Spacepoltics.com: posters can be very hostile if you're skeptical of commercial spaceflight
Matt Wiser
on a number of occasions, and I've found out that many (not all) are very
hostile to you if you're in any way skeptical of commercial spaceflight. And
not just commercial crew or cargo services; the idea of commercially owned
propellant depots is also a big thing with some of these posters. Never mind
that no commercial crew provider has yet to fly crew (let alone cargo) to
ISS and back, and that although NASA has issued RFPs for a propellant depot
technology demonstrator for a flight test, the whole concept has yet to be
proven. And yet, any words of caution or skepticism and you're a heretic....
Pat Flannery
I think that's where a lot of the old L5 crew ended up, and they treat
space exploration more like a religion than a rational pursuit.
They just did another one of those studies that's funded by the space
tourism industry and shows (surprise, surprise) that everyone and his
brother wants to go into space, particularly if they have a spare 10 to
15 million dollars burning a hole in their pocket:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33452
Pat
David Spain
>
> I think that's where a lot of the old L5 crew ended up, and they treat
> space exploration more like a religion than a rational pursuit.
> They just did another one of those studies that's funded by the space
> tourism industry and shows (surprise, surprise) that everyone and his
> brother wants to go into space, particularly if they have a spare 10 to
> 15 million dollars burning a hole in their pocket:
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33452
>
But only if there is enough left over after the space trip so that they can
freeze their head when they die...
:-)
Dave
David Spain
> On 5/3/2011 9:30 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
>> Just wondering how many here check out spacepolitics.com...I've posted
>> there
> space exploration more like a religion than a rational pursuit.
I tend to avoid sites with the word 'politic' in it.
You, you, you two, just you wait. You think you are so smart, thinking only
the government should have a space monopoly! You wait, someday they'll be
GIVING away free tickets to Mars in CrackerJack(tm) boxes!
But only after May 21st.
Dave
PS: Sorry gotta go, I have a space cruiser hiding behind a comet to catch...
Matt Wiser
Religon sums it up: if you're not on the commercial bandwagon, you're
a heretic! There's even some there who want NASA to contract out
exploration (robotic and human) to the private sector. And when it's
pointed out that such a course of action is politically impossible,
they think you're on something. Not to mention that when specific
posters are pointed out as having suggested such things, you're
accused of making it up!. There's a few people there who do share the
skeptical side on commercial crew/cargo, but we're a minority. And if
someone does even say something critical of Lord Musk-it's like high
treason.
Pat Flannery
> But only if there is enough left over after the space trip so that they
> can freeze their head when they die...
Boy, it would be wild to talk about all this with the ghost of Gerard K.
O'Neill...he had no idea of the size of the strange ball he got rolling,
particularly when Timothy Leary and all the Ayn Rand fans joined the
First Church Of Space.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> You, you, you two, just you wait. You think you are so smart, thinking
> only the government should have a space monopoly! You wait, someday
> they'll be GIVING away free tickets to Mars in CrackerJack(tm) boxes!
The thing that I get a kick out of is that for decades the space
enthusists have been stating that if a private company built a rocket
they could make something a lot cheaper than the government and big
aerospace companies could.
After a multitude of false starts by everybody and his brother, Elon
Musk's SpaceX does do it, and by God it indeed is a lot cheaper than the
things Boeing and Lockheed were turning out.
So, they all stood up and cheered, and got on the side of SpaceX, right?
No, the kept right on bitching and arguing, because SpaceX didn't do it
the way they wanted...it should be reusable and not a capsule. it should
be some sort of a VTOVL landing SSTO vehicle...or a SSTO VTOHL lifting
body... or a HTOHL winged SSTO...or at HTOVL TSTO Vehicle.
...or a TSTO vehicle with a VTOVL first stage and a HL lifting body
second stage...or a giant bottle of dew that will rise with the Sun
first stage and a Cavorite painted giant goose second stage....or... :-D
Pat
Brian Thorn
<mattwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And if
>someone does even say something critical of Lord Musk-it's like high
>treason.
Sounds like some of the crowd that was around here desperately trying
to convince the world that Falcon Flight No.2 was actually a success.
Pat's right. It is a religion to them. Rational thought is not
involved, just like with religion. To paraphrase St. Thomas Aquinas,
"to one who is a commercial space fanboy, no explanation is necessary,
to one who is not a commercial space fanboy, no explanation is
possible."
Brian
Matt Wiser
> On Wed, 4 May 2011 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
>
That sums it up pretty well for those folks. Heathy skepticism is seen
as heresy, and preferring an established company (like Boeing or ULA)
to Space X is treated the same. Actually arguing for what Ed Crawley
and Jeff Greason said about FlexPath (i.e. build the rocket, build the
crew vehicle, add a hab module for long-duration flights, and go), is
high treason. Some have this Idee fixee about propellant depots, too.
(notwithstanding that the RFP has only just been issued, and no flight
articles have been built, tested, and flown)
Robert Clark
Perhaps you could point to specific discussions where this
overriding attitude is presented. I haven't read Spacepolitics.com
that often. The times I've looked the comments seemed to represent a
range of opinions.
Bob
Robert Clark
> On May 4, 3:25 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 4 May 2011 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
>
> > <mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >And if
> > >someone does even say something critical of Lord Musk-it's like high
> > >treason.
>
> > Sounds like some of the crowd that was around here desperately trying
> > to convince the world that Falcon Flight No.2 was actually a success.
>
> > Pat's right. It is a religion to them. Rational thought is not
> > involved, just like with religion. To paraphrase St. Thomas Aquinas,
> > "to one who is a commercial space fanboy, no explanation is necessary,
> > to one who is not a commercial space fanboy, no explanation is
> > possible."
>
> > Brian
>
> That sums it up pretty well for those folks. Heathy skepticism is seen
> as heresy, and preferring an established company (like Boeing or ULA)
> to Space X is treated the same.
I like what Elon said after the successful flight of the Falcon 9
carrying the Dragon capsule. He said there was room for all three.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
Guys, it's not that hard. It's not like it's nuclear physics. It can
be summed up in one sentence:
Use BOTH the highest efficiency engines AND the lightest weight
structures at the SAME TIME.
The rest is commentary.
Bob Clark
Matt Wiser
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's too many to count, I'm afraid. It seems that the majority
opinion is "Commercial first." Not to mention that when it's pointed
out that there is little Congressional support for some of what those
folks want to do-and one does get the impression that they don't
understand that for NASA to spend any money on specific projects, they
have to get Congressional approval! A number of them seem to forget
also that the FY 11 budget was rejected by Congress-who, as is their
perogrative, wrote their own budget and NASA Authorization Act. Then
when it's also pointed out that Congress also wants specific
information (destinations, tentative launch dates, etc.) they ignore
you.
Matt Wiser
>
> - Show quoted text -
True that, but try telling that to some of those posters! To these
people, Musk is like a god. He needs to be cut down to size, and among
other things, testify in front of the releveant House and Senate
Science and Tech committees (or subcommittees) and explain just what
he wants to do-and if he gets caught saying that he'd like to replace
NASA with his own firm (or some similar misstatement),,,,he's done.
Hop
> The thing that I get a kick out of is that for decades the space
> enthusists
Space enthusiasts are a diverse group of people.
Attaching a label and tarring with a broad brush is common. In this
regard you're like Ann Coulter.
>have been stating that if a private company built a rocket
> they could make something a lot cheaper than the government and big
> aerospace companies could.
True.
> After a multitude of false starts by everybody and his brother, Elon
> Musk's SpaceX does do it, and by God it indeed is a lot cheaper than the
> things Boeing and Lockheed were turning out.
It does indeed look like Elon Musk is demonstrating he can do it
cheaper. Although it is still early in the game.
> So, they all stood up and cheered, and got on the side of SpaceX, right?
This is exactly what many space enthusiasts did.
> No, the kept right on bitching and arguing, because SpaceX didn't do it
> the way they wanted...it should be reusable and not a capsule. it should
> be some sort of a VTOVL landing SSTO vehicle...or a SSTO VTOHL lifting
> body... or a HTOHL winged SSTO...or at HTOVL TSTO Vehicle.
> ...or a TSTO vehicle with a VTOVL first stage and a HL lifting body
> second stage...or a giant bottle of dew that will rise with the Sun
> first stage and a Cavorite painted giant goose second stage....or... :-D
Ah. The same space enthusiasts who worship the holy trinity of Tim
Leary, Ayn Rand, and Gerard O'Neill. A Flannery fiction, in other
words.
You could probably find a few space enthusiasts who are described by
your fiction. But it's wrong to condemn an entire group based on a few
individuals. For example a few usenet folks are incompetent at math
and physics (you and Bob Haller, for example). This doesn't prove the
entire Usenet community is incompetent.
Matt Wiser
"Hop" <hop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:969d7bd7-f93d-40eb...@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
True.
Take a look at spacepolitics.com again: you'll find that if one is not
supportive of a) commercial space; b) deferring exploration until all of the
tech listed in that disaster called the FY 11 budget (the one rolled out on
1 Feb of last year) is developed, c) against Heavy-Lift at the present time
(though some are against any kind of heavy-lift, period); then you're "not
on the program" at least, and at most, you're a shill for the heavy-lift
people. (I've been called the latter for having dared suggest follwing what
Ed Crawley said in that space summit at the Cape last 15 Apr: build a
rocket, build a crew capsule, build a hab module for medium- or
long-duration flights, and go. A lot of those there have the "my way or the
highway" mentality. Not to mention zero understanding of the political
side...there's some there who think that if Congress would just see the
merits of their plans or suggsestions, everything would be fine. And
ignoring the fact that their wish list has two kinds of support in Congress:
slim and none. (a few even still support much of that FY 11 original budget
proposal which Congress rightly disposed of)
Hop
> (I've been called the latter for having dared suggest follwing what
> Ed Crawley said in that space summit at the Cape last 15 Apr: build a
> rocket, build a crew capsule, build a hab module for medium- or
> long-duration flights, and go.
Go where?
Apollo was about 10 billion dollars a trip.
Given the climbing costs and anticipated flight rate for Ares, I
believe the Ares V launches would have been in the same ball park. For
Mars or Mars Semi-Direct you would need 5 or 6 luanches per 2.14
launch window.
Neither am I optimistic for the 130 tonne to LEO HLV.
I don't think this is a sustainable. The end result would be some
abandoned Martian habs gathering dust and several hundred billion
dollars flushed down the toilet.
We're not going to colonize the moon, asteroids or Mars with HLVs. And
HLVs are overkill for transporting people to LEO.
But since I believe HLVs are a waste of taxpayer money, that of course
makes me an acid dropping libertarian advocating solar power sats.
That seems to be the substance of the argument around here.
Matt Wiser
You can go places without needing a lander-for now, anyway. I was a
Constellation supporter, and very pissed a year ago on 1 Feb when it
was axed. Then I saw that Space Summit at the Cape on 15 Apr of last
year, and Professor Ed Crawley (a member of the Augustine Commission)
outlined Flexible Path. He mentioned that there's only a dozen or so
bodies in the solar system that you could actually land on, and four
of those (Jupiter's Galiean Moons) won't be visited by Humans for
many, many decades. So there's about eight: the Moon, Mars, Martian
Moons, and the four largest asteroids in the Asteroid Belt. Instead of
developing everything at once, he argued (the video is on youtube-try
NASA's channel there)-crew vehicle, heavy-lift rocket, a hab module
for long-duration flights, lander and surface systems, etc; which
increases costs and spreads out development time, just develop what
you can now: namely, the rocket, crew vehicle, and the hab module
(which could be reusable under certain mission scenarios), and start
going places: lunar orbit, L-Points, NEOs, Venus flyby, etc. Then in
the early 2020s, start developing the lunar lander and surface systems
so that they're ready in the mid-to -late 2020s and do lunar
exploration with boots on the ground. While that's going on, develop
and flight test what will be needed for a Mars flyby or orbit mission,
maybe with landing on the two Martian moons. Then go for the big one:
Mars proper. With commercial companies doing the LEO stuff, and maybe
restocking a fuel depot or two: either in LEO or at an L-Point. (the
analogy here is turning over airmail delivery to private aviation
companies in the 1920s from the U.S. Army)
He "made the sale" for me, unlike Charlie Bolden, whose rollout on 1
Feb of last year was a PR disaster, and he still hasn't recovered from
that-and he had a skeptical Congress last year, and this time, it's
nearly hostile!
Hop
> maybe with landing on the two Martian moons. Then go for the big one:
> Mars proper.
Then what?
David Spain
Cancel the program and bug the offices of you political opponents?
Dave
Hop
Johnson had already castrated Apollo by the time Nixon took office.
But yeah, high profile trips to Mars would be a lightning rod for
politicians wanting to make a show of cutting the budget during hard
economic times. I'd expect Mars Direct or Mars Semi-direct to last 3
election cycles max. It'd be cancelled deader than Apollo and we'd
have Martian flags and footprints (plus a few abandoned habs) to show
for half a trillion dollars.
Matt Wiser
On May 5, 11:02 pm, "Matt Wiser" <MattWiser...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (I've been called the latter for having dared suggest follwing what
> Ed Crawley said in that space summit at the Cape last 15 Apr: build a
> rocket, build a crew capsule, build a hab module for medium- or
> long-duration flights, and go.
Go where?
OK, here's a start: Lunar orbit. Ed Crawley said this in his presentation
last year as the likely first BEO destination. Though GEO has possiblities
as well-it opens up satellite servicing, for example-it's still Earth Orbit.
Lunar Orbit proves the crew vehicle and the HLV, and it shows the rest of
the world that we can go back to the moon when we're ready for boots on the
ground. The L-points (L1 and L2) would also be early destinations-and it's
been pointed out that a crew could teleoperate a lunar farside rover from
L2. L1 could do the same on the nearside. Both would be dress rehearsals for
doing the same in either Martian orbit or from one of Mars' moons.
Then identify a destination for the NEO mission (Lockheed-Martin calls it
PLYMOUTH ROCK), build a hab module, and go. You'd also need a hab module
for long-duration Lunar orbit or L-point missions, as MPCV/Orion is only
good for 21 days in the initial configuration, but a hab module in a L-point
offers the chance that it could be reused and resupplied-which the
commercial space worshipers over on spacepolitics.com could get the
commercial sector involved-as would a propellant depot-either in LEO or at
an L-Point. Once PLYMOUTH ROCK has been flown, then get lunar return going.
We'll need to relearn planetary surface ops to get ready for both the
Martian Moons and Mars proper, and the Moon is the logical place to do so.
Then go for Mars-first a flyby, then Martian orbit and Martian Moons, then
David Spain
About Ed Crawley's comments at the Cape Space Summit last April / LockMart's
PLYMOUTH ROCK proposal...
Just an editorial comment...
I would be more inclined to read your articles if their subject line stuck to
the topic you discuss in the article, rather than worded as a implicit
complaint about the behavior of others.
My first thought when I saw your subject was:
"Well if it hurts to post their, don't post there."
On the other hand I'm glad I just didn't skip/kill it there because your
message had some interesting information.
Also for a more general comment that doesn't apply to this specific case but I
think is also relevant see my post "Starting threads with 'Re:'".
Just a *friendly* suggestion!
:-)
Dave
Me
A. NASA does not need to develop its own launch vehicles. It can buy the services from industry.
B. HLV is not needed at this time, use existing vehicles
c. Musk is not proposing to "replace" NASA with his own firm. That is just plain idiotic to think that.
d. You are the one without rational thought. You are the one that keep associating commercial with Spacex.
e. Why does Musk need to be cut down to size?
f. There is no need for him to testify before congress, he has done no wrong and actually is doing the American dream. Nothing he could say (short of admitting to doing something illegal) would get him in trouble. Actually, he CAN say he would like to replace NASA. There is nothing wrong with that.
1. It doesn't matter he can't replace a govt agency.
2. He can do the things in NASA's charter if he wants. Nobody would stop him because it would benefit the country for free.
3. It is free country, he can do what he wants as long as he is not breaking laws and not asking for money.
4. As for "asking" for money, he has the right to bid on any contract that his company is qualified for.
It seems that you have some issues and are focusing them on Musk.
Matt Wiser
A response:
Congress has directed NASA to build its own. That has more political
support than exclusive reliance on the Private Sector.
HLV has been strongly suggested by a variety of observers: including
people normally at each other's throats in recent months: Norm
Augustine, Gene Cernan, Jim Lovell, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), Sen
Richard Shelby (R-AL), etc. Augustine's report in fact had HLV in all
of their options.
Musk has been shooting his mouth off about commercial taking more from
NASA. Congress will have something to say 'bout that.
Musk needs to be cut down to size for above: not to mention about his
"retiring on Mars" nonsense. The man thinks he's either (a) the
Messiah when it comes to HSF, or (b) a commercial Wernher von Braun.
He's neither. Until he flies cargo to ISS and then crew, he'll be
considered a "rocket boy" by many on The Hill. Rep. Ralph Hill (R-TX),
the Chair of the House Science and Technology Committee, plans to hold
hearings on commercial Human Spaceflight, and this will be a chance
for Lord Musk to explain himself. The way he keeps shooting his mouth
off, he's his own worst enemy. And he's made many enemies on The Hill
as a result. If you had Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) as Chair, he'd
have a more favorable reception, as one of Musk's facilities is in
Rohrbacher's district.
If he wants to bid on a Heavy-Lift vehicle (Falcon 9 Heavy would be
his entry), he's more than welcome to do so.
I have no problem with increased private sector involvement in LEO.
That frees up NASA resources for HSF past Earth orbit. But I do have a
problem with the private sector being the only source for the LEO
mission, hence MPCV being developed as a backup in case these
commercial providers have more bark than bite. Then there's the so
far unanswered questions as to mission control, safety (supposed to be
NASA's responsiblity), and mission assurance. Not to mention who flies
the ship to ISS-a company astronaut or will it be the NASA or NASA-
sponsored crew to ISS who flies it? (Both NASA Admin Charlie Bolden
and Chief Astronaut Peggy Whitson are on record as preferring the
latter in a lease arrangement-especially if the vehicle is reusable).
If Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northorp-Grumman, were ones out in front
on Commercial Crew, we'd be having a much different conversation.
Pat Flannery
> c. Musk is not proposing to "replace" NASA with his own firm. That is just plain idiotic to think that.
It's a pity he isn't, you'd get miles more bang per buck based on how
much he has accomplished so far.
Pat
bob haller
so who baked up nasa as it would down the shuttle? so we as a nation
would still have manned launch capability?
the shuttle program should of been continued at a low flight rate till
its replacement was operational.
nasa could of gone shuttle C for heavy lift and a replacement manned
launcher, that woud of made the transition far easier.
ARES wasnt going to save any money on operations so there would of
been no added expense keeping shuttle operational.
NASA has proven by its actions its not capable of running any space
operatrions any more.
NASAs one time faster better cheaper mantra became not pick 2 but PICK
NONE:(
Congress is the problem and congressional incompetence a pork piggies
is well on its way of crashing our country
Brad Guth
The solution is to cut federal spending by 10% per year for at least
the next decade, or ask of everyone to take a 50% pay and benefit cut
right now, or otherwise pick 50% as those getting fired without
retirement or benefits of any kind. One way or another we have to cut
our overhead and maintain only the most basic services, and it doesn't
exactly help having a 14000 member strong Qinetiq cloak and dagger
group on the books in addition to our CIA, NSA, FEMA, MI6 and DHS
overhead.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
bob haller
>
> - Show quoted text -
well overspending in a attempt to prevent terrorism may be the root of
some of our budget troubles, the costs are growing exponentially and
being hidden ..... seems some spy agency launches a new spy sat
constantly...
Matt Wiser
Likely true, but politically impossible. The only congresscritters who
support him are the ones who have Space X facilities in their
districts. Rohrbacher, for one. If Rohrbacher had gotten the chair of
House Science and Technology Committee, the whole Commercial Crew/
Cargo side would have a very powerful supporter in Congressman
Rohrbacher. Instead Rep.Ralph Hall (R-TX) got the chair, and he's been
critical of commercial crew in general and Space X in particular.
Me
1. SLS is just pork, NASA doesn't need it. It doesn't have the money
for payloads on it.
2. Musk can shoot off his mouth and congress can't do a thing about
it. It is a free country.
You are so clueless. It isn't commercial "taking" from NASA, it is
commercial doing more for NASA. That is even in NASA charter
He doesn't need to cut down to size, he is doing his own thing.
He isn't taking anything away from NASA.
The private sector can and should be the only source for LEO. It
does it for all of NASA's unmanned missions.
A backup for LEO would be to have multiple commercial contractors and
not a NASA managed vehicle.
Industry is where the experts for launch vehicle reside and not NASA.
NASA does not have the expertise anymore to design and manage launch
vehicles.
NASA has no monopoly on crew safety, see Challenger and Columbia.
It doesn't need to be Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northorp-Grumman out in
front, Spacex, Blue Origin, OSC, etc can do it, the industry is
incestuous and workers/managers move between companies. Look at
Spacehab, they took on shuttle contractors for shuttle modules.
However, Boeing is out front with commercial crew.
Me
the taxi concept is better and cheaper for the country and NASA. Let
NASA astronauts concentrate on their duties for ISS ops and let others
worry about getting them there.
Jeff Findley
be57f1...@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com
says...
>
> Congress has directed NASA to build its own. That has more political
> support than exclusive reliance on the Private Sector.
>
> HLV has been strongly suggested by a variety of observers: including
> people normally at each other's throats in recent months: Norm
> Augustine, Gene Cernan, Jim Lovell, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), Sen
> Richard Shelby (R-AL), etc. Augustine's report in fact had HLV in all
> of their options.
>
> Musk has been shooting his mouth off about commercial taking more from
> NASA. Congress will have something to say 'bout that.
>
> Musk needs to be cut down to size for above: not to mention about his
> "retiring on Mars" nonsense.
He's certainly talking a lot about the future (which does make some
people nervous since it does sound a bit too "pie in the sky"). But, at
the same time, he's been demonstrating that a small start-up can achieve
quite respectable results without the extremely high costs of existing
launch providers. This is something that the traditional contractors
have essentially been saying is impossible (at least for them).
<snip>
> If Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northorp-Grumman, were ones out in front
> on Commercial Crew, we'd be having a much different conversation.
But they're not the ones "out in front", and there are good reasons for
that.
Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northorp-Grumman are all so large and so
antiquated that their costs are just too high. Could they become
"lean" like a start-up? They could, but to do so would require quite a
bit of downsizing and shutting down facilities. Congresscritters don't
want to hear about downsizing and shutting down facilities, especially
in this economic climate, so they'll keep throwing money at NASA, and
the contractors, to study the problem for a few more years. In other
words, they're kicking the can down the road and nothing much will get
done in the meantime.
So how would you propose we get out of this mess of lack of a large
launch vehicle, extremely high launch costs, and extremely high overhead
without start-ups like SpaceX? And yes, I'm being deadly serious.
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011
Matt Wiser
Fine in theory. But-and this is a but-both Charlie Bolden and Peggy
Whitson are on record as favoring a lease arrangement. The commercial
contractor would be responsible for everything up to launch-except
safety, which will be NASA's job. Once the tower's clear, Houston
takes over and the NASA crew flies the vehicle to ISS and back. Only
if the vehicle is NOT reusable might your suggestion be feasable. And
keep in mind (and this is what those people over on spacepolitics.com
don't get): Congress has the final say. All it takes is one rider to a
must-pass bill to direct NASA to pursue a lease arrangement.
Matt Wiser
> In article <6ecb988a-cd94-480f-87ee-
> be57f1cd0...@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, mattwiser...@yahoo.com
I'm not begrudging the private sector. Far from it: a successful
private launch industry that frees up NASA's resources so that NASA
can go BEO is a good thing. Not to mention that every vehicle flown by
NASA was built by contractors.
Get HLV going ASAP. This means SLS, and decide on the final form as
quickly as possible. (I'd prefer an Ares V Lite as the Augustine
Commission said was the best option that preserved workforce and meant
that the work done on CxP wasn't entirely wasted-and Boeing was
developing the second stage of Ares I, which was also going to be used
on Ares V) Once the decision has been made, start getting hardware
built, tested, and flown.
The Startups need to prove themselves-not just to NASA's satisfaction,
but Congress' as well. They are the ones who approve the funds. And
hearings on Commercial Crew so that we hear not just from NASA, but
these startups themselves, need to be held-not just to get what they
want to do now, but hear about future plans. They'd also serve another
purpose: cutting Musk down to size, and make him realize that he's no
Werner Von Braun. Until he starts flying cargo and crews, he's just
another "rocket boy" as far as Congress is concerned.
Glen Overby
>Get HLV going ASAP. This means SLS, and decide on the final form as
>quickly as possible. (I'd prefer an Ares V Lite as the Augustine
An HLV to where, or for what?
If the HLV is to employ rocket engineers in design centers like Huntsville,
and operations centers in Florida, then your approach sounds fine.
If the goal is exploration, build spacecraft, not rockets. Build the
spacecraft so that they can be launched on rockets we've already got.
Brad Guth
We caused 9/11 as well as most of everything before and after, always
blaming others.
We have spies spying on spies, plus MI6, Skull and Bones as well as
now Qinetiq that's literally on top of our CIA/NSA/DHS.
Solar Powered Flight on Venus
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213052.pdf
- and Anthony Colozza works for Analex Corporation that works for -
http://www.qinetiq-na.com/index.htm
(Qinetiq is yet another British cloak and dagger CIA kind of FUD-
master cabal that was started because of little old me) As of 2010
they employ near 14,000 and they are mostly public funded but remain
off the regular books so that it doesn’t appear as any official agency
or extension of government (kind of like their Federal Reserve).
Just what we all need is yet another 14,000 spendy cloak and dagger
positions and their stealth private infrastructure to pay for, not to
mention our having to pay for whatever mistakes and cover-thy-butt
expenses. I'm certain the Rothschilds and all the public funded ZNR/
GOP rednecks don't mind any of this one bit.
The whole thing is a bloody and spendy mess that even President BHO
can't afford to risk changing for the better (out of fear for his own
life and the lives of his family), and the most wealthy and powerful
simply couldn't be happier.
Matt Wiser
HLV will be needed. Augustine said so in that report-all of their
options have Heavy-Lift. And betting the whole exploration porfolio on
existing rockets and untried fuel depots (the RFPs for a propellant
depot technology demonstrator mission in LEO were just issued) is not
a good idea. In case you haven't noticed, there is a difference in
what you want to do and what Congress will allow you to do. They write
the checks, after all. Which is something the commercial worshipers
over on spacepolitics.com do not seem to realize. Many of them are so
convinced that their way is the right way, and that when it's pointed
out that Congressional approval for a budget that includes their
proposals is required, it's either glossed over or ignored.
Jeff Findley
coreSPA...@charter.net says...
Even if you ignore SpaceX's Falcon Heavy, Delta IV Heavy isn't a
terribly small launch vehicle (56,800 lb to LEO, according to
astronautix.com). If you take the approach of docking/berthing modules
together in LEO, you could build something quite big just with Delta IV
Heavy launches.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm
Jeff Findley
@x38g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com says...
HLV will be needed in much the same way that shuttle was needed for ISS.
If you look at the entire shuttle history, quite a few flights were
relatively simple satellite deployments (didn't really need the
shuttle's unique capabilities for that). Other flights were like
Spacelab flights in that they were a surrogate for a space station.
Once the ISS program really got going, the non-ISS shuttle flights
really dropped off to the point that other than the odd Hubble servicing
mission, just about every shuttle flight was to ISS.
So, what kind of "make work" flights will NASA come up with for an HLV
for the time period where they really can't afford to build payloads for
it? Maybe we can repeat some of the early, cheap, Saturn payloads (e.g.
micrometeorite detection).
Matt Wiser
> In article <17mvb8-ke11....@monolith.nodomain>,
> coreSPAMsam...@charter.net says...
OK, fine. Any ideas on a lunar mission (not orbit, but the eventual
landing) with such a vehicle? Remember that HLV has the political
support. EELVs do not at present-and Lord Musk's Falcon 9 Heavy sure
doesn't, either.
Matt Wiser
> In article <dc01d871-50da-4d43-be75-0c13645be155
>
> - Show quoted text -
HLV missions: let's see: Lunar orbit (redo of Apollo 8-which is Ed
Crawley's suggestion for the first BEO mission in his FlexPath
presentation last year at that "Space Summit" at the Cape-which was
more like preaching to the choir than a real summit-only those
supportive of ObamaSpace were invited); Lunar landing and outpost
support; NEO with a large hab module and departure stage; L-points
with the same module and departure stage. Mars flyby/orbit/martian
moons. Mars proper. Especially the latter, where it may be very
desirable to send habitats, rovers, etc. on ahead. And those things
will be big and heavy.
Jeff Findley
@k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com says...
I agree that HLV has political support. That doesn't make it a sane way
forward.
Jeff Findley
@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com says...
Too bad HLV will suck up so much funding that there simply won't be
money left to do anything truly aggressive like returning to the moon or
going to Mars. Sure lunar fly-bys and NEO missions might be possible
(they don't require an expensive lander), but not much beyond that.
We'll be stuck doing the "easy" beyond LEO missions maybe once a year
because HLV will be so expensive to operate. It'll be the shuttle era
all over again, only that time, we were stuck in LEO flying short
duration missions to nowhere. Now we'll be stuck beyond LEO flying
short missions only to bodies with very small delta-V requirements.
Matt Wiser
> In article <7403fad8-52c5-4ade-87c2-d2cf1cee8f31
> @k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, mattwiser...@yahoo.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're not answering the first question: got any lunar scenarios with
EELVs? Say, a lander that could support a three- or four-person crew
on the surface for a week at first. (Block I configuration a la
Altair's specs as intended)
Until there are demonstration flights-either NASA sponsored or done by
someone like Lord Musk (and no, he ain't the Messiah when it comes to
HSF, which some believe he is), EELV use for exploration doesn't have
the political support at present. Show that it can be done, and maybe
you'll get some attention and NASA funding. NASA is beholden to
Congress, and Congress said to start building a HLV NOW. Not wait 5
years as per the POS that was the original FY 11 budget request. NOW.
No ifs, ands, or buts. It's law. (See the 2010 NASA Authorization Act,
signed by POTUS last December) And if you have paid any attention to
Charlie Bolden on The Hill in past months, Congress is not happy at
perceived foot-dragging....they want to see contracts awarded and
development starting ASAP.
Jeff Findley
@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com says...
Apollo LEM dry mass was about 9,200 lbs. You could launch a vehicle
several times the size of an Apollo LEM using an EELV if you launch it
unfueled and fill the tanks at a LEO fuel depot.
Actually, you could launch an Apollo LEM fully fueled on a Delta IV
Heavy, because even fully fueled, it weighted 32,400 lbs, which is well
within what the heavy can launch.
You just have to design your mission to go up in pieces and use the EOR
(earth orbit rendezvous) approach rather than the LOR (lunar orbit
rendezvous) approach taken by Apollo.
> Until there are demonstration flights-either NASA sponsored or done by
> someone like Lord Musk (and no, he ain't the Messiah when it comes to
> HSF, which some believe he is), EELV use for exploration doesn't have
> the political support at present.
I never said this required a Falcon Heavy, I said you could do it with a
Delta IV Heavy, which is a proven launch vehicle that you can buy today.
Bashing Musk doesn't make a Congress/NASA designed HLV a good idea.
> Show that it can be done, and maybe
> you'll get some attention and NASA funding. NASA is beholden to
> Congress, and Congress said to start building a HLV NOW. Not wait 5
> years as per the POS that was the original FY 11 budget request. NOW.
> No ifs, ands, or buts. It's law. (See the 2010 NASA Authorization Act,
> signed by POTUS last December) And if you have paid any attention to
> Charlie Bolden on The Hill in past months, Congress is not happy at
> perceived foot-dragging....they want to see contracts awarded and
> development starting ASAP.
That's all true, but it doesn't change the fact that the current "way
forward" might result in an operational HLV (it's not a given,
especially considering NASA's track record on Ares I). Unfortunately,
even if the HLV flies, it will blow the budget to the point that there
will be no money for "cool" payloads like a lunar lander, because such
payloads will be extremely complex and expensive to develop in their own
right.
Congress is being pig headed. It can't raise its snout out of the
trough of government spending long enough to realize just how much money
they're blowing with little to no chance of actual manned missions
flying on their precious HLV.
Jim Davis
> Actually, you could launch an Apollo LEM fully fueled on a Delta
> IV Heavy, because even fully fueled, it weighted 32,400 lbs,
> which is well within what the heavy can launch.
A LM wouldn't fit inside the Delta IV Heavy's 5 m diameter payload
fairing. Perhaps a 6.6 m payload fairing could be designed to
accomodate it but that could be quite expensive.
Jim Davis
Matt Wiser
> In article <9aa5fe49-80a4-438c-8b5e-ac768b1d5ca8
> @r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, mattwiser...@yahoo.com says...
If you want Congress to modify the Act, try and get your
congresscritter to do so. Remember that it's the Senators and
Congressmen from "Space States" who sit on those committees and shape
authorizations and funding. If you had Rohrbacher as Chair on the
House side, then maybe EELV-based exploration might have an ally on
The Hill, but since he's not...
Matt Wiser
Something the EELV crowd fails to recognize.
Jeff Findley
jimd...@earthlink.net says...
I'll go out on a limb and guess that a larger fairing For Delta IV Heavy
would be cheaper to develop than the larger fairing, plus the HLV
underneath it, that Congress/NASA is pursuing.
Besides, sooner or later NASA is going to have to figure out how to
assemble beyond LEO spacecraft in LEO. The single launch on an HLV type
approach may work for a manned mission to the moon, but it becomes very
impractical for a manned mission to Mars. So why not start now?
Technologies like LEO fuel depots and in orbit refueling are enabling
technologies that we're going to need in the future.
Jeff Findley
18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com says...
If Delta IV Heavy needs a larger payload fairing for a new lunar lander
design, it would be far cheaper to develop than a shuttle derived HLV
plus the larger diameter fairing needed for it.
This is something that the HLV crowd apparently fails to recognize.
bob haller
> In article <Xns9EFE547109368jimdavis2earthlin...@94.75.214.90>,
> jimdav...@earthlink.net says...
without the bucks provided by a major recovery of our economy the only
thing NASA will be designing is minmizing maintence on historic stuff
like KSC...Soon ISS will be cut to save money unless it begins
providing some of the earth shaking science promised forever.....
Havent you got the word were in a economic dump approaching the size
of the great depression? We as a nation are in serious debt near 50
grand for every man women and child in our county:( Our congress is a
total loss, bought and sold at will, our economy a mess. social
security and medicare about to get disassembled:(
Worse if global change by ANY causes is true KSC could easily end up
under water, since it so close to the ocean, only a few feet increase
would make KSC launch facilties unusable:( Ultimately why our world is
changing doesnt matter, just the fact all this is occuring is enough
to kill our economy and way of life.
Its nice to DREAM of new projects and real exploration but the sadf
facts are very sobering:(
Brad Guth
Most of our resident FUD-masters with bogus/phony names and
untraceable internet accounts because that's what DARPA, CIA/MI6 and
Qinetiq do best, don't give a tinkers damn if our nation is in a full
blown recession and otherwise mortgaged to the hilt, because their
public funded income and full medical benefits are untouchable (so
they think).
Hitler had the exact same policy of over-spending when there was only
debt on the books, so obviously Hitler was being financed and
otherwise assisted by the rich and powerful of that era.
Such FUD-masters as brown-nosed clowns of the GOP/ZNR kind are
frequently either Semites or pretend-Atheists that only act/react
exactly like Semites, are only here to accomplice as much public media
damage control as possible. If it were up to them we'd be in a full
blown WW3, paying $10/gallon for our fuel and otherwise over $1/kwhr.
Matt Wiser
> In article <Xns9EFE547109368jimdavis2earthlin...@94.75.214.90>,
> jimdav...@earthlink.net says...
Assuming the depot/on-orbit refueling works. Once it's flight-proven,
then things change. Right now, NASA just issued the RFPs a few weeks
ago for an on-orbit depot technology demonstrator. Betting the farm on
something that may not work is not a good idea. If it works, by all
means, use it. But if it doesn't, we're back to Heavy-Lift.
bob haller
>
> - Show quoted text -
how you going to get the fuel to orbit?
even if orbital refueling becomes a reality the fuel must still be
launched:(
Brad Guth
William Mook of Mokenergy and Mokaerospace has that LOx and LH2 stuff
as well as my HTP delivered at less than 10% the cost of anything NASA
ever had in mind.
Matt Wiser
> In article <16c8d278-3210-4ff0-bf8c-51800ffd3e67@
One thing that the anti-HLV crowd doesn't recognize-and one finds this
on spacepolitics.com, but thespacereview, and a few other forums, is
that the political support for EELV-based exploration is not visible.
There is a difference in what you want to do and what Congress will
allow you to do. They approve the funds, and if they don't like a
program, or how that program is going, the money gets yanked. There is
more political support for HLV than any other exploration strategy at
present, and that's not likely to change. Now, if the economy was in
much better shape, and the issue of the workforce on Shuttle (and
Constellation) was not as big a deal as it was last year, things might
be different. Promises of a vibrant commercial launch industry in 3-5
years are fine, but they don't pay one's mortgage, or other bills, or
send the kids off to college. Is the workforce issue a major one? Yes.
Then there's the issue that "We spent $9 Billion on Constellation, so
we'd best get something out of it if we're doing something new in its
place." This was seen a lot in Congressional hearings last year. And
both Charlie Bolden and Dr. Holdren (Presidential Science Advisor)
weren't able to communicate their proposals enough: Congress threw out
the FY 11 Budget request-even the supplemental that came after that
"space summit" on 15 Apr 2010, and wrote their own.
Matt Wiser
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.285a88e4f...@news.fuse.net...
technology demonstrator in LEO were just issued by NASA to industry. But
this has to be proven to work, and work safely, before you can build
exploration around it. And if it fails, the fallback is HLV, like it or not.
And pray tell, how does one replenish and restock an empty depot, hmm? Or is
that TBD?
Any Mars mission profile will involve heavy stuff going into LEO and then
beyond: habitats, ISRU gear, surface rovers, etc. Most of the studies you
can find on the subject have Heavy-Lift sending that stuff on its way.
And Jeff, how do you answer the other Congressional question: How to get the
most out of the $9 Billion spent on Constellation besides a capsule? That
came up quite often when Charlie Bolden was on The Hill last year. His
answers were not to Congressional satisfaction: hence the mandate for
heavy-lift and a crew vehicle for BEO.
bob haller
> most out of the $9 Billion spent on Constellation besides a capsule? That
> came up quite often when Charlie Bolden was on The Hill last year. His
> answers were not to Congressional satisfaction: hence the mandate for
> heavy-lift and a crew vehicle for BEO
NASA bought a loser, accept the fact and move on....
every now and then most people have bought something that just didnt
work out.
if the purchased item is a waste why waste more money?
its like going to college and learning you just DONT want to be a
whatever...
the money wasnt really wasted, you learned something:)
Document all the info from the experience, someday a piece of it may
be of use to someone..
Oh and congress shouldnt micro manage engineering decisions!
DID ANYONE HERE THIN THE DESIGN WAS SOUND?
As far as I remember not a single poster supported it, I know I didnt..
Pat Flannery
> Assuming the depot/on-orbit refueling works. Once it's flight-proven,
> then things change. Right now, NASA just issued the RFPs a few weeks
> ago for an on-orbit depot technology demonstrator. Betting the farm on
> something that may not work is not a good idea. If it works, by all
> means, use it. But if it doesn't, we're back to Heavy-Lift.
The problem I see with the orbiting fuel depot concept is that it relies
on excess payload capacity of boosters that are taking satellites into
orbit being used to carry propellants, there are a lot of things this
doesn't take into account:
1.) That the people designing the satellite won't try to give it more
capabilities to match as closely as possible the lifting capacity of the
launch vehicle.
2.) That the excess payload capacity is still usable for a worthwhile
amount of propellant once the weight of tankage for it and the gear for
docking with the propellant depot are taken into account.
3.) That both the orbital altitude and inclination of the propellant
depot are convenient for the satellite launchers to use. This is a big
one, as as soon as you start going into a non-optimal inclination orbit,
you payload drops off. It doesn't do any good if the depot is in
equatorial orbit and you want to launch something into polar orbit.
4.) That the people launching the satellite agree to using the launch
vehicle for propellant carriage as well, even thought that will make it
more complex and introduce new failure modes into the flight plan.
Pat
Jeff Findley
d93428...@x38g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com
says...
It works quite well for hypergolics. The only unknown here is
cryogenics. The guys who design, build, and fly Centaur have a lot of
experience here. NASA ought to contract out an X-project to those guys
to fly a testbed. This is something they've actually been thinking
about:
Centaur Test Bed (CTB) for Cryogenic Fluid Management
http://unitedlaunchalliance.com/site/docs/publications/CentaurTestBedCTB
forCryogenicFluidManagement20064603.pdf
Note that the above test is a relatively simple add-on to a stock
Centaur upper stage, so it shouldn't require a separate launch. You
just add this test to an existing Centaur flight.
> Right now, NASA just issued the RFPs a few weeks
> ago for an on-orbit depot technology demonstrator. Betting the farm on
> something that may not work is not a good idea. If it works, by all
> means, use it. But if it doesn't, we're back to Heavy-Lift.
Why wouldn't it work? There is nothing here that violates the laws of
physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, etc. It's all
engineering R&D, which is something NASA used to be good at.
Look back at Apollo/Saturn and you can count dozens of technologies
where NASA "bet the farm" in order to get to the moon by the end of the
decade. We used to have ba!!s back then. How did our manned space
program get neutered so badly? It sickens me to see NASA so scared to
try anything new.
For some reason, when I talk about these technologies in the sci.space
newsgroups, I get the impression that others think I'm really "out
there" when I advocate for orbital refueling depots. But I don't think
I am based on the sheer volume of papers that I've read on the concept.
Many of these coming from the people who have actual experience with
cryogenic propellants (i.e. the folks at United Launch Alliance).
Several papers hosted on the United Launch Alliance (ULA) website:
Upper Stage Evolution
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/UpperStageEvolutionJPC20
09.pdf
Settled Cryogenic Propellant Transfer
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/SettledCryogenicPropella
ntTransfer.pdf
CRYOTE (Cryogenic Orbital Testbed) Concept
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/CryogenicOrbitalTestbed%
28CRYOTE%292009.pdf
Upperstage Extensibility for Testbed Applications
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/UpperStageExtensibility2
01108_0205.pdf
A Practical, Affordable Cryogenic Propellant Depot Based on ULA?s Flight
Experience
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/APracticalAffordableCryo
genicPropellantDepotBasedonULAsFlightExperience20087644.pdf
Design and Development of an In-Space Deployable Sun Shield for the
Atlas Centaur
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/DesignandDevelopmentofan
InSpaceDeployableSunShieldfortheAtlasCentaur20087764.pdf
Atlas Centaur Sun Shield Design and Testing: An Update
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/SunShieldSpace2009.pdf
Micro-gravity Cryogenic Experiment Opportunity
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/Space2010CRYOTEpaper_pub
lished.pdf
Centaur Upperstage Applicability for Several-Day Mission Durations with
Minor Insulation Modifications
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/CentaurUpperstageApplica
bilityforSeveralDayMissionDurationswithMinorInsulationModificationsAIAA2
0075845.pdf
The Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage (ACES)-A Low-Cost, Low-Risk
Approach to Space Exploration Launch
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/TheAdvancedCryogenicEvol
vedStageACES2006LeBar7454.pdf
Propellant Depots
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/PropellantDepotJPC2009.p
df
Evolving to a Depot-Based Space Transportation Architecture
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/DepotBasedTransportation
Architecture2010.pdf
Realistic Near-Term Propellant Depots: Implementation of a Critical
Spacefaring Capability
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/PropellantDepots2009.pdf
A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArc
hitecture2009.pdf
Jeff Findley
says...
on Constellation? That money has already been spent and is long gone.
Continuing to throw good money after bad on a concept that is hideously
flawed and hideously expensive is insane.
NASA has shown it could not build Ares I for a reasonable cost using a
reasonable schedule. I have zero confidence that they'll do better with
a shuttle derived heavy lift launcher. Congress is heading the wrong
direction with this and I predict that in five to ten years, this
shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle program will collapse in upon itself
just as Ares I did.
Maybe Congress doesn't care that it will continue wasting billions of
dollars chasing a heavy lift launch vehicle built using 1970's shuttle
technology, but I do. It will be yet another missed opportunity for
NASA to push the state of the art in manned space travel.
Jeff Findley
<PYqdnYB5R4Sxgm_Q...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
fla...@daktel.com says...
>
> On 6/9/2011 10:23 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
>
> > Assuming the depot/on-orbit refueling works. Once it's flight-proven,
> > then things change. Right now, NASA just issued the RFPs a few weeks
> > ago for an on-orbit depot technology demonstrator. Betting the farm on
> > something that may not work is not a good idea. If it works, by all
> > means, use it. But if it doesn't, we're back to Heavy-Lift.
>
> The problem I see with the orbiting fuel depot concept is that it relies
> on excess payload capacity of boosters that are taking satellites into
> orbit being used to carry propellants
This is false. Piggy-backing on existing satellite launches is just one
proposed way to deliver fuel to a depot.
Another way is that a fuel delivery vehicle is just another payload on
an existing launch vehicle. It's a simple satellite bus on one end of a
set of cryogenic tanks with a standardized docking/fuel transfer
mechanism on the other end to interface to the fuel depot.
NASA should pay for fuel deliveries to the depot at a fixed cost per lb
of LOX and LH2 delivered. How private companies do this does not matter
one little bit. It's up to private industry to figure out how to get
the LOX and LH2 there. Whether that's on an Atlas, Delta, Falcon,
Pegasus, Taurus, Soyuz, Proton, Ariane, H2, Long March, etc. is entirely
up to private industry to decide.
If satellite manufacturers don't want their launch to be impacted, it's
up to them to negotiate that with the launch provider. NASA shouldn't
force anything upon commercial launches that the customers don't want.
Jeff Findley
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>
> I still fail to see how this is EVER a better plan than everyone
> simply launching their own fuel at need.
Short term, it enables launches of payloads beyond LEO which exceed an
existing launch vehicle's payload capacity. If your destination is GEO
(or GTO), you could instead launch to LEO, berth at a fuel depot, refill
your upper stage tanks, and then go to GEO (or GTO).
In the above scenario, you are essentially reusing the upper stage of
the launch vehicle by burning two full tanks of fuel instead of one.
SpaceX seems to have demonstrated that a launch vehicle with a high
energy LOX/LH2 upper stage isn't nearly as cheap as a LEO only
LOX/kerosene launch vehicle. Put most of the LOX/LH2 up at a depot
using the cheaper LOX/kerosene launch vehicle lets you use a much
smaller LOX/LH2 launch vehicle to send the same satellite to GEO/GTO.
I think the biggest advantage is that a functioning LEO fuel depot is
that it reduces the need to keep developing bigger and bigger launch
vehicles. At today's flight rates, development costs of large launch
vehicles are necessarily spread over very few flights, making their
overall program costs very expensive. Eliminating the need for newer,
larger, payloads to indirectly pay for development of bigger and bigger
launch vehicles would save the industry quite a bit of money in the long
term.
> No complications about what
> orbital plane your fuel depot is in (it's where you want it), no fancy
> standards for transfer of cryogenics on orbit (launch your spare fuel
> in a tank and just bolt it onto your vehicle), etc.
>
> Unless this is 'free government fuel', I fail to see where the 'win'
> is for anyone.
Specifically, I'm talking about eliminating NASA's proposed HLV. It's
going to cost many billions to develop and its only customer is going to
be NASA. Paying the fixed costs for HLV launch facilities in Florida
has got to be more expensive than paying the fixed costs to launch and
maintain a LEO fuel depot.
Me
Wrong, we just don't need idiots like you to tell us how to do our
jobs. A larger fairing would be 100x cheaper than a barely used HLV
Me
> One thing that the anti-HLV crowd doesn't recognize-and one finds this
> on spacepolitics.com, but thespacereview, and a few other forums, is
> that the political support for EELV-based exploration is not visible.
Because an HLV is labor intensive and employs more people than an ELV.
(EELV only applies to DIV and A5) based exploration.
That is why because HLV is pork based. Basically, HLV will be doing
less with more people.
As far as congress is concerned, the critical requirement is not
pounds per launch, it is people employed per system
ELV exploration would allow more money for the payloads. If SLS goes
forward, it is going to be a repeat of the late 70's/early 80's where
NASA had few missions due to the shuttle sucking up all the money.
SLS will be developed and there will be nothing to fly on it. NASA
will have a rocket to nowhere.
Exploration should be done in spirals and pay as you go.
Brad Guth
> > And Jeff, how do you answer the other Congressional question: How to get the
> > most out of the $9 Billion spent on Constellation besides a capsule? That
> > came up quite often when Charlie Bolden was on The Hill last year. His
> > answers were not to Congressional satisfaction: hence the mandate for
> > heavy-lift and a crew vehicle for BEO
>
> NASA bought a loser, accept the fact and move on....
>
> every now and then most people have bought something that just didnt
> work out.
>
> if the purchased item is a waste why waste more money?
>
> its like going to college and learning you just DONT want to be a
> whatever...
>
> the money wasnt really wasted, you learned something:)
>
> Document all the info from the experience, someday a piece of it may
> be of use to someone..
>
> Oh and congress shouldnt micro manage engineering decisions!
>
>
> As far as I remember not a single poster supported it, I know I didnt..
FUD-masters (aka GOP/ZNRs) all supported it, because that was their
job.
bob haller
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well a very specific vehicle could be built for launching stuff to
wherever you want to go:)
Build all sats with a common attachment point, for easy moving in
orbit and service if needed.''
Build a nuke powered transit stage. It would dock with whatever
payload, and use its nuke engine to send it on its way. Once its in
transit the nuke stage detaches and returns to earth for its next job
Pat Flannery
> It works quite well for hypergolics. The only unknown here is
> cryogenics. The guys who design, build, and fly Centaur have a lot of
> experience here. NASA ought to contract out an X-project to those guys
> to fly a testbed. This is something they've actually been thinking
> about:
You can do it if you have enough heat shielding around the tankage to
completely shield it from sunlight exposure and let it stay at the low
ambient temperture of orbital space.
But how big is your propellant depot becoming? This sounds like
something Skylab sized, plus you may need more than one to match the
orbital inclinations of the boosters that are supposed to take
propellants to it.
The whole concept is way blue-sky once you start thinking about it.
The obvious place the depots should go is into equatorial orbit so that
COMSAT boosters could drop off fuel for them as they headed for GEO from
an equatorial launch site.
But would any COMSAT owner not want to add back-up systems to their
satellite to maximize its lifespan and make its operational lifetime
longer rather than dragging propellants along to a orbital propellant
depot? Why not maximize payload capability use that way?
Also,how exactly is this supposed to work? The booster shoots the GEO
satellite and the upper stage into LEO or HEO, then it docks with the
depot, transfers propellants to the depot, refires its engine, and heads
up to GEO?
That sounds like pretty complex flight plan, particularly given that a
lot of satellites heading for GEO are privately owned, and not a NASA or
government funded project.
I watched the Jeff Gresaon give his presentation regarding our future in
space exploration with his "Island Hopping" analogy and his arguments
fall flat because he doesn't address the basic question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy2kIPLsUn0 *
What exactly is the pressing rational needed for mankind to colonize the
Moon, Mars, or asteroids in the near future?
You could put this off for a few centuries, of even millennia with no
problem at all.
Also, why are so many males in attendance at the conference balding? Too
much testosterone, or cosmic ray damage to their follicles from spending
so much time dreaming about space? ;-)
* You know, he actually looks like a cross between James Oberg and Rand
Simberg, and I'm taking a long look at appearance and ideas being
genetically part of the same DNA strand. :-D
Pat
Matt Wiser
> Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
> >fjmcc...@gmail.com says...
>
> >> I still fail to see how this is EVER a better plan than everyone
> >> simply launching their own fuel at need.
>
> >Short term, it enables launches of payloads beyond LEO which exceed an
> >existing launch vehicle's payload capacity. If your destination is GEO
> >(or GTO), you could instead launch to LEO, berth at a fuel depot, refill
> >your upper stage tanks, and then go to GEO (or GTO).
>
> at, carry the extra hardware to allow your upper stage to be refueled,
> etc. It still seems much simpler and cheaper to just loft an extra
> fuel tank to the inclination you're at, bolt that puppy on, and you're
> good to go. The fuel is going to cost the same however it gets up
> there, so unless there's a government subsidy on the fuel depot fuel,
> it seems to me it's a more expensive approach.
>
> --
> "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
> -- Charles Pinckney
And these days, "government subsidy" is a dirty word on The Hill.
Matt Wiser
I agree with Pat and Fred on this: it'd be folly to bet the farm on
depots, just as it would be to bet the farm just on Heavy-Lift: but
here's the cavaeat: we're likely to get both. NASA wants to
investigate the feasiblity of on-orbit refueling (hence the issuance
of RFPs), but is also getting ready to decide on HLV. And though not
yet budgeted, there will be large payloads that would be too heavy for
an EELV, or too bulky, and you'd need heavy-lift. Mars habitats, for
example, if the mission profile is to send things on ahead.
Pressurized rovers, ISRU equipment, etc. All would use heavy-lift, and
they don't grow on trees.
Matt Wiser
> In article <81iIp.836$tp....@newsfe06.iad>, MattWiser...@yahoo.com
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.285a88e4f...@news.fuse.net...
> > > In article <Xns9EFE547109368jimdavis2earthlin...@94.75.214.90>,
> > > jimdav...@earthlink.net says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
You want to know who cares? The workers who were expecting to
transition from Shuttle to CxP; their elected representaives, local
businesses who cater to those people, I can keep on going. When Norm
Augustine was on The Hill last May (alongside Neil Armstrong and Gene
Cernan), he did raise the issue of getting some return on CxP (Orion/
MPCV right now) in his testimony. There are other potential returns: 5-
segment SRBs if that is part of heavy-lift, the J-2X engine in stage 2
or three (work on the engine is still going on), Launch Escape System,
and a few other things. It's not just the prime contractors that were
affected, it's the subcontractors, and sub-sub-contractors. IF, and I
do mean IF, things were better in terms of the economy, the workforce
issue would not be as significant as it is now. Promises of a vigorous
commercial launch industry in 5 years are fine-but they don't pay the
bills one has NOW.
Matt Wiser
> In article <0821f15f-e4fb-4324-ae02-
> d93428038...@x38g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, mattwiser...@yahoo.com
> forCryogenicFluidManagement20064603.pdf
>
> Note that the above test is a relatively simple add-on to a stock
> Centaur upper stage, so it shouldn't require a separate launch. You
> just add this test to an existing Centaur flight.
>
> > Right now, NASA just issued the RFPs a few weeks
> > ago for an on-orbit depot technology demonstrator. Betting the farm on
> > something that may not work is not a good idea. If it works, by all
> > means, use it. But if it doesn't, we're back to Heavy-Lift.
>
> Why wouldn't it work? There is nothing here that violates the laws of
> physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, etc. It's all
> engineering R&D, which is something NASA used to be good at.
>
> Look back at Apollo/Saturn and you can count dozens of technologies
> where NASA "bet the farm" in order to get to the moon by the end of the
> decade. We used to have ba!!s back then. How did our manned space
> program get neutered so badly? It sickens me to see NASA so scared to
> try anything new.
>
> For some reason, when I talk about these technologies in the sci.space
> newsgroups, I get the impression that others think I'm really "out
> there" when I advocate for orbital refueling depots. But I don't think
> I am based on the sheer volume of papers that I've read on the concept.
> Many of these coming from the people who have actual experience with
> cryogenic propellants (i.e. the folks at United Launch Alliance).
>
> Several papers hosted on the United Launch Alliance (ULA) website:
>
> 09.pdf
>
> Settled Cryogenic Propellant Transferhttp://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/SettledCryogenicPropella
> ntTransfer.pdf
>
> CRYOTE (Cryogenic Orbital Testbed) Concepthttp://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/CryogenicOrbitalTestbed%
> 28CRYOTE%292009.pdf
>
> Upperstage Extensibility for Testbed Applicationshttp://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/UpperStageExtensibility2
> 01108_0205.pdf
>
> A Practical, Affordable Cryogenic Propellant Depot Based on ULA?s Flight
> genicPropellantDepotBasedonULAsFlightExperience20087644.pdf
>
> Design and Development of an In-Space Deployable Sun Shield for the
> InSpaceDeployableSunShieldfortheAtlasCentaur20087764.pdf
>
> Atlas Centaur Sun Shield Design and Testing: An Updatehttp://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/SunShieldSpace2009.pdf
>
> lished.pdf
>
> Centaur Upperstage Applicability for Several-Day Mission Durations with
> bilityforSeveralDayMissionDurationswithMinorInsulationModificationsAIAA2
> 0075845.pdf
>
> The Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage (ACES)-A Low-Cost, Low-Risk
> Approach to Space Exploration Launchhttp://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/TheAdvancedCryogenicEvol
> vedStageACES2006LeBar7454.pdf
>
> df
>
> Evolving to a Depot-Based Space Transportation Architecturehttp://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/DepotBasedTransportation
> Architecture2010.pdf
>
> Realistic Near-Term Propellant Depots: Implementation of a Critical
>
> A Commercially Based Lunar Architecturehttp://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArc
> hitecture2009.pdf
>
> Jeff
> --
> " Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then ULA ought to use this material in presenting a RFP to NASA for
the tech demonstrator for flight test that NASA wants to have on-
orbit. Remember, it's not just propellant storage and transfer,
there's safety issues as well. Especially if EVA by a crew is needed
for transfer. These are NOT red herrings: they have come up in the
past: both in Congressional testimony and at the "space summit" at the
Cape.
Pat Flannery
> In article
> <PYqdnYB5R4Sxgm_Q...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
> fla...@daktel.com says...
>>
>> On 6/9/2011 10:23 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming the depot/on-orbit refueling works. Once it's flight-proven,
>>> then things change. Right now, NASA just issued the RFPs a few weeks
>>> ago for an on-orbit depot technology demonstrator. Betting the farm on
>>> something that may not work is not a good idea. If it works, by all
>>> means, use it. But if it doesn't, we're back to Heavy-Lift.
>>
>> The problem I see with the orbiting fuel depot concept is that it relies
>> on excess payload capacity of boosters that are taking satellites into
>> orbit being used to carry propellants
>
> This is false. Piggy-backing on existing satellite launches is just one
> proposed way to deliver fuel to a depot.
The alternative is to do dedicated propellant launches to the depot;
unless you are shooting a lot of pounds of payload out to the Moon or to
other planets every year, it doesn't make any financial sense to develop
this ability.
>
> Another way is that a fuel delivery vehicle is just another payload on
> an existing launch vehicle. It's a simple satellite bus on one end of a
> set of cryogenic tanks with a standardized docking/fuel transfer
> mechanism on the other end to interface to the fuel depot.
...and the RCS system to allow it to shift its orbit to match that of
the depot, rendezvous and docking gear to let it attach itself once
there, and tankage weight aboard it to let it carry the propellants.
This might work with a full-tilt, highly ambitious, space program where
you would shoot stuff into orbit on a near weekly basis, and use a
dedicated tanker spacecraft... but in the present space funding climate
it's rather like suggesting that we engaged in a goose breeding project
to pure-breed the ones that migrate to the Moon, like Francis Godwin
wrote about. :-)
Pat
Me
> do mean IF, things were better in terms of the economy, the workforce
> issue would not be as significant as it is now. Promises of a vigorous
> commercial launch industry in 5 years are fine-but they don't pay the
> bills one has NOW.
Another fallacy. A heavy lift vehicle doesn't help the workforce either. The designers have to do their work, which is 2-4 years before any of the production workers get any work. Few of the current workforce was designer types, they are ops and production types.
Wiser learn something before posting.
Me
> And these days, "government subsidy" is a dirty word on The Hill.
And that what an HLV would be
bob haller
the obvious solution was to build shuttle C along with re certifyingn
the existing shuttle. perhaps making it unmanned, since near all
operations were computer controlled anyway
today as we see the end of launch capacity... along with mass loss of
jobs:(
We would of had a heavy lifter, along with a continued shuttle program
at a low flight rate, and perhaps a shuttle C derative launching a
safe manned capsule. Using the same mold lines all of this would of
likely been cheaper than ARES, and actually been able to do things in
space.
heck for the boatloads of money wasted on ARES, shuttle 2.0 might have
been well along by now. safer and cheaper to operate.
nasa screwed up monumentally on this:(
Jeff Findley
a5b01a...@s9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, charlie...@yahoo.com
says...
Agreed. It would be the shuttle fiasco all over again. Few flights to
few destinations with extremely high costs.
Jeff Findley
89b1f4...@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com
says...
But the rub is that if refueling depots work, you don't *need* an
expensive HLV, so all of that money spent on HLV just buys you an
extremely high fixed cost system that's going to be politically
difficult to kill.
This means *a lot* less money for payloads, which means *a lot* less
manned missions. Not exaclty a recipe for long term success, but it is
a long term recipe for continued pork, which we know Congresscritters
love.
Jeff Findley
@k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com says...
Those guys are losing their jobs NOW, so HLV won't help them NOW. There
is some vague hope it will help them later, but for NOW all it will help
is the engineers designing the thing, not the guys at KSC who work on
launches or the guys at JSC who work on mission planning. Those guys
are S.O.L. for NOW as a great many of them will be sacked to free up
development money for the "new" HLV.
Sorry, but Griffin "screwed the pooch" by pushing Ares I plus Ares V and
the guys who have to pay for it will be the ex-shuttle workers. :-(
Jeff Findley
@o10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Then ULA ought to use this material in presenting a RFP to NASA for
> the tech demonstrator for flight test that NASA wants to have on-
> orbit. Remember, it's not just propellant storage and transfer,
> there's safety issues as well. Especially if EVA by a crew is needed
> for transfer. These are NOT red herrings: they have come up in the
> past: both in Congressional testimony and at the "space summit" at the
> Cape.
Why would you need an EVA for transfer? Neither Progress nor ATV need
an EVA to perform fuel transfers. Are you trying to tell me that NASA
doesn't think it can make this work in an automated fashion as the
Russians have been doing with hypergolics for literally decades?
If it's not a red herring, then what's that awful stinking fish smell?
Jeff Findley
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>
> Jeff Findley <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4uc4v6po7tjhtgl96...@4ax.com>,
> >fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> I still fail to see how this is EVER a better plan than everyone
> >> simply launching their own fuel at need.
> >
> >Short term, it enables launches of payloads beyond LEO which exceed an
> >existing launch vehicle's payload capacity. If your destination is GEO
> >(or GTO), you could instead launch to LEO, berth at a fuel depot, refill
> >your upper stage tanks, and then go to GEO (or GTO).
> >
>
> at, carry the extra hardware to allow your upper stage to be refueled,
> etc. It still seems much simpler and cheaper to just loft an extra
> fuel tank to the inclination you're at, bolt that puppy on, and you're
> good to go. The fuel is going to cost the same however it gets up
> there, so unless there's a government subsidy on the fuel depot fuel,
> it seems to me it's a more expensive approach.
Come now, you've GOT to be kidding. A Falcon launch to a LEO fuel depot
would be far cheaper than an Atlas or Delta launch to the same. Save
the expensive launch with the expensive high energy upper and the
expensive payload. Send the relatively cheap LOX/LH2 to the depot using
the cheapest cut-rate launch you can find and only pay for actual
deliveries, not failed launch attempts.
Plus this fixes a supposed problem with so-called unproven launch
vehicles by giving them payloads which are relatively cheap. So what if
they do prove to be somewhat unreliable? It's not like you're going to
lose an expensive comsat or DOD bird with this approach.
Let the commercial launch providers take the risk launching the LOX/LH2.
Save the cost plus contracts for the payloads.
Jeff Findley
<2MWdneyLk47wUm_Q...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
fla...@daktel.com says...
>
> On 6/10/2011 7:01 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> > It works quite well for hypergolics. The only unknown here is
> > cryogenics. The guys who design, build, and fly Centaur have a lot of
> > experience here. NASA ought to contract out an X-project to those guys
> > to fly a testbed. This is something they've actually been thinking
> > about:
>
> You can do it if you have enough heat shielding around the tankage to
> completely shield it from sunlight exposure and let it stay at the low
> ambient temperture of orbital space.
Sun shields, MLI, plus a cryo-cooler. Nothing terribly hard there.
> But how big is your propellant depot becoming? This sounds like
> something Skylab sized, plus you may need more than one to match the
> orbital inclinations of the boosters that are supposed to take
> propellants to it.
It would need to be at least as big as the upper stage that it's
refueling. That's why ULA has been looking into depot concepts that
look an awful lot like Centaur upper stage tanks clustered together.
> The whole concept is way blue-sky once you start thinking about it.
> The obvious place the depots should go is into equatorial orbit so that
> COMSAT boosters could drop off fuel for them as they headed for GEO from
> an equatorial launch site.
I'd rather spend my money on new technologies than on a boondoggle like
shuttle derived HLV.
> But would any COMSAT owner not want to add back-up systems to their
> satellite to maximize its lifespan and make its operational lifetime
> longer rather than dragging propellants along to a orbital propellant
> depot? Why not maximize payload capability use that way?
You make no sense. Why would COMSAT owners be paying to drag
propellants to the depot? They'd only be paying for any fuel they take
*from* the depot. The fuel *to* the depot would be luanched by cut-rate
outfits like SpaceX, who aren't likely to be trusted with an expensive
COMSAT launch until they "prove themselves". This gives the cut-rate
outfits something cheap to launch while the expensive outfits (who've
proven themselves) still get to launch expensive payloads.
> Also,how exactly is this supposed to work? The booster shoots the GEO
> satellite and the upper stage into LEO or HEO, then it docks with the
> depot, transfers propellants to the depot, refires its engine, and heads
> up to GEO?
Sorry, but you're not getting it.
The big expensive booster shots the GEO satellite and upper stage to the
(fully fueled) LEO depot where the now nearly empty high energy upper
stage fills its tanks with LOX and LH2.
The LOX/LH2 gets to the depot on separate cheaper launches (they don't
have to be "high performance") using vehicles a COMSAT launcher wouldn't
likely trust with their expensive satellite.
Jeff Findley
badnUdZg5ikRW_Q...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
fla...@daktel.com says...
>
> On 6/10/2011 7:16 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
> > In article
> > <PYqdnYB5R4Sxgm_Q...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
> > fla...@daktel.com says...
> >>
> >> On 6/9/2011 10:23 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
> >>
> >>> Assuming the depot/on-orbit refueling works. Once it's flight-proven,
> >>> then things change. Right now, NASA just issued the RFPs a few weeks
> >>> ago for an on-orbit depot technology demonstrator. Betting the farm on
> >>> something that may not work is not a good idea. If it works, by all
> >>> means, use it. But if it doesn't, we're back to Heavy-Lift.
> >>
> >> The problem I see with the orbiting fuel depot concept is that it relies
> >> on excess payload capacity of boosters that are taking satellites into
> >> orbit being used to carry propellants
> >
> > This is false. Piggy-backing on existing satellite launches is just one
> > proposed way to deliver fuel to a depot.
>
> The alternative is to do dedicated propellant launches to the depot;
> unless you are shooting a lot of pounds of payload out to the Moon or to
> other planets every year, it doesn't make any financial sense to develop
> this ability.
It does when the fuel launches are done using a cheap vehicle like
Falcon 9. One of the criticisms of Falcon 9 is who's going to trust an
untested launch vehicle like it? Why not trust it to launch LOX and
LH2? Those are cheaper than comsats or DOD payloads. They're most
certainly cheaper than capsules with people in them.
A side benefit is Falcon 9 gets to prove itself (or not) using cheap
payloads.
> > Another way is that a fuel delivery vehicle is just another payload
on
> > an existing launch vehicle. It's a simple satellite bus on one end of a
> > set of cryogenic tanks with a standardized docking/fuel transfer
> > mechanism on the other end to interface to the fuel depot.
>
> ...and the RCS system to allow it to shift its orbit to match that of
> the depot, rendezvous and docking gear to let it attach itself once
> there, and tankage weight aboard it to let it carry the propellants.
No more difficult or expensive than a Progress. If the Russians can do
it, why can't the US? I'd hope we could match the Russians 1970's
technology from the 2010's.
> This might work with a full-tilt, highly ambitious, space program where
> you would shoot stuff into orbit on a near weekly basis, and use a
> dedicated tanker spacecraft... but in the present space funding climate
> it's rather like suggesting that we engaged in a goose breeding project
> to pure-breed the ones that migrate to the Moon, like Francis Godwin
> wrote about. :-)
It works because you don't have to develop yet another launch vehicle
bigger than the existing HLV's. Look how many billions NASA spent
trying to do just this very thing with Ares I and what do we have to
show for it? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
Throwing good money after bad by funding a shuttle derived HLV is
absolute folly.
Jeff Findley
9378d4...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
charlie...@yahoo.com says...
Many shuttle workers will be losing their jobs rather soon. The last
launch is fast approaching and HLV is nowhere to be seen.
Pat Flannery
> Why would you need an EVA for transfer? Neither Progress nor ATV need
> an EVA to perform fuel transfers. Are you trying to tell me that NASA
> doesn't think it can make this work in an automated fashion as the
> Russians have been doing with hypergolics for literally decades?
You could develop the technology to do a fully automated propellant
transfer to the depot easily enough, and also transfer from there to a
spacecraft outbound to the Moon or planets; the problem is that the
depot is being sold as using excess lifting capabilities of satellite
launches to carry propellants to it, and by the time you get all the
things needed to dock to it (propellant tankage, RCS system, and
rendezvous and docking electronics) the weight well be so high as to eat
up any excess lifting capability (and then some), and you will need
dedicated launches to get any usable amount of propellants to it.
At that point the whole economic advantage of the depots becomes
somewhat iffy, particularly when orbital inclinations that are most
effective to get to it both for filling it and refueling from it are
taken into account, in fact the only really good place to launch it
from, take propellants to it from, and launch anything that's going to
use it to refuel from it is right on the equator.
Pat
Brad Guth
Saving another 25% worth of inert mass and making even the ET reusable
for the new and improved shuttle would nave been too logical and not
nearly as insider job security proof as what they did. Kinda the same
logic applies towards trashing the Saturn 5, because it was already
too reliable and payload capable as is.
Pat Flannery
>> But now you have to launch into whatever inclination the fuel depot is
>> at, carry the extra hardware to allow your upper stage to be refueled,
>> etc. It still seems much simpler and cheaper to just loft an extra
>> fuel tank to the inclination you're at, bolt that puppy on, and you're
>> good to go. The fuel is going to cost the same however it gets up
>> there, so unless there's a government subsidy on the fuel depot fuel,
>> it seems to me it's a more expensive approach.
>
> Come now, you've GOT to be kidding. A Falcon launch to a LEO fuel depot
> would be far cheaper than an Atlas or Delta launch to the same.
In what orbital inclination? One of the ideas for the depot was to allow
foreign countries bid competitively on carrying propellants to it, and
the best orbital inclination for max payload from the US isn't the best
for Russia, China, or the ESA.
Also, instead of launching the depot on one Falcon, propellants for it
on a second Falcon, and the spacecraft to use the propellants on a third
Falcon, why not just skip the depot and launch the propellants on one
booster, the spacecraft on the second, and let them dock in orbit and
transfer the propellants, the way the old Apollo EOR direct ascent
concept was going to work?
Not only do you save yourself the cost of a booster launch, but since
the propellants and spacecraft can go into orbit only a couple of days
apart, you save a lot of complexity by not needing the comprehensive
sunshades and insulation to keep the LOX and LH2 cool that the depot
would need if the propellants were going to be stored on it on a
long-term basis.
And exactly how long it's supposed to be stored at the depot is a
interesting point also; to make it work the way it's being described,
you will need to keep it in almost zero boil-off conditions for months
if not years at a time. No one has ever tried that with non-hypergolic
fuels before.
> Save
> the expensive launch with the expensive high energy upper and the
> expensive payload. Send the relatively cheap LOX/LH2 to the depot using
> the cheapest cut-rate launch you can find and only pay for actual
> deliveries, not failed launch attempts.
>
> Plus this fixes a supposed problem with so-called unproven launch
> vehicles by giving them payloads which are relatively cheap. So what if
> they do prove to be somewhat unreliable? It's not like you're going to
> lose an expensive comsat or DOD bird with this approach.
By the time you could implement this concept, the present field of
unproven launch vehicles will either be proven or dead projects.
And where are all the spacecraft that are making use of the depot to
fuel themselves supposed to go anyway?
No matter what Jeff Greason said in his "island hopping" speech, there
is certainly no national consensus that the space policy of the US is to
colonize the Moon, L points, asteroids, or Mars...and requests for
funding to start something like that are going to be met with laughter,
not votes, on capital hill.
So if commercial space people are going to do something like that, they
had better figure out a way to make a buck at it, because they are going
to be footing the bill for it out of their own pockets.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> In article
> <2MWdneyLk47wUm_Q...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
> fla...@daktel.com says...
>>
>> On 6/10/2011 7:01 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
>>> It works quite well for hypergolics. The only unknown here is
>>> cryogenics. The guys who design, build, and fly Centaur have a lot of
>>> experience here. NASA ought to contract out an X-project to those guys
>>> to fly a testbed. This is something they've actually been thinking
>>> about:
>>
>> You can do it if you have enough heat shielding around the tankage to
>> completely shield it from sunlight exposure and let it stay at the low
>> ambient temperture of orbital space.
>
> Sun shields, MLI, plus a cryo-cooler. Nothing terribly hard there.
>
>> But how big is your propellant depot becoming? This sounds like
>> something Skylab sized, plus you may need more than one to match the
>> orbital inclinations of the boosters that are supposed to take
>> propellants to it.
>
> It would need to be at least as big as the upper stage that it's
> refueling. That's why ULA has been looking into depot concepts that
> look an awful lot like Centaur upper stage tanks clustered together.
Launched all at once, or in a whole series of launches?
>
>> The whole concept is way blue-sky once you start thinking about it.
>> The obvious place the depots should go is into equatorial orbit so that
>> COMSAT boosters could drop off fuel for them as they headed for GEO from
>> an equatorial launch site.
>
> I'd rather spend my money on new technologies than on a boondoggle like
> shuttle derived HLV.
>
>> But would any COMSAT owner not want to add back-up systems to their
>> satellite to maximize its lifespan and make its operational lifetime
>> longer rather than dragging propellants along to a orbital propellant
>> depot? Why not maximize payload capability use that way?
>
> You make no sense. Why would COMSAT owners be paying to drag
> propellants to the depot?
That's what Jeff Greason was talking about in his speech, propellants
for the depot would be taken up to it on other rocket launches as
surplus cargo to make use of excess payload capacity over satellite weight.
> They'd only be paying for any fuel they take
> *from* the depot. The fuel *to* the depot would be luanched by cut-rate
> outfits like SpaceX, who aren't likely to be trusted with an expensive
> COMSAT launch until they "prove themselves".
If ULA has its way, they will "prove themselves" somewhere around the
year 2100. :-D
This is what insurance companies are for.
> This gives the cut-rate
> outfits something cheap to launch while the expensive outfits (who've
> proven themselves) still get to launch expensive payloads.
>
>> Also,how exactly is this supposed to work? The booster shoots the GEO
>> satellite and the upper stage into LEO or HEO, then it docks with the
>> depot, transfers propellants to the depot, refires its engine, and heads
>> up to GEO?
>
> Sorry, but you're not getting it.
>
> The big expensive booster shots the GEO satellite and upper stage to the
> (fully fueled) LEO depot where the now nearly empty high energy upper
> stage fills its tanks with LOX and LH2.
Again, orbital inclination - for max payload to GEO, the depot should be
in equatorial orbit as should the booster stage that's going to fill up
from the depot and carry it there. And the easiest way to get there with
max payload is via an equatorial launch.
Anything other than that and you've stuck the depot in a orbit that is
only optimal for US launched COMSATs or equatorial military satellites,
and there aren't enough of those to justify the costs of developing the
depot and all its related technologies.
This whole concept smacks of the idea that showed up here several years
back where the guy wanted to build a super capacitor and store
electricity in it to power cars and what-not; it never sank in to him
that it didn't make electrical energy, it just stored electrical energy,
and the energy itself had come from some other source, like covering
your roof in solar arrays.
The propellants have to get to the depot somehow first before the upper
stage can take them aboard, so whatever launch weight you are saving on
the COMSAT launch you are shifting to another launch, plus now you have
added the weight and complexity of the docking and propellant transfer gear.
* As to the safety of having something in your car that had enough
electrical energy in it to run it for a couple of weeks, you had better
hope you don't get in a accident and have it short out.
Pat
Pat
Matt Wiser
Not. Sorry, but what has more political support on The Hill? EELVs or
Heavy-Lift? HLV passed both houses. EELVs didn't even rate a committee
hearing.
Matt Wiser
> Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>
> >expensive HLV, so all of that money spent on HLV just buys you an
> >extremely high fixed cost system that's going to be politically
> >difficult to kill.
>
> expensive HLF for the sorts of missions that a refueling depot would
> enable. All you need is another booster.
>
> An HLV is for things that are simply too bloody big for current
> boosters. A refueling depot doesn't help that.
>
>
>
> >This means *a lot* less money for payloads, which means *a lot* less
> >manned missions. Not exaclty a recipe for long term success, but it is
> >a long term recipe for continued pork, which we know Congresscritters
> >love.
>
>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
Correct: what the EELV supporters don't realize is that there will be
payloads either too big for an EELV, or too heavy. HLV will be needed
to get heavy stuff up. to LEO and beyond. I'd rather have it sooner
rather than later. Build your HLV, develop Orion/MPCV, develop a hab
module and departure stage (which may be parked at an L-Point for
restocking and refueling if said depots work as their proponents say
they will), and GO. Lunar orbit, L-Points, NEOs for destinations that
you don't need a lander for. Then, in the 2020s, develop the lander
and surface systems so that we can get ready for Mars by relearning
planetary surface ops in a space environment, and in the late 2020s:
lunar landings. Mars Orbit and Martian Moons around 2035, then shoot
for the big one:Mars proper. With people, not fancy robots as the
Bobbert keeps shreiking about.
Jeff Findley
> >expensive HLV, so all of that money spent on HLV just buys you an
> >extremely high fixed cost system that's going to be politically
> >difficult to kill.
> >
>
> expensive HLF for the sorts of missions that a refueling depot would
> enable. All you need is another booster.
>
> An HLV is for things that are simply too bloody big for current
> boosters. A refueling depot doesn't help that.
True, but so far, all I've seen from NASA is a lot of "want" which was
presented to the public as a "need". You don't "need" an HLV to return
to the moon. Due to the rocket equation, most of what you truly need to
go back to the moon is fuel and oxidizer. The dry mass of what I
personally consider to be a reasonably sized lunar lander is well within
the capabilities of a Delta IV Heavy. Launch the thing empty and top
off its tanks at a LEO fuel depot.
I have the same opinion of Orion and its service module. Most of the
bloat in the lunar Orion is fuel and oxidizer in the service module.
Again, launch the SM with nearly empty tanks, and top it off at a depot.
> >This means *a lot* less money for payloads, which means *a lot* less
> >manned missions. Not exaclty a recipe for long term success, but it is
> >a long term recipe for continued pork, which we know Congresscritters
> >love.
>
> Mars is much easier to do manned if you have an HLV.
Mars might also be easier to do manned if you have a LEO refueling
depot.
At the very least, the same (near) zero boil off technologies used in a
LOX/LH2 depot would make it much easier to do a manned Mars mission.
So, even if a LEO fuel depot is an economic dead end, the technologies
are still very nice to have for a manned Mars mission.
Just because the X-15 never led to a similar operational vehicle doesn't
mean the research and development done by it wasn't worth doing.
Jeff Findley
<8tKdnUWCXp3LhWjQ...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
fla...@daktel.com says...
>
> the problem is that the
> depot is being sold as using excess lifting capabilities of satellite
> launches to carry propellants to it
Who is selling a LEO fuel depot in this manner? Certainly not me. Do
you have a cite for this?
I'd pay a fixed cost per lb of LOX and LH2 delivered to the depot via a
standardized docking/berthing mechanism. I'm not advocating for any one
type of delivery system.
Jeff Findley
> >@o10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, mattwi...@yahoo.com says...
> >>
> >> Then ULA ought to use this material in presenting a RFP to NASA for
> >> the tech demonstrator for flight test that NASA wants to have on-
> >> orbit. Remember, it's not just propellant storage and transfer,
> >> there's safety issues as well. Especially if EVA by a crew is needed
> >> for transfer. These are NOT red herrings: they have come up in the
> >> past: both in Congressional testimony and at the "space summit" at the
> >> Cape.
> >>
> >
> >Why would you need an EVA for transfer? Neither Progress nor ATV need
> >an EVA to perform fuel transfers. Are you trying to tell me that NASA
> >doesn't think it can make this work in an automated fashion as the
> >Russians have been doing with hypergolics for literally decades?
> >
>
What is different about cryogenic fuel transfers that would require an
EVA?