NASA 'deep space' ship: Humans beyond orbit by 2020? NASA has declared that its pork-tastic Orion moonship – whose primary mission disappeared with President Obama's decision that there will be no manned US return to the Moon – is now to be a "deep space transportation system", suggesting that the agency plans to send it on missions beyond Earth orbit. Concept pic showing Orion …
"Falcon 9 is working to become man-rated with its Dragon capsule. It isn't done yet,"
True. My point was man-rating a *launch* vehicle is straight forward *provided* it's factored into the design from the start. The process is not complete unless the payload has systems fitted to handle an emergency. I'm quite well aware that the escape rocket system is still under development by Spacex.
As for how much it will save that will depend on what price level NASA set. I think it's generous at present and should be negotiated *down* (IIRC it's still about $20000lb) but it's current level is probably what Shuttle costs per lb and allows the good ol' boys of OSC to make a profit, given their no doubt ridiculous cost structure as a govt con-tractor. I suspect at these prices Spacex will make out *very* well indeed.
<shuttle man rating>
NASA's man rating efforts date from the 1960s. Your information is simply incorrect. Shuttle managements behavior in man rating the design (or rather issuing waivers) demonstrated the very *worst* aspects of optimistic statistics multiplied by (also in the worst sense of the term) design-to-cost.
"Dragon has NO chance on getting to trans-planetary targets. "
Nor did I suggest it would. But that's not going to be an issue for at least 8 years.
Let's see if we can find some common ground.
I believe this is merely an excuse to justify *needing* the SLS in the first place, much as the size of Orion was the excuse for needing to retain a first stage based on the Shuttle SRB's.
By *forcing* NASA funds to be used on this and SLS NASA will be forced to strip other budgets as these projects overrun on budget (and *all* previous evidence is they will overrun on cost).
The *key* findings of the Augustine Commission were that Constellation would *never* fly unless the NASA budget *rose* 50% + inflation for several years and 25% + inflation for several more years. The funding level *actually* being offered made its status that of an employment programme. Obama's proposal was very much either *fully* fund Constellation or kill it.
The US Congress and Senate appear to have decided to do neither.
This appears to be very much BAU. It seems there are some sections of NASA whose knee jerk reaction to *any* problem is "We need to design a new launcher, preferably a *big* one".
This attitude dates from the days when "private" meant the Scout with a payload of about 130lbs and "big" meant a converted ICBM carrying c8500lbs (Gemini/Titan).
Today big means Delta IV Heavy at 56800lb to LEO. Available right now, with a discount for bulk orders.
BTW another key realization of the Augustine commission was a "dry" lunar lander stage (placed in orbit and fueled by 1 or more propellant flights) could be 6x bigger, hence avoiding the *literally* paper thin walls of the Apollo LM.
*Real* progress in space will address on orbit propellant transfer and long term storage, *closed* cycle (after 50 years) life support, and (dare I even suggest them) high thrust non chemical propulsion systems.
I've found it fascinating to watch Senators at work. I get the impression that Sen. Shelby is a real slash-n-burn Republican, *unless* it's the North Alabama Space Agency and it's oh-so-precious gaggle of suppliers.
In the UK in the 1980's Margaret Thatcher had a little phrase that pops into my head when I've dug into NASA's history and the politics of space flight.
"No lame ducks."
It refers to the selling off of industries owned by the UK government like steel and coal.
NASA (and it's supporters inside Congress and the Senate) appear to have created what are in effect "nationalised" companies *without* control. Hobbled by rules that prevent them selling elsewhere and cost structures (no doubt designed with the best of motives) which make doing anything *painfully* expensive. For a viable space programme this co-dependency needs to end.
Or do you feel that the objective of the US space programme *is* to supply lifetime employment of workers in *some* companies in *some* states?
3 Things.
BAU. Business-As-Usual. 1000 page "procurement" contracts with *lots* of prescriptive clauses (we don't just *want* this done, we want it done *this* way), pre-design-reviews, Preliminary Design Reviews, Critical Design Reviews, change control.
Cost plus contract, *despite* the fact that basically what it comes down to is "Give us a Saturn V lifting capability to LEO" which has been done once successfully already (and at least one *complete* example exists to study, mostly on the law out front of various NASA buildings). I like to think of these as more cost++.
It'll be executed by "Big Aerospace" who will probably set up a whole "Division" to do this (which of course will need a VP or two to oversee matters and make sure that fat budget is "properly" spent).
The proper example to study would be the DC-X programme of the early 90's under Jess Sponable, whose airframe was *also* built by Scaled Composites (BTW Scaled is actually part of Northrop Grumman, who seem to be smart enough to leave them well alone most of the time).
DC-X. 0-M3. 4x RL-10 Hydrogen/Oxygen powered rockets, uncrewed built for the SDIO.
Price 60m.
It's amazing what you can do when your organizations goals have *nothing* to do with *how* something is achieved, they simply want to get it *done*.
Stuart- the answer is that getting pas the first step ("design, test and build") is what holds them up. No one plans better than NASA. The reams of paper generated by the various plans developed since the 1990s is simply staggering. To build a test article and build the damned thing, that's where they lack the fortitude to follow through, that is what is lacking. If they did step two or three, they'd be committed to something, and NASA does not want to be committed to anything. That's why taking the reins out of their hands and giving them to someone like SpaceX or Orbital, is such a great idea.
Today's human rated specs hare BLACK LETTER about improving safety ten fold over shuttle and soyuz. SpaceX is ONLY contracted for (important) LEO missions, not deep space. NASA wants a deep space rocket by 2020. NASA is NOT building any competing LEO hardware. All are simply true.
I suppose that you can infer what you want. I choose to infer that NASA doesn' think that ANYONE will have a suitable deep space rocket by 2020, so they will get one built.
I agree with your inference that some 'other' propellant will be needed to get to 'wherever the lifting systems' stop.
I'm not sure what "hare BLACK LETTER" means so I'll skip my opinions and simply ask yours are.
What *is* your point of view? Specifically weather MCPV and SLS are good ideas and weather they are at NASA's request *or* foisted on NASA by Senators and Contresspeople keen to top up the port barrel.
Saying "Too many unsubstantiated judgments" *repeatedly* makes you seem like you're avoiding questions. Which makes you look like someone with either a personal stake in the outcome, some kind of PR shill or flat out troll.
A simple explanation of your point of view can then be argued against or agreed with or corrected.
John,
Black Letter means that they are explicitly stated, not indirectly interpreted.
MCPV is a limited production device that is more useful as a standard than as an overall technology. I doubt that anyone will make more than 4-5 of them before their technology is significantly changed. They do have an established shape and an established weight. If they continue to take on the role of self-contained emergency evac & reentry mechanism, PLUS limited to 21-day missions, then that is the useful part of their job.
I am in favor of privatization of lifting devices, so long as they don't limit the scope of what-is-lifted too much. Falcon Heavy doesn't lift as much as SLS, so I am concerned about using MCPV on Falcon Heavy.
We can also privatize the replacement of MCPV, so long as the role and specs don't preclude the use of lifters built for MCPV. I don't want to see a Nikon/Canon situation where incompatibilities sap the funding for deep-space work.
I am not convinced that SpaceX is committed to an MCPV lifter by 2020. They need to generate profits from LEO for a few years to build up the capital & experience to go through a product development cycle for this. I don't believe that they will do it any faster than NASA's suppliers, either. They will probably do it more cost effectively, though.
My conjecture is that MCPV is about 'getting to some deep space transport that isn't safe to fire in LEO'. Perhaps some Lagrange point or some NEO asteroid. I am surprised that there isn't more discussion about the usefulness of the MCPV as a 21-day-limited deep space transport.
OK, finally someone has blogged something on YouTube about NASA that is in line with you comments. I don't really see where they did anything more that state an opinion. You asked me for facts, process and history, I gave you links to governmental sites for those things.
You have this YouTube clip. Wasn't it you that suggest that I was a TROLL? Hmmmm. I suppose calling someone else something that you don't want to be called...
I'll begin with an apology for a misunderstanding. I'd believed the MPCV was required to give SLS a mission to carry out.
I realize this is absurd. SLS's capacity of a mimimum of 70 tonnes (but with design margin up to 130 tonnes according to the act) is stupidly in excess of MPCV's mass. Depending on altitude both Delta IV Heavy and Falcon 9 Heavy *could* carry it
That leaves SLS with *no* payload it's *needed* to carry, *except* the paycheques of NASA and various major con-tractors for a few years more.
"I can see where you get your material."
No ironically I found the videos on the day I posted the comment, although the two on Apollo do sum up my impression of the Senators who have *ordered* SLS to be built.
My opinions come from several decades study of human spaceflight programmes both as technology and as political systems and their *repeated* inability to deliver significant improvement. My background is engineering, not IT supplemented by background reading of various text books on the subject, along with following the relevant news groups since the early 90s with further assistance from the NASA technical reports server. Learning about the insanity of the US federal budget "system" was a more recent exercise and an almighty PITA, as I'm not a US taxpayer. I've just been amused by what they have let their legislators do to them.
"OK, finally someone has blogged something on YouTube about NASA that is in line with you comments. I"
That's not encouraging. The YouTube poster is an active blogger, which you would know if you followed this debate through blogs or news groups
I asked what is your point of view. I'll look at your answers.
"Black Letter means that they are explicitly stated, not indirectly interpreted."
This appears to be more of a legal term than one drawn from engineering standard.
"MCPV is a limited production device that is more useful as a standard than as an overall technology. I doubt that anyone will make more than 4-5 of them before their technology is significantly changed. "
The question was did you think it was a good idea to do it and was it something NASA requested or is it being foisted upon them.
"I am in favor of privatization of lifting devices, so long as they don't limit the scope of what-is-lifted too much."
That appears to be an actual opinion.
" Falcon Heavy doesn't lift as much as SLS, so I am concerned about using MCPV on Falcon Heavy."
A quick check indicates F9H can lift the *entire* Apollo stack minus the SIVb departure stage.
MCPV based on Orion seems to be about 28 tonnes. It would have to bloat a *lot* before F9H could not handle it. It's original mission duration was substantially longer so if anything MCPV should weigh *less* than Orion, again eliminating *any* SLS need.
" I don't want to see a Nikon/Canon situation where incompatibilities sap the funding for deep-space work."
Nor would anyone in their right mind. The sapping of funds to fund SLS and MCPV is *highly* likely. It's happened with every other NASA human spaceflight programme, ISS (or SS Freedom, or Alpha) and launcher replacement attempts (X33 and its predecessors).
"I am not convinced that SpaceX is committed to an MCPV lifter by 2020."
Barring *major* bloat in MCPV mass F9H is MCPV capable in 2012 and Delta IV Heavy *might* be capable right now (depending on orbital parameters and MCPV fuel loads). SLS looks more like a jobs programme.
"They need to generate profits from LEO for a few years to build up the capital & experience to go through a product development cycle for this."
They've gone through *two* PDC's for launchers and *four* for their engines since their founding. They appear to have a fairly healthy worldwide order book for launches *other* than NASA.
" I don't believe that they will do it any faster than NASA's suppliers, either."
Adam Harris of Spacex stated Dragon took 4 1/2 years and about $300m to develop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JtjztdtCnw
Although AFAIK this does not include the NASA $75m to deliver an escape system to make it human rateable.
Constellation has been running since 2004 and consumed IIRC $11.4Bn.
Perhaps you could confirm if that figure is accurate and how much of it went toward Orion.
"They will probably do it more cost effectively, though."
Seems likely does it not?
"My conjecture is that MCPV is about 'getting to some deep space transport that isn't safe to fire in LEO'."
I'll presume you mean a nuclear thermal engine. There is AFAIK *no* provision for such long term development in the current NASA act and I'd hazard a guess that it's timeline would be even *longer* than the MPCV development schedule it there were. So unless there's a large nuclear thermal engine in the black budget that will be de-classified I think that's wishful thinking.
" Perhaps some Lagrange point or some NEO asteroid. I am surprised that there isn't more discussion about the usefulness of the MCPV as a 21-day-limited deep space transport."
Perhaps because people doubt it will *ever* be built or launched.
Here is a reminder of some of the elements discovered by the Augustin Commission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkOZWhSImGg
In particular from roughly 07:30 onward Jeff Greason explains why an SLS launcher at 130 tonnes is useful but far from *mandatory* for *any* mission below a mission to Mars.
His other point is there are *lots* of tasks NASA *could* investigate which *would* enable people in space and improve US capability. How NASA does business could make as *big* a difference in this area as *any* technical development it makes.
My regret is I am unable to find a video where he draws an analogy between the Senators involved in funding process and baby crying for its rattle.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
