Re: OSP - any bets on what it'll look like?

[Brian Gaff]

Hang on, I'll just get a new tube of Evo-Stik and I'm sure we will have
something for the press in a couple of days....

:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Terrence Daniels" > wrote in
message arthlink.net...
| Of course, I'm asking this because of the story that's all over the space
| rags today:
|
| http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/23osp/
|
| I searched through old threads and found one about the HL-20 and HL-42.
This
| thing sounds practically half-designed already!
|
| http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm
| http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl42.htm
|
| But then NASA sounds like it's backing off on the "plane" part and actual
| requirements are far more general. What's the deal? Is this a budgetary
| issue? From where I sit it's money for a new capsule system or money to
| FINISH developing an old project.
|
| Who makes the final choice between "capsule" and "plane"? I suppose the
| contractors will build whatever the hell they get an order for, because
| business is business, so it would be up to...?
|
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/03

[Hallerb]

>
>http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/23osp/
>

After some contemplating I think it should be a capsule design that is designed
to land on land and water.

Easier, cheaper, more reliable. Have some components modular reusable and keep
it in low production indefinetely so incremental improvements can be made. For
maximum utility it should hold at least 7 and preferably 10 people. The added
capacity would help the cargo version.

They should get a mnove on and just do it!!!!

[Kaido Kert]

"Kim Keller" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Terrence Daniels" > wrote in
> message arthlink.net...
> > But then NASA sounds like it's backing off on the "plane" part and
actual
> > requirements are far more general. What's the deal? Is this a budgetary
> > issue? From where I sit it's money for a new capsule system or money to
> > FINISH developing an old project.
>
> I can't say much about the program (because I'm inside it) but NASA has
> structured the requirements so that the contractors will tell NASA what is
> the best way to do the mission. NASA is bending over backwards to make
sure
> that it doesn't influence the contractors one way or another on what OSP
> should look like.
You speak about "the contractors". Why were those three chosen ?

-kert

[Andy]

<< "Kim Keller" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Terrence Daniels" > wrote in
> message arthlink.net...
> > But then NASA sounds like it's backing off on the "plane" part and
actual
> > requirements are far more general. What's the deal? Is this a budgetary
> > issue? From where I sit it's money for a new capsule system or money to
> > FINISH developing an old project.
>
> I can't say much about the program (because I'm inside it) but NASA has
> structured the requirements so that the contractors will tell NASA what is
> the best way to do the mission. NASA is bending over backwards to make
sure
> that it doesn't influence the contractors one way or another on what OSP
> should look like. >>


Which is interesting, because the astronaut office is saying something entirely
different.

CB is advocating an idea that revolves around the concept of Simple, Safe, and
Soon. Apparently, a brief that was given to O'Keefe stipulated that NASA will
provide the detailed design requirements (e.g., essentially the blueprints!)
for [the] follow-on vehicle (whether OSP or not), as opposed to letting the
contractors load it up with non-essential capabilities. O'Keefe apparently
liked and approved the idea.

Andy


"Gee, I thought we'd be a lot higher at MECO!"
[Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984]

[Jon Berndt]

"Andy" > wrote in message

> Which is interesting, because the astronaut office is saying something
entirely
> different.
>
> CB is advocating an idea that revolves around the concept of Simple, Safe,
and
> Soon. Apparently, a brief that was given to O'Keefe stipulated that NASA
will
> provide the detailed design requirements (e.g., essentially the
blueprints!)
> for [the] follow-on vehicle (whether OSP or not), as opposed to letting
the
> contractors load it up with non-essential capabilities. O'Keefe apparently
> liked and approved the idea.
>
> Andy

Form Follows Function.

What does it need to do? I've been reading articles about potential OSP
designs. I read one quote (I think it was from space.com).

"The other side is urging NASA to push the envelope and develop an Orbital
Space Plane that not only meets the needs of the space station program but
also puts the agency in position to move out beyond low Earth orbit."

Is it just me, or is that one of the stupidest things ever said? A space
"taxi" and a vehicle to go to the moon or Mars ... those all have very
different requirements.

I'm glad to hear what CB is supporting - it makes good sense.

Jon

-- Statements made here are my presented only as my own opinions, and do not
necessarily represent those of my employer or any other entity.

[Andy]

<< Form Follows Function. >>

Indeed, but taking an incremental approach to designing future vehicles may be
more productive than designing a vehicle to do just one thing.

For instance, why design a vehicle just to service station? Particularly when
that vehicle isn't going to come on-line until 5-6 years before the planned
end-of-life of the vehicle it is exclusively designed to support? Sounds like a
waste of time and money to me.

If you can design a block upgradeable vehicle around the concept that it will
not only support station but will provide the template for vehicles for
exploration beyond LEO, this might be more politically palatable than a one-off
program such as OSP is currently envisioned to be.

Since this is at least nominally an international project, I believe we should
be utilizing planned European and Japanese (ATV, HTV) vehicles to fulfill our
crew transfer needs; the whole "Buy American" idea is going to negatively
impact our ability to move beyond ISS. Need a CRV? Buy Soyuz, beyond the 11
planned (or "buy" them indirectly, through ESA).

OSP is a bad idea; there are plenty of viable alternatives, and hopefully the
Congress and the administrator will see the light before we waste another x
billion dollars on a dead-end program.

Andy



"Gee, I thought we'd be a lot higher at MECO!"
[Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984]

[Dosco Jones]

I'm sure it will change completely at least three or four times before the
project is cancelled.

Dosco


"Terrence Daniels" > wrote in
message arthlink.net...
> Of course, I'm asking this because of the story that's all over the space
> rags today:
>
> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/23osp/
>
> I searched through old threads and found one about the HL-20 and HL-42.
This
> thing sounds practically half-designed already!
>
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl42.htm
>
> But then NASA sounds like it's backing off on the "plane" part and actual
> requirements are far more general. What's the deal? Is this a budgetary
> issue? From where I sit it's money for a new capsule system or money to
> FINISH developing an old project.
>
> Who makes the final choice between "capsule" and "plane"? I suppose the
> contractors will build whatever the hell they get an order for, because
> business is business, so it would be up to...?
>
>
>

[Terrence Daniels]

"Brian Gaff" > wrote in message
...
> Hang on, I'll just get a new tube of Evo-Stik and I'm sure we will have
> something for the press in a couple of days....

That's about the sum of things right now, isn't it! :)

I'm going to throw out the infamous Monty Python quote:

"It's only a model!"

I think right now the 3D people at various contractors are having the most
fun with this. Take the model of the OSP you built last week, load up the
file for the Delta IV from the archive, merge the files, stick one on top of
the other... Throw in a picture of the earth for the background and render.
Do that about ten times...

[Terrence Daniels]

"Dosco Jones" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>
> I'm sure it will change completely at least three or four times before the
> project is cancelled.

Indeed, that's the elephant in the room. I get the feeling that it's one of
the unspoken reasons for advocating a capsule system...

[Terrence Daniels]

"Kim Keller" > wrote in message
m...
> I can't say much about the program (because I'm inside it) but NASA has
> structured the requirements so that the contractors will tell NASA what is
> the best way to do the mission.

Ah, OK, so that's what the level one requirements are for. They just said...
"We need a relatively simple & cheap ELV-riding machine to do X, Y, and Z"
and the contractors will get to work. Have they revised the requirements
any? In light of Columbia, I think it would be a plus if contractors could
add Shuttle rescue capability.

>It's also
> possible that the design for the CRV may be different from the CTV -
that's
> how much flexibility the requirements allow.

I would imagine that modularity would play a big role in any design for this
system.

> Personally, I think the program ought to be renamed - "Orbital Space
Plane"
> has led everyone to believe that NASA has fixated on a winged vehicle and
is
> steering the program in that direction. This is not the case.

That's what was confusing me, really. I was wondering why there was the
sudden shift to accepting a capsule-type option, when it was still called
"OSP." That almost implies indecision, or maybe even bias, which is not a
good thing.

I suggest something like "Rocket-Powered Body Hauler." Calling it "Meat
Wagon" has some bad connotations even though it's accurate. :)

[Terrence Daniels]

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
> For instance, why design a vehicle just to service station? Particularly
when
> that vehicle isn't going to come on-line until 5-6 years before the
planned
> end-of-life of the vehicle it is exclusively designed to support? Sounds
like a
> waste of time and money to me.

I think time and money is going to be wasted no matter what they decide to
do, unfortunately. That's just how it goes.

> If you can design a block upgradeable vehicle around the concept that it
will
> not only support station but will provide the template for vehicles for
> exploration beyond LEO, this might be more politically palatable than a
one-off
> program such as OSP is currently envisioned to be.

Yeah, but it's like they're looking for a sweet spot... Theoretically you
don't need a complex, heavy, hojillion-dollar system to ferry warm bodies up
to a pre-existing outpost, whether it's the Shuttle or Shuttle Replacement.
A good bit of the work is done already, the boosters are built, and a lot of
research has been done. ****, they had the idea fifteen years ago! If
anything, the OSP is late. Ideally, Shuttle can haul up the building blocks,
while OSP can handle the people issues.

To be cynical, it's either strand the ISS crew again while we pick up the
pieces of another orbiter, have them ride down in a Soviet breadbox run by a
bunch of guys who are quick to blame faults on everybody else (like that
"American pushed the wrong switch!" bull**** when Exp6 came home), or not go
at all. Nobody wants to come out and say it, but I think this is really a
way to bypass the Russians and make sure our financial and logistical
headaches are domestic and not international in nature. Technological issues
are secondary to that.

Where it starts getting funny is where requirements get added. Fine, we've
got a new machine to haul crews up to ISS on the cheap... But what if they
want more cargo? How about water replenishment? Now we want the OSP to carry
some science experiments too... It can get sticky right? There needs to be a
clear cutoff point. I hope they have one. I guess that would be the weight
limit. I would like to see them break new ground with this system, somehow,
but I don't think it's necessarily about breaking off into radically
different territory. Actually it's kinda like trying for "Faster Better
Cheaper!" The best you could hope for is advanced systems, scalability
(face it, any hardware to get us to Mars is going to have to be large), and
efficiency of operation.

[Jon Berndt]

"Terrence Daniels" >

> Of course, I'm asking this because of the story that's all over the space
> rags today:
>
> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/23osp/
>
> I searched through old threads and found one about the HL-20 and HL-42.
This
> thing sounds practically half-designed already!
>
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl42.htm

If you want to know about HL-20, go here:

http://tinyurl.com/i2oi

It's a project from some time ago, but looking at the dates on recent
reports shows the concept is getting renewed attention.

Jon

[Jon Berndt]

"Andy" > wrote in message

> << Form Follows Function. >>
>
> Indeed, but taking an incremental approach to designing future vehicles
may be
> more productive than designing a vehicle to do just one thing.
>
> For instance, why design a vehicle just to service station? Particularly
when
> that vehicle isn't going to come on-line until 5-6 years before the
planned
> end-of-life of the vehicle it is exclusively designed to support? Sounds
like a
> waste of time and money to me.

I'm sure that they will try to use ISS for as long as possible.

> If you can design a block upgradeable vehicle around the concept that it
will
> not only support station but will provide the template for vehicles for
> exploration beyond LEO, this might be more politically palatable than a
one-off
> program such as OSP is currently envisioned to be.

Which is cheaper:

1) To design and build a vehicle uniquely targeted for a specific purpose?
This, of course, involves fabricating a vehicle for ISS taxi, and a
different project for lunar ferry.
2) To design and build a vehicle that serves multiple purposes? For
instance, one that goes to ISS and for lunar ferry.

The Apollo CSM did multiple missions. That style of vehicle might make
sense. However, I don't believe any hypothetical Mars vehicle and an ISS
taxi have functional commonality. The requirements for power and ECLSS
especially would be very different. Also, crew complement and living volume
I think might be different. I'd think you would want a decent amount of
space for longer flights. Then there's the need for on-board medical aids,
and exercise equipment.

My feeling is you get off cheaper by making a targeted ISS taxi as simple as
possible. Anything else is going to have to be a different program. Isn't
that one of the reasons for some dissatisfaction with the shuttle? It was
designed with requirements from both civilian and military users?

Jon

[jeff findley]

"Kim Keller" > writes:
> I can't say much about the program (because I'm inside it) but NASA has
> structured the requirements so that the contractors will tell NASA what is
> the best way to do the mission. NASA is bending over backwards to make sure
> that it doesn't influence the contractors one way or another on what OSP
> should look like.

NASA did much the same with X-33, but look what we got. :-(

Sometimes requirements are unwritten, and the proposals are written to
meet the contractor's perceptions of what the customer really wants.
In the case of X-33, it worked well, for the contractor that won.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

[LooseChanj]

On or about Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:26:36 GMT, Kim Keller >
made the sensational claim that:
> Personally, I think the program ought to be renamed - "Orbital Space Plane"
> has led everyone to believe that NASA has fixated on a winged vehicle and is
> steering the program in that direction. This is not the case.

No no no. It was meant to be this way, OSP will be a capsule! Think about it.
What's the Dept. of the *Interior* in charge of? This *is* a gov't project
after all.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[Kim Keller]

"Terrence Daniels" > wrote in
message thlink.net...
> Ah, OK, so that's what the level one requirements are for. They just
said...
> "We need a relatively simple & cheap ELV-riding machine to do X, Y, and Z"
> and the contractors will get to work. Have they revised the requirements
> any? In light of Columbia, I think it would be a plus if contractors could
> add Shuttle rescue capability.

Level II requirements have been generated, but do not restrict the
contractors any more than the Level I set - they simply refine what is
expected of the finished product.

> >It's also
> > possible that the design for the CRV may be different from the CTV -
> that's
> > how much flexibility the requirements allow.
>
> I would imagine that modularity would play a big role in any design for
this
> system.

Quite possibly. No, more like most likely.

> That's what was confusing me, really. I was wondering why there was the
> sudden shift to accepting a capsule-type option, when it was still called
> "OSP." That almost implies indecision, or maybe even bias, which is not a
> good thing.

That stupid name has driven all manner of completely inaccurate editorials,
as well. Jeff Bell over at Space Dailey was waaay off the mark in his
analysis.

> I suggest something like "Rocket-Powered Body Hauler." Calling it "Meat
> Wagon" has some bad connotations even though it's accurate. :)

It will be more than a meat wagon, less than a space shuttle (current model,
that is).

-Kim-

[Kim Keller]

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
> Which is interesting, because the astronaut office is saying something
entirely
> different.

Gosh, there's a big surprise.

> CB is advocating an idea that revolves around the concept of Simple, Safe,
and
> Soon. Apparently, a brief that was given to O'Keefe stipulated that NASA
will
> provide the detailed design requirements (e.g., essentially the
blueprints!)
> for [the] follow-on vehicle (whether OSP or not), as opposed to letting
the
> contractors load it up with non-essential capabilities. O'Keefe apparently
> liked and approved the idea.

I hope they don't get their way, because I think that will wreck the program
even before MSFC has had the chance. If O'Keefe liked the idea, then he's
changed poles completely - and that's a bad thing. The contractors don't
appear to be "loading it up with non-essentials". Some of the models do a
good job of keeping the weight down and might even be able to ride the Atlas
551 or 552.

-Kim-
*my opinions only, not my employers'*

[Kim Keller]

"Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
...
> I'm glad to hear what CB is supporting - it makes good sense.

In what possible way? NASA writing detailed requirements is why ISS has cost
umpty-juillion dollars, and why Shuttle is the proverbial camel committee
product.

-Kim-

[Kim Keller]

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
> Indeed, but taking an incremental approach to designing future vehicles
may be
> more productive than designing a vehicle to do just one thing.

OSP will do more than one thing. And the contractors are encouraged to build
evolutionary capability into their designs so that future missions (wherever
they may take us) can use the vehicle in some way.

> For instance, why design a vehicle just to service station? Particularly
when
> that vehicle isn't going to come on-line until 5-6 years before the
planned
> end-of-life of the vehicle it is exclusively designed to support? Sounds
like a
> waste of time and money to me.

Indeed. The Level II requirements address that.

> If you can design a block upgradeable vehicle around the concept that it
will
> not only support station but will provide the template for vehicles for
> exploration beyond LEO, this might be more politically palatable than a
one-off
> program such as OSP is currently envisioned to be.

Hmmm... could he be on to something here, folks?

> Since this is at least nominally an international project, I believe we
should
> be utilizing planned European and Japanese (ATV, HTV) vehicles to fulfill
our
> crew transfer needs; the whole "Buy American" idea is going to negatively
> impact our ability to move beyond ISS. Need a CRV? Buy Soyuz, beyond the
11
> planned (or "buy" them indirectly, through ESA).

How will ATV and HTV handle human cargo? Modifying them to do that will be
just as expensive as designing and building OSP. And Soyuz is no prize
winner. Why must we be dependent on the Russians for something we can do
ourselves?

> OSP is a bad idea; there are plenty of viable alternatives, and hopefully
the
> Congress and the administrator will see the light before we waste another
x
> billion dollars on a dead-end program.

Time will tell.

-Kim-
*my opinions. not my employers'*

[Jon Berndt]

"Kim Keller" > wrote in message news:DHlUa.17749

> "Jon Berndt" > wrote in message

> > I'm glad to hear what CB is supporting - it makes good sense.
>
> In what possible way? NASA writing detailed requirements is why ISS has
cost
> umpty-juillion dollars, and why Shuttle is the proverbial camel committee
> product.
>
> -Kim-

I should have been more careful in stating what I liked. I was referring to
this only:

"CB is advocating an idea that revolves around the concept of Simple, Safe,
and
Soon."

IIRC, O'Keefe provided a one-sheet description of requirements, and the idea
was to leave the details up to the bidders. I think that's a good idea. My
own feeling, as I stated, is the old architectural adage, form follows
function. There are probably some variations on that, but I think the
cheapest fastest way to get an MTV (Manned Transfer Vehicle - I like that
better than OSP, "I want my MTV!") is to go with an upgraded Apollo style
capsule with parachute recovery. Make sure it can fly on an Atlas or
Delta - maybe even Ariane and then sell it to them. I didn't always feel
this way, but was convinced by some of the discussion here that a capsule is
the best way to go for the purpose at hand.

Jon

[Iain Young]

In article >, Kim Keller wrote:

> Level II requirements have been generated, but do not restrict the
> contractors any more than the Level I set - they simply refine what is
> expected of the finished product.

Are the Level II requirements published on the web, like the
Level I set were ? Or are they just issued to the competitors ?

Anyone have a URL for them ?


Iain

[Kim Keller]

"Iain Young" > wrote in message
...
> Are the Level II requirements published on the web, like the
> Level I set were ? Or are they just issued to the competitors ?

They haven't been finalized yet (there're still some numbers to plug in to
the "TBDs" and "TBSs"). When they are issued they'll be available to the
public. I believe the release will happen in a couple months.

-Kim-

[Kim Keller]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> How many of these are they projected to need? The CTV is probably going to
be
> a futher development of the CRV, right? (Well, that's beside the point,
anyway.)
>
> I'm just wondering- if they build 3 or 4 CRVs and end up with a similar
number
> of CTVs, what keeps the assembly line going for future versions, to be
used for,
> say, a lunar program? Unlike the Apollo CSM (and the Orbiter), will they
be able to
> somehow resume production some years down the line without having to spend
alot
> of extra money getting things going again?

"To Be Determined".

-Kim-

[Dosco Jones]

"Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
...
>
> IIRC, O'Keefe provided a one-sheet description of requirements, and the
idea
> was to leave the details up to the bidders. I think that's a good idea.
My
> own feeling, as I stated, is the old architectural adage, form follows
> function. There are probably some variations on that, but I think the
> cheapest fastest way to get an MTV (Manned Transfer Vehicle - I like that
> better than OSP, "I want my MTV!") is to go with an upgraded Apollo style
> capsule with parachute recovery. Make sure it can fly on an Atlas or
> Delta - maybe even Ariane and then sell it to them. I didn't always feel
> this way, but was convinced by some of the discussion here that a capsule
is
> the best way to go for the purpose at hand.


Designing it to ride up on Atlas, Delta, Ariane, and whatever the Russians
are using wouldn't be difficult. Politics and contractor noise will keep
this from happening.

Simple parachutes would work for post-reentry deceleration. A parasail
would be better for atmospheric decent. The vehicle would then have a basic
unpowered steering capability for landing.

Dosco

[Jon Berndt]

> Simple parachutes would work for post-reentry deceleration. A parasail
> would be better for atmospheric decent. The vehicle would then have a
basic
> unpowered steering capability for landing.
>
> Dosco


Is there any research on the reliability of parasails compared to simple
round parachutes?

Jon

[Terrence Daniels]

"Jon Berndt" > wrote in message
...

> Is there any research on the reliability of parasails compared to simple
> round parachutes?

I searched for "parasail feasibility research" and found this:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4203/ch7-3.htm