as the future of space transportation looking, say, 50 years down the road? 100 years? Should we be flying Apollo capsules launched by Thiokol/ATK SRB's for the next century? Or should we do what got us to where we are now, and invest in new technology? At what point does it become okay to start improving technology again, and if we are to start advancing again at some point in the future, then why not now?

HailColumbia · « **Reply #87 on:** 08/01/2006 11:05 pm »

So basically you just want to stick to the space shuttle status-quo. Except you want a new shuttle with 200% more awesome.

Part A: can be accomplished by CEV.

Part B: Large station components could be delivered by EELVs. (I know we need an OMV, but thats easier then an RLV) Crews can use one of the stations many airlocks and robot arms to duplicate all shuttle abilities

Part C: Your right, hard to do with the CEV, but I wouldent say impossible. The Shuttle has only performed a handful of such missions, cheaper to just build new space telescopes then build an RLV

Part D: Not a job well suited to the shuttle anyway, just stick 'em on a Delta IV

Part E: Again, can be done by EELVs, or even better in one big chunck on an ARES V. How much can your RLV lift anyway? Venture star was somthing like 10 tons I think. But I suppose we can assume that this theorectical RLV runs on magic, and can lift whatever you want.

Part F: pffft. would be so expensive, you cant make a business case for this for another 40 or 50 years.

Now, Do I wish that Venture Star would have worked? Of course. I think most people on this board really are fans of the SSTO/RLV idea. But Should they be the primary focus of the space program? no. not at all. In the end, you cant do any exploring, you cant do anything new. NASA is for pushing out the frontier. That frontier is the moon, and then mars, cruising around LEO for the rest of our lives accomplishes nothing. In an Ideal world, NASA would have the money for both an agressive exploration program, and and RLV for LEO duties, but until we get a more NASA friendly congress, we get one or the other, and I pick boots on the moon.

Best case scenerio, the lunar return is hugely popular with the public, NASAs funding goes up, and you get your RLV.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #88 on:** 08/02/2006 12:11 am »

Quote

HailColumbia - 1/8/2006 6:52 PM

Now, Do I wish that Venture Star would have worked? Of course. I think most people on this board really are fans of the SSTO/RLV idea. But Should they be the primary focus of the space program? no. not at all. In the end, you cant do any exploring, you cant do anything new.

And I am going to predict that NASA won't be able to do any exploring or do anything new if it bases its future on outrageously expensive shuttle derived launch vehicles that cost hundreds of millions or even billions per flight and fly just as infrequently as the space shuttle currently does.

zinfab · « **Reply #89 on:** 08/02/2006 12:33 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 1/8/2006 7:58 PM

Quote
HailColumbia - 1/8/2006 6:52 PM

Now, Do I wish that Venture Star would have worked? Of course. I think most people on this board really are fans of the SSTO/RLV idea. But Should they be the primary focus of the space program? no. not at all. In the end, you cant do any exploring, you cant do anything new.

And I am going to predict that NASA won't be able to do any exploring or do anything new if it bases its future on outrageously expensive shuttle derived launch vehicles that cost hundreds of millions or even billions per flight and fly just as infrequently as the space shuttle currently does.

That, of course, has nothing to do with the CEV, but merely NASA's jobs program. If you're going to make a technological argument in support of your RLV, then don't simply bust chops on NASA's "don't cut my program" methodology. The RLV wouldn't be exempt from that, either.

HC outlined the arguments I was thinking about (though he actually did it). The two compelling arguments I've heard in your favor vt (and you didn't even mention them):

1) deorbiting large mass
2) deorbiting injured (low G) crew

No need to build a LARGE mass RLV for the second, and the first has YET to prove financially practical for anything.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #90 on:** 08/02/2006 12:42 am »

Something like Aviation Week's purported "Blackstar" is exactly the type of vehicle I would like to see for crew transport to/from LEO. Whether it really exists or not, it is exactly the type of system I've been wanting to see for years. As for heavy payloads, sure, an expendable launch vehicle can do the job, but at a high cost and without the down mass capability of the shuttle. So yes, de-orbiting large mass is a big one that I missed there. Now, I realize that the shuttle costs as much as expendable launchers despite being partially reusable, but at some point, we'll have to reach a stage where we don't throw away complex engines, avionics, structures, etc. on every flight.

The X-38/CRV seems like it would have made a good basis for a small, relatively economical crew transport for the interim, while we develop the next generation of reusable launch vehicle technology.

zinfab · « **Reply #91 on:** 08/02/2006 01:36 am »

Sorry to channel Jim for a moment, but what large down-mass market is there?

vt_hokie · « **Reply #92 on:** 08/02/2006 01:44 am »

Quote

zinfab - 1/8/2006 9:23 PM

Sorry to channel Jim for a moment, but what large down-mass market is there?

MPLM ISS missions, for one, which will no longer be possible after 2010.

zinfab · « **Reply #93 on:** 08/02/2006 02:00 am »

How much more expensive are 2 ATV launches compared to 1 shuttle flight carrying an MPLM?

And will you put unnecessary crew on board, or auto launch and dock?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #94 on:** 08/02/2006 02:27 am »

Sorry to go back on topic but it is interesting to note that of the six contenders for COTS all but SpaceHab are developing their own launchers. Of the others two are air launched, Andrews and t/Space and the other three are ground launched on their own launch systems.

It would appear that NASA is being offered launch systems whether they want them or not. I have to agree with Jim, SpaceHab will have the inside track. It is something NASA understands and a name they know, not as NIH as the other competitors. Both the air launched systems are probably not even going to be seriously considered although they offer the greatest opportunity for real savings.

vt hokie ought to be happy SpaceDev's system has wings

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #95 on:** 08/02/2006 02:51 am »

It would be really interesting to see NASA go for the wild cards in this deck Andrews, t/Space, and SpaceDev. SpaceHab, Kistler, and SpaceX are offering the same old thing one way or another, a liquid fueled rocket, launched from the ground with a payload. We know that's expensive.

We don't know about air launched large payload to orbit systems and we don't know about a ground launched hybird engine stack like SpaceDev's. Virtually everyone agrees that we need low cost access to LEO but no one is doing anything about it. Market forces are not strong enough to generate a good business plan and if NASA is not willing to make a commitment to some form of VSE that will purchase large amounts commercial lift we won't see any driving market for the development of low cost lift. Until that lift capability is developed we are not going anywhere.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #96 on:** 08/02/2006 03:02 am »

I have to disagree with vt hokie. It's not about reusable, it's about cheap.

vt_hokie · « **Reply #97 on:** 08/02/2006 03:07 am »

Quote

Norm Hartnett - 1/8/2006 10:49 PM

I have to disagree with vt hokie. It's not about reusable, it's about cheap.

How cheap can launch costs get as long as we're throwing out complex liquid fueld engines and complex avionics, etc. with each flight?

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #98 on:** 08/02/2006 03:11 am »

Cheap is cheap. No one has come up with a reusable that's cheap.

It is not in LM or B interest to develop a really cheap launch system, where is the profit in that? If there was a market that could generate more profit from a cheap system than they currently get from their ELV system then we might see some development.

The only markets that I can see are the "tourist industry" and the VSE. The tourist industry is not going to make it happen anytime soon and the VSE is not being implemented in a way that would create such a market.

Jim · « **Reply #99 on:** 08/02/2006 06:05 am »

Quote

vt_hokie - 1/8/2006 8:29 PM

The X-38/CRV seems like it would have made a good basis for a small, relatively economical crew transport for the interim, while we develop the next generation of reusable launch vehicle technology.

the X-38/CRV is NO different than the CEV. Both are reusable and both need ELV's for launch. Only thing X-38 provided was a little more cross range at a lot more upmass