Re: the saturn 5 returns!

[jonathan]

"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f98b88ed-5257-445c...@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/18dynetics/


I really find it shocking that people get excited about this
whole idea of sending men to the Moon, asteroids and
a colony on Mars. Does anyone really thing it's going
to happen?

Does anyone understand how politics work?
This is more commonly called 'kicking the can
down the road'.


"NASA plans to award $200 million to multiple companies
later this year for 30 months of design and risk reduction
work...." "The 30-month performance period is expected
to begin Oct. 1 and run through early 2015."


In other words, Obama or Congress has committed only
to some studies for the rest of his administration.Which means
the ..next administration, some Tea-bagger no doubt, will have
to decide on continuing someone ...else's project.

And find ALL the money for this....

"An unofficial NASA document estimated the cost of the program
through 2025 to total at least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches
(1 unmanned in 2017, 3 manned starting in 2021),[24] with the
130 metric ton version ready no earlier than 2030"

1) BEO Uncrewed Lunar Fly-by - Exploration Mission -1

2) Block 1 Orion MPCV which would be a ten to fourteen day
mission with a crew of four astronauts who would spend four
days in lunar orbit. Its current description is "Crewed mission
to enter lunar orbit, test critical mission events,

3)GEO vicinity mission - a dual launch mission separated by
180 days to Geostationary Orbit.

4) "A set of lunar missions enabled in the early 2020s ranging from
EML-1 and low lunar orbit to a lunar surface mission.
These missions would lead to a lunar base combining commercial
and international aspects.

5) The lunar surface mission set for the late 2020s would be a dual
launch separated by 120 days. This would be a nineteen day
mission with seven days on the Moon's surface

6) Five Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) missions ranging from "Minimum"
to "Full" capabilit

7) Forward Work Martian Moon Phobos/Deimos, a crewed Flexible Path
mission to one of the Martian moons. It would include 40 days in the
vicinity of Mars and a return Venus flyby.


And the ultimate pipe-dream of all...............


8) "Forward Work Mars Landing, a crewed mission to spend 500 or more
days exploring the surface of the red planet. The ambitious proposal
would include the launch of seven SLS HLVs with nuclear propulsion
stages, or NTRs (Nuclear Thermal Rocket). The seven payloads would
then be assembled in LEO into three separate vehicles for the journey
to Mars, the MLV Cargo Vehicle, MLV Habitat Vehicle, and MTV
Crew Transfer Vehicle."


And at the end of all those decades and countless billions, what
will the taxpayer get in return??? In dollars and cents please, not
rose-colored visions of dreams of discovery and all that hooey.

When it comes to spending the most to return the least, this has to take
the all time award. But since the space fans never read the fine print,
let me point out what this is really all about...

(Fine print)

9) SLS DoD Missions, the HLV will be made available for
Department of Defense and other US Government agencies
to launch military or classified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System


Steps 1 - 8 are more commonly called a...'civilian cover story'.

This whole affair is an object lesson on how Big Corporations
milk the taxpayers with their latest Bridge-to-Nowhere, while
hollowing out NASA at the same time.

While everyone laments 'what's wrong with NASA'?
What happened to the glory days?

They /use/ that desire for former greatness to rape
the future of NASA...and as we speak.



Jonathan


s

[Paul F Austin]

The GEO mission caught my eye. GEO is above the peak of the radiation
belts but is still much more severe than a deep space or LEO
environment. Behind 40 mils of aluminum, the annual dose is a megarad.
Behind substantial shielding, the dose is still in kilorads. Designing
the Orion capsule to protect astronauts in GEO puts a great weight
penalty on the design for lunar and planetary missions. There's also nil
chance of doing EVA in GEO (that's the megarad case), turning astronauts
into potato chips. A mission to GEO is much more severe than the
baseline Lunar Transfer mission that Constellation was based on. Solar
flares are another threat, especially for deep space missions but are of
fairly short duration so a shelter can be designed in for riding out
such events. That isn't true for prolonged missions in GEO.

Paul

[Alan Erskine]

On 22/04/2012 8:53 AM, jonathan wrote:

>
> They /use/ that desire for former greatness to rape
> the future of NASA...and as we speak.
>
>
>
> Jonathan

You said you were leaving.

So, you're a liar as well as a troll.

[David E. Powell]

A lot of work for the Constellation/Orion program had been done when
it was shelved. Revamping it should be doable.

Forget can down the road, let's GO.

DEP

[jonathan]

"Paul F Austin" <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:s6qdnTOJZZFg1w7S...@supernews.com...

>> 3)GEO vicinity mission - a dual launch mission separated by
>> 180 days to Geostationary Orbit.
>>
>
> The GEO mission caught my eye. GEO is above the peak of the radiation
> belts but is still much more severe than a deep space or LEO environment.
> Behind 40 mils of aluminum, the annual dose is a megarad. Behind
> substantial shielding, the dose is still in kilorads. Designing the Orion
> capsule to protect astronauts in GEO puts a great weight penalty on the
> design for lunar and planetary missions. There's also nil chance of doing
> EVA in GEO (that's the megarad case), turning astronauts into potato
> chips. A mission to GEO is much more severe than the baseline Lunar
> Transfer mission that Constellation was based on. Solar flares are another
> threat, especially for deep space missions but are of fairly short
> duration so a shelter can be designed in for riding out such events. That
> isn't true for prolonged missions in GEO.

Thanks for replying, you raise a good point.

If the shielding is makeshift or not part of the design, that's a
big clue the intended use might not be for deep space missions
but for far more useful military purposes.

I found this from the early design studies. Curious that nothing
newer seems to be available on this topic.


Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of
Space Exploration (2008)
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB)

"The duration of the most hazardous portion of an SPE or a close
series of SPEs can be hours to a few days. Thus, the Orion
capsule must be capable of providing the storm-shelter capability
for a somewhat extended period of time..."

"Lockheed Martin designers considered several solutions:
hull shielding, deployable water shielding, shielding integrated
into seats, and a deployable, high-density polyethylene
At the time of this writing (summer 2007), the Orion project
plans to provide 2.5-cm-thick slabs of HDPE for use by the
astronauts to configure an in-space shelter inside the Orion
capsule itself. The HDPE shield was the only one that could
feasibly provide the necessary amount of shielding. The shielding
would be 2.5 cm thick and would be stowed on the floor
of the Environmental Control and Life Support System
when not in use."


Main Characteristics of Space Radiation

Solar Particle Events

a.. Composed largely of protons, generally with low to
medium energies (tens to a few hundred MeV per nucleon).

c.. With adequate warning and access to shelter
radiation hazard can be reduced to acceptable levels.


Galactic Cosmic Rays

a.. Composed of protons, alpha particles, and heavy ions,
up to very high energies exceeding tens of GeV per nucleon.

c.. Shielding is ineffective because ions penetrate hundreds of
centimeters of material and produce secondary radiation.

d.. Biological effects are poorly understood, with large
uncertainties in projections because there are no human data
on which to base estimates.

(Could c. above be why a nuclear propulsion system for
Mars is being considered? To shorten the flight time?)


"Finding 2-4. Space radiation climate. Ice-core studies indicate
that the past ~50 years may have coincided with a comparatively
benign space radiation climate, in terms of both GCR modulation
levels and the frequency of very large SPE events. Of particular
concern is the possibility of a six- to eightfold increase in the
number of very large SPE events, perhaps starting within the
next decade. If such an increase were to occur, it would have
a major impact on the design and operation of Exploration
systems."

"Finding 3-1. Uncertainty in radiation biology. Lack of
knowledge about the biological effects of and responses to
space radiation is the single most important factor limiting
the prediction of radiation risk associated with human
space exploration."
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12045&page=62


(And they plan on 'parking' astronauts at the L2 Point???)


NASA Eyes Plan for Deep-Space
Outpost Near the Moon
by Leonard David, SPACE.com's Space Insider Columnist
Date: 10 February 2012 Time: 07:07 AM ET


"The Lagrange points for the Earth-moon system. NASA is evaluating
an early mission with the Orion capsule placed at Earth-moon L2.
Astronauts parked there could teleoperate robots on the lunar farside"

"A pre-memo NASA appraisal of EML-2, which is near the lunar
far side, has spotlighted this destination as the "leading option"
for a near-term exploration capability"

"...an EML-2 mission would have astronauts traveling 15 percent
farther from Earth than did the Apollo astronauts, and spending almost
three times longer in deep space.
http://www.space.com/14518-nasa-moon-deep-space-station-astronauts.html


Orion first flight animation, launch scheduled for 2014?
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=135794971



Jonathan


>
> Paul

[Paul F Austin]

Thanks for digging that up. The polyurethane pup tent looks feasible as
a solar flare shelter and would also work for a short (days) mission in
GEO. If the duration grows, the crew couldn't stay in the shelter and
still do meaningful work. In any case, EVA is still out of the question
since the dose rate inside a space suit (1 mil Al equivalent) works out
to about 30 rads per second, against a statutory total mission dose
limit of 5 REM.

Paul

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 22/04/2012 08:06, jonathan ha scritto:

> Thanks for replying, you raise a good point.
>
> If the shielding is makeshift or not part of the design, that's a
> big clue the intended use might not be for deep space missions
> but for far more useful military purposes.

Good sense dictates that at least the most recent batches of US (and
russian) military/intel satellites should have reasonable anti-EMP
protection...

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Paul F Austin]

Most military sats are hard as rocks against weapons effects (total
dose, dose rate and EMP). If those are covered, then natural
environments are too (at least until the USAF starts putting satellites
in orbit around Jupiter. The level of hardness depends on the mission.
If it is critical to communications and navigation _during_ a nuclear
war, the hardness levels are much higher than otherwise. Hardness levels
are tailored to the mission and threat because boosting the hardness
requirement costs lots and adds to delivery time.

Paul

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 22/04/2012 21:31, Paul F Austin ha scritto:

>>> If the shielding is makeshift or not part of the design, that's a
>>> big clue the intended use might not be for deep space missions
>>> but for far more useful military purposes.
>>
>> Good sense dictates that at least the most recent batches of US (and
>> russian) military/intel satellites should have reasonable anti-EMP
>> protection...
>
> Most military sats are hard as rocks against weapons effects (total
> dose, dose rate and EMP). If those are covered, then natural
> environments are too (at least until the USAF starts putting satellites
> in orbit around Jupiter. The level of hardness depends on the mission.
> If it is critical to communications and navigation _during_ a nuclear
> war, the hardness levels are much higher than otherwise. Hardness levels
> are tailored to the mission and threat because boosting the hardness
> requirement costs lots and adds to delivery time.

indeed this is my point: I'm confident that aerospace&defence industry
needs to shift a bit the markets for high-tech gadgetry (incl, rad
hardening....)

(aside that R&D and procurement for civil/peaceful space projects give
much less bad press than classified mil projects. esp. outside USA..)

[David E. Powell]

I feel a lot of research is done in the necessary areas and the rest
can be done if there is a chance.

What is needed is the commitent at the top of the govt's(s) involved
to go.

The US, EU, and maybe Japan and Canada can do this sucker if we team
up. The US probably could on our own but it would take a much huger
chunk. Spread out, we can do it.

What do you say Dottore, to an Italian being first on Mars? Heck one
led the way once before....

I could see Russia being involved too but that might be dicier the way
relations are now. Still, there are plenty of Russian space types
who'd love to be in on this.

I figure an Ares-type deal to get to the Moon and maybe an early "Hit
and run" or orbital mission to Mars. Then we may need something
launched in sections and built i n orbit for more regular Mars trips.

For Moon and Mars gear cargo deliveries could be Ares rockets for the
Moon, not sure about Mars, robotic assembly gear could help with that
once the gear gets there, to set things up for a future team to stay
there more long term.

DEP

[Jeff Findley]

In article <Kv6dnQtEsevnpw7S...@giganews.com>,
wr...@gmail.com says...

>
> "bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:f98b88ed-5257-445c...@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/18dynetics/
>
>
> I really find it shocking that people get excited about this
> whole idea of sending men to the Moon, asteroids and
> a colony on Mars. Does anyone really thing it's going
> to happen?

Not by NASA. They don't care about lowering launch costs, which means
costs will be so high that something like a colony will never happen, at
least if they're running the show.

Step one is to reduce launch costs. SpaceX has already shown that there
is a lot of room for improvement here, and they've not even begun to
reuse hardware.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker

[Jeff Findley]

In article <s6qdnTOJZZFg1w7S...@supernews.com>,
pfau...@bellsouth.net says...

Why would anyone put that kind of shielding in the return capsule? That
kind of shielding belongs in the "mission module", whatever that may be.

> Behind substantial shielding, the dose is still in kilorads. Designing
> the Orion capsule to protect astronauts in GEO puts a great weight
> penalty on the design for lunar and planetary missions.

Ditto for beyond GEO missions.

> There's also nil
> chance of doing EVA in GEO (that's the megarad case), turning astronauts
> into potato chips. A mission to GEO is much more severe than the
> baseline Lunar Transfer mission that Constellation was based on. Solar
> flares are another threat, especially for deep space missions but are of
> fairly short duration so a shelter can be designed in for riding out
> such events. That isn't true for prolonged missions in GEO.

Really? If the radiation environment in GEO is that bad, why don't all
of the comsats there fry in short order?

[Andrew Swallow]

On 23/04/2012 13:32, Jeff Findley wrote:
{snip}

>
> Really? If the radiation environment in GEO is that bad, why don't all
> of the comsats there fry in short order?
>
> Jeff

Electronics for military and space applications has long cost 10 to 100
times as much as the same civilian device. Even with bulk buy agreements.

Andrew Swallow

[Jeff Findley]

In article <vpednR-jYN8bzwjS...@bt.com>,
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...

>
> On 23/04/2012 13:32, Jeff Findley wrote:
> {snip}
> >
> > Really? If the radiation environment in GEO is that bad, why don't all
> > of the comsats there fry in short order?
>

> Electronics for military and space applications has long cost 10 to 100
> times as much as the same civilian device. Even with bulk buy agreements.

The assertion was that an astronaut performing an EVA in GEO would "fry
like a potato chip". If that were the case, certainly the solar arrays
on GEO comsats would fry too.

[Paul F Austin]

On 4/23/2012 8:32 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> In article<s6qdnTOJZZFg1w7S...@supernews.com>,
> pfau...@bellsouth.net says...
>

>> There's also nil
>> chance of doing EVA in GEO (that's the megarad case), turning astronauts
>> into potato chips. A mission to GEO is much more severe than the
>> baseline Lunar Transfer mission that Constellation was based on. Solar
>> flares are another threat, especially for deep space missions but are of
>> fairly short duration so a shelter can be designed in for riding out
>> such events. That isn't true for prolonged missions in GEO.
>
> Really? If the radiation environment in GEO is that bad, why don't all
> of the comsats there fry in short order?

Because the nil shielding provided by a space suit or a thin shield
doesn't reduce the fluence of particles much. As it happens, I have a
handy-dandy dose-depth calculator for various orbits, provided by Space
Electronics Inc. The calculator allows evaluation of their proprietary
RAD PACK shielding compared to just the satellite chassis. In the
following, I'm ignoring the quality factor increase from rads to REM due
to the fraction of protons at GEO. Protons can't be effectively shielded
and do 10X the damage of the electrons that make up most of the cis
Earth radiation environment.

In GEO, an unshielded electronics assembly (or a man in a soft suit)
receives 1E9 rads per year which comes to an hourly dose rate of 80,600
rads. A thin Aluminum housing 1 mil thick reduces that to 1E6 rads per
year (80 rads per hour). The usual assumption for shielding provided by
the satellite and the electronics chassis is actually about 65 mils but
my calculator doesn't offer that choice.

A significant radiation shield, equivalent to about 10 mils of tantalum,
knocks the GEO dose rate down to 1E3 rads per year or 0.11 rads per
hour. Assuming the statutory radiation limit of 5 REM, that gives a
mission stay time for an astronaut of about 43 hours with of course, no EVA.

Tantalum is dense stuff, 16,650 Kg/m^3, so a 10 mil (.254mm) foil weighs
4.2Kg per square meter. The surface area of an Orion capsule is
something like 40 square meters so the shield weight penalty would be on
the order of 164Kg in order to allow a mission of 40 or so hours in GEO.
That's about 2% of the capsule mass, a large penalty to build into a
series of spacecraft.

Since it's unlikely that a hard suit with enough shielding to allow
reasonable EVA times in a high-rad environment is buildable or worth the
cost, I don't see much payoff for a manned GEO mission and a lot of
penalty built into the rest of the manned spacecraft built to the same
design. If a shielded "pup tent" is included for the astronauts to crowd
into during a solar flare, that would allow deep space operations for a
manageable weight penalty.

As for comsats, electronics are a lot more rad-hard than people. It's
not unusual to specify radiation-tolerant parts that can withstand 50KR
while half of all people who receive 550 rads will die. If a shield
knocks the dose rate down to 1KR per year, that gives a mission life for
50KR parts of 50 years.

Paul

Paul

[Jeff Findley]

In article <fcCdnQAOm-uSGAjS...@supernews.com>,
pfau...@bellsouth.net says...

>
> On 4/23/2012 8:32 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> > In article<s6qdnTOJZZFg1w7S...@supernews.com>,
> > pfau...@bellsouth.net says...
> >
> >> There's also nil
> >> chance of doing EVA in GEO (that's the megarad case), turning astronauts
> >> into potato chips. A mission to GEO is much more severe than the
> >> baseline Lunar Transfer mission that Constellation was based on. Solar
> >> flares are another threat, especially for deep space missions but are of
> >> fairly short duration so a shelter can be designed in for riding out
> >> such events. That isn't true for prolonged missions in GEO.
> >
> > Really? If the radiation environment in GEO is that bad, why don't all
> > of the comsats there fry in short order?
>
> Because the nil shielding provided by a space suit or a thin shield
> doesn't reduce the fluence of particles much. As it happens, I have a
> handy-dandy dose-depth calculator for various orbits, provided by Space
> Electronics Inc. The calculator allows evaluation of their proprietary
> RAD PACK shielding compared to just the satellite chassis. In the
> following, I'm ignoring the quality factor increase from rads to REM due
> to the fraction of protons at GEO. Protons can't be effectively shielded
> and do 10X the damage of the electrons that make up most of the cis
> Earth radiation environment.
>
> In GEO, an unshielded electronics assembly (or a man in a soft suit)
> receives 1E9 rads per year which comes to an hourly dose rate of 80,600
> rads.

I see, but your back of the envelope calculation doesn't take into
account the fact that radiation in GEO is not a constant. The solar
cycle and events like solar flares have a huge impact on the radiation
environment at GEO

EVA at GEO
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890010810_
1989010810.pdf

Yes, EVA's at GEO would be a challenge, but the astronaut would not
necessarily "fry like a potato chip". If the radiation environment were
bad, the astronauts would likely be in their "radiation storm shelter"
not performing an EVA.

[bob haller]

> Yes, EVA's at GEO would be a challenge, but the astronaut would not
> necessarily "fry like a potato chip".  If the radiation environment were
> bad, the astronauts would likely be in their "radiation storm shelter"
> not performing an EVA.
>
> Jeff
> --

far better to have every new GEO sat built with a universal docking
collar.

this way a unmanned space tug could remove, relocate, or bring a sat
down to a station for repairs where radiation issues would be
minimal..........

[Paul F Austin]

On 4/23/2012 1:19 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

>>
>> In GEO, an unshielded electronics assembly (or a man in a soft suit)
>> receives 1E9 rads per year which comes to an hourly dose rate of 80,600
>> rads.
>
> I see, but your back of the envelope calculation doesn't take into
> account the fact that radiation in GEO is not a constant. The solar
> cycle and events like solar flares have a huge impact on the radiation
> environment at GEO

You are mistaken. The most of the dose rate I cited is for the natural,
non-flare environment from trapped electrons and protons as well as
galactic particles. Solar flares, because of their short duration
contribute only a small part of the dose

>
> EVA at GEO
> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890010810_
> 1989010810.pdf

Read the section on does using a soft suit. An 8 hour EVA mission would
collect 120% of the dose limit to the astronaut's arms and legs. A suit
with more shielding using an EVA enclosure would reduce the dose quite a
bit at the expense of lower mobility and dexterity. Thanks for the
citation. I wasn't aware of NASA's investigations of GEO EVA.

Given the advance since 1988 in remote manipulators, rather than put a
"man in a can" (NASA words) in EVA, a better approach would be a
manipulator robot controlled from Earth or a spacecraft.

Regarding solar flares, the authors recommend an emergency return to LEO
in the event of a flare. Given the delay in arrival of the particle
fluence after the electromagnetic wave front reaches Earth, that's possible.

Paul

[Brad Guth]

It'll also be possible to go underground (behind those TBMs).

[Jeff Findley]

In article <0bfe6894-fdd0-4d54-9107-0911eff820c0
@a5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...

>
> > Yes, EVA's at GEO would be a challenge, but the astronaut would not
> > necessarily "fry like a potato chip".  If the radiation environment were
> > bad, the astronauts would likely be in their "radiation storm shelter"
> > not performing an EVA.
>

> far better to have every new GEO sat built with a universal docking
> collar.
>
> this way a unmanned space tug could remove, relocate, or bring a sat
> down to a station for repairs where radiation issues would be
> minimal..........

Whatever Bob. We were discussing if a GEO EVA would even be possible,
not if it were a good idea from Bobbert the, self appointed, Safety
Officer's point of view. :-P

[David E. Powell]

On Apr 23, 5:37 pm, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:
> In article <0bfe6894-fdd0-4d54-9107-0911eff820c0

> @a5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, hall...@aol.com says...

>
>
>
> > > Yes, EVA's at GEO would be a challenge, but the astronaut would not
> > > necessarily "fry like a potato chip".  If the radiation environment were
> > > bad, the astronauts would likely be in their "radiation storm shelter"
> > > not performing an EVA.
>
> > far better to have every new GEO sat built with a universal docking
> > collar.
>
> > this way a unmanned space tug could remove, relocate, or bring a sat
> > down to a station for repairs where radiation issues would be
> > minimal..........
>
> Whatever Bob.  We were discussing if a GEO EVA would even be possible,
> not if it were a good idea from Bobbert the, self appointed, Safety
> Officer's point of view.  :-P

One neat concept could be to design replacable modules, a robotic
vehicle could change out small components instead of boosting a whole
new satellite into orbit. New reactor cores, junction boxes, maybe
even camera and other eqipment upgrades. One mini-ship like this new
USAF one could overhaul multple satellites on one mission and retrieve
sensitive gear, and valuable materials to salvage, gold components,
etc. on the return trip.

[jonathan]

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.29ff15131...@news.eternal-september.org...

> In article <Kv6dnQtEsevnpw7S...@giganews.com>,
> wr...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> "bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:f98b88ed-5257-445c...@er9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/18dynetics/
>>
>>
>> I really find it shocking that people get excited about this
>> whole idea of sending men to the Moon, asteroids and
>> a colony on Mars. Does anyone really thing it's going
>> to happen?
>
> Not by NASA. They don't care about lowering launch costs, which means
> costs will be so high that something like a colony will never happen, at
> least if they're running the show.
>
> Step one is to reduce launch costs. SpaceX has already shown that there
> is a lot of room for improvement here, and they've not even begun to
> reuse hardware.
>

Right, I think Musk said he could build the heavy launcher
for half the cost. If the military needs a heavy lift, that's fine
but what bugs me is they wrap it all up in this grandiose 50 year
plan that's more smoke than rocket flames.

This prevents NASA from having a more worthy goal
like reducing costs and enabling commercial uses and
so on, or my favorite goal of SSP either.

NASA is in the middle of a huge transition, and the new
direction looks like it's being flushed, just to suit the
Pentagon and Big Aero. Ticks me off no end.


s

[Paul F Austin]

There's no military mission for the heavy lifter. The Heavy variants of
the EELVs can orbit all the military or related satellites. The
requirement for NASA's heavy lifter comes exclusively from manned space
missions, particularly interplanetary ones.

Paul

[Greg (Strider) Moore]

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
news:3-KdnQGRvu7uBgXS...@supernews.com...

>
>
>There's no military mission for the heavy lifter. The Heavy variants of the
>EELVs can orbit all the military or related satellites. The requirement for
>NASA's heavy lifter comes exclusively from manned space missions,
>particularly interplanetary ones.
>

Eh, many of us believe that the requirement comes more from keeping
Congressional Districts happy than any real need in space.

Consider how many Falcon 9 flights can you buy for the cost of one SLS?


>Paul
>
>

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

[Paul F Austin]

On 4/25/2012 9:50 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
> "Paul F Austin" wrote in message
> news:3-KdnQGRvu7uBgXS...@supernews.com...
>>
>>
>> There's no military mission for the heavy lifter. The Heavy variants
>> of the EELVs can orbit all the military or related satellites. The
>> requirement for NASA's heavy lifter comes exclusively from manned
>> space missions, particularly interplanetary ones.
>>
>
> Eh, many of us believe that the requirement comes more from keeping
> Congressional Districts happy than any real need in space.
>
> Consider how many Falcon 9 flights can you buy for the cost of one SLS?

Certainly the impetus for the heavy comes from Congress but there are
too few districts where any space hardware is made for pork to drive the
bus. I'd say that there are enough congresscritters who really want men
in space for what in the Federal scheme of things is chump change (a few
billion?, chump change) to be appropriated. NASA isn't all that hot for
the heavy unless Marshall can design it, as was the plan for Constellation.

Paul

[David E. Powell]

The key is to first show gains that can be spread through the whole
economy, as with the Apollo program and Shuttle, with new materials
and technology, and then show it can be cost effective relative to
those gains.

There is a synergistic relationship that is possible. The gov't blazes
the trail with funded research and expeditions and U.S. companies
working in tandem with these efforts follow with the commercial stuff.
Rather similar to early European colonization and exploration,
actually.

[Paul F Austin]

The Tang and Teflon argument means less today than it did in the 1960s,
since commercial companies dominate most research and development (in
terms of scale of investment). The places where that isn't the case
include the one we're talking about, space exploration and exploitation.
Because the risks are high and the payback time too long, commercial
investment in space are mostly too risky for commercial concerns to do.

The question is whether the development of a heavy lifter advances
technologies in the directions that commercial investments don't go. It
seems to me that simply developing a heavy lifter is _not_ filling a
technological niche that needs filling. Getting cost per pound to LEO
down _is_ and once in LEO, getting deep space propulsion costs (in terms
of kg-m/s) down and total impulse up are the key enabling technologies.

Government investment in boosters and paying for satellite bus
development have been the key enablers for commercial exploitation to
date. Once companies could buy satellites and launchers reliably, they
could perform cost analyses without a lot of unknowns and make rational
investment decisions. It's well to ask if new government investments
serve to reduce risks for commercial exploitation as well as costs. If
those things can all be answered positively, the government investment
is worth while.

Paul