Nautilus-X

I've put out an identical request to the arocket list, but there's different
readership he

I must be living in a cave, I just recently came across Mark Holderman's
PowerPoint slides:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=36068

Who can give me more details about this project proposal?
I'm interested in anything you can provide: URLs, hard-copy references,
historical time-line for this proposal (i.e. how long has it been kicking
around NASA?), etc.

This is pretty much exactly in-line with what I'd been proposing on Usenet a
few years back. Develop a long-duration LEO capability first with
self-sufficiency for long enough duration to use as a habitat to get out of
LEO for crewed exploratory missions. Perhaps first to the moon and then to
some of our closer solar system neighbors, then be able to return to LEO for
refurbishment to be able to do it again. Although a maximum of 24 months
duration as provided in the PowerPoint presentation certainly won't do for a
Mars mission, but it seems to me to be on the right track.

I'd probably ditch Orion for commercial crew EVs, and there a lot of
kitchen-sink in this proposal that could probably be trimmed out. But it seems
interesting. I like the idea of prototyping parts of it on ISS, but not the
part about docking it with the ISS, since everyone tells me that ISS is not in
the proper orbit for where you'd want something like this to be in.

Thoughts?

David Spain

On May 31, 7:01*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:22 AM, David Spain wrote:





I've put out an identical request to the arocket list, but there's
different
readership he

I must be living in a cave, I just recently came across Mark Holderman's
PowerPoint slides:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=36068

Who can give me more details about this project proposal?
I'm interested in anything you can provide: URLs, hard-copy references,
historical time-line for this proposal (i.e. how long has it been
kicking around NASA?), etc.

This is pretty much exactly in-line with what I'd been proposing on
Usenet a few years back. Develop a long-duration LEO capability first
with self-sufficiency for long enough duration to use as a habitat to
get out of LEO for crewed exploratory missions. Perhaps first to the
moon and then to some of our closer solar system neighbors, then be able
to return to LEO for refurbishment to be able to do it again. Although a
maximum of 24 months duration as provided in the PowerPoint presentation
certainly won't do for a Mars mission, but it seems to me to be on the
right track.

I'd probably ditch Orion for commercial crew EVs, and there a lot of
kitchen-sink in this proposal that could probably be trimmed out. But it
seems interesting. I like the idea of prototyping parts of it on ISS,
but not the part about docking it with the ISS, since everyone tells me
that ISS is not in the proper orbit for where you'd want something like
this to be in.

Thoughts?

It uses inflatable crew modules, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's
something Bigelow Aerospace designed.
It also looks way too blue sky to be a serous NASA concept.
Note there's a very advanced nuclear engine hanging off the tail; where
did that get the money for development?
The centrifuge is so small in diameter (around 25') that anyone using it
is going to get very sick if they try to move around while it's running.
In fact, it looks too small to stand up in, so maybe you just sleep in it..

Pat- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed on it being too blue sky. That hasn't stopped the crowd over on
spacepolitics.com from embracing it. It'd be cheaper to build a hab
module and departure stage instead. (which is what will most likely
happen, anyway) And when it's pointed out that a lot of the ideas that
those folks there have are politically unrealistic, they think you're
a heretic or have committed high treason (whichever is worse).

On 5/31/2011 10:22 AM, David Spain wrote:
I've put out an identical request to the arocket list, but there's
different
readership he

I must be living in a cave, I just recently came across Mark Holderman's
PowerPoint slides:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=36068

Who can give me more details about this project proposal?
I'm interested in anything you can provide: URLs, hard-copy references,
historical time-line for this proposal (i.e. how long has it been
kicking around NASA?), etc.

This is pretty much exactly in-line with what I'd been proposing on
Usenet a few years back. Develop a long-duration LEO capability first
with self-sufficiency for long enough duration to use as a habitat to
get out of LEO for crewed exploratory missions. Perhaps first to the
moon and then to some of our closer solar system neighbors, then be able
to return to LEO for refurbishment to be able to do it again. Although a
maximum of 24 months duration as provided in the PowerPoint presentation
certainly won't do for a Mars mission, but it seems to me to be on the
right track.

I'd probably ditch Orion for commercial crew EVs, and there a lot of
kitchen-sink in this proposal that could probably be trimmed out. But it
seems interesting. I like the idea of prototyping parts of it on ISS,
but not the part about docking it with the ISS, since everyone tells me
that ISS is not in the proper orbit for where you'd want something like
this to be in.

Thoughts?

It uses inflatable crew modules, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's
something Bigelow Aerospace designed.
It also looks way too blue sky to be a serous NASA concept.
Note there's a very advanced nuclear engine hanging off the tail; where
did that get the money for development?
The centrifuge is so small in diameter (around 25') that anyone using it
is going to get very sick if they try to move around while it's running.
In fact, it looks too small to stand up in, so maybe you just sleep in it.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:22 AM, David Spain wrote:

Thoughts?

It uses inflatable crew modules, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's
something Bigelow Aerospace designed.

I got some more info on this from an arocket posting, thank you (another)
David. The author, Mark Holderman, has history both at NASA and it turns out,
the CIA (in an 'overt' capacity, or as he puts it, 'not a spook, a spook
enabler').

Back on the 16th he was featured on 'The Space Show' webcast that includes
his bio and can be found he

http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1559

It uses inflatable modules, but I don't think there is a design connection
other than it could likely be built using Bigelow hardware. There seems to be
a desire to leverage existing tech where-ever possible.

It also looks way too blue sky to be a serous NASA concept.

Holderman could not get NASA interested in this while there. According to
Holderman, these days NASA is a 'pull' organization. That means it has become
a reactive organization instead of proactive one. NASA may be good at
administration and project management but you have to look elsewhere for
vision and direction.

Note there's a very advanced nuclear engine hanging off the tail; where
did that get the money for development?

There is no money. This is a PowerPoint presentation.

The propulsion system is modular. In the initial configuration (LEO ops) there
isn't one, just a collar. Propulsion systems would be added or changed out to
fulfill mission requirements. The nuclear one is for planetary missions
AFAICT. CIS-lunar probably uses a chemical one.

The centrifuge is so small in diameter (around 25') that anyone using it
is going to get very sick if they try to move around while it's running.
In fact, it looks too small to stand up in, so maybe you just sleep in it.


It is interesting you bring that up. According to Holderman there is much work
to do in this area. In the PowerPoint presentation there is a table that lists
RPM, gravitation and proposed ring diameters that looks like this:

30ft OD with 50in. cross-section ID
All internal dimensions and layout
will accommodate EVA suite[d] Astronaut

Max RPM for Centrifuge may require
longer acclimation period for crew between
partial and zero-(g)

Partial - (g)
RPM 30ft dia. 40ft dia.
4 .08 .11
5 .13 .17
6 .18 .25
7 .25 .33
8 .33 .44
9 .41 .55
10 .51 .69

A 50in cross-section ID means you need an EVA suited astronaut that that can't
be taller than 4ft 2in tall to stand up straight in this. Maybe the
expectation is that with it being an inflatable, the walls will stretch to
accommodate? I don't know, I'm confused by this spec, but tend to agree with
you Pat, this doesn't look big enough to stand up in, only stretch out across.
But this spec is also for the wheel proposed to be attached to the ISS for
artificial gravity study, not a part of a permanent habitat, so maybe that's
the reason for the small size?

In the webcast he mentions that the commonly accepted idea that motion
sickness will be induced by the Coriolis Effect with rotational speeds above 6
RPM are largely based on Russian studies done not in a centrifuge such as this
but in a spinning chair. You'll note in the table above, Holderman wants to
try different rotational speeds on a test centrifuge attached to the ISS in
experiments designed to see what the actual effects on the occupants are. He
not only wants to spin up to the common wisdom limit of 6 RPM but all the way
up to 10 RPM in experiments to study the actual limits. If it turns out that
people can acclimate to the higher rotational speed, the ring diameter for a
given 'gravitation' can be greatly reduced, thus also reducing cost.

But all that aside, what is also important IMO is just conducting studies to
see just how *little* gravity we can get away with for long duration missions.
If we can get healthy crews there and back on only 1/10G rather than say 1/2G
so much the better.

I think getting an artificial gravity study going on the ISS would be a 'good
thing'.

As far as Nautilus-X goes, as proposed I have concerns. Mark Holderman is a
NASA insider. There are pluses and minuses to that. Among the pluses is he
knows how projects work and how to be successful working from the inside.
Among the minuses is he is still 'old school'. This proposal, if fully funded
and enabled, is purposely designed to get all the NASA centers busy. In his
mind this is a positive, because he believes it would re-invigorate NASA, by
not only allowing folks the freedom to try things and fail in order to learn
from mistakes, but also to get the culture back in the mode where people work
late, and leave for work early because they are working on missions and
programs that not only challenge, but seize the imaginations of the people
working on them. I can understand where he is coming from, but on the other
hand I think we have to be realistic about government projects in an austere
budget climate.

These days I'd feel more comfortable is this were a commercial consortium
rather than a NASA project only. But frankly I see no commercial incentive to
conduct missions of exploration.

So even before we get to proposals such as this; we need to figure out how we
are going to conduct future space projects. Do we think NASA still must take
the lead, still act as the prime contractor? Or maybe it supplies the goals
and $$$ but lets others put forward concrete proposal in response to 'Request
for Bids' put out by NASA ala COTS?

I think NASA itself doesn't know how best to proceed. Until this is
straightened out, these hardware proposals are of little consequence. And in
the backdrop of all of this, is the overwhelming sense of dread that we can
count on Congress to 'do the wrong thing'.

Dave

On 5/31/2011 6:23 PM, David Spain wrote:
Holderman could not get NASA interested in this while there. According
to Holderman, these days NASA is a 'pull' organization. That means it
has become a reactive organization instead of proactive one. NASA may be
good at administration and project management but you have to look
elsewhere for vision and direction.

I went through the PowerPoint for it, and I'd be very suspicious of an
initial concept design that appears to be designed to the last rivet and
screw. It smacks of the Orion nuclear pulse ship design that General
Atomics did one summer long ago, as being way too detailed for something
you've never tried to build.
The way they show Nautilus, you just attach part "A" to part "B", fold
a tab over to add that combo to part "C", and bingo...wonderful new
spaceship!
In reality, initial spacecraft designs look like this:
http://www.life.com/gallery/30242#index/0




Note there's a very advanced nuclear engine hanging off the tail;
where did that get the money for development?

There is no money. This is a PowerPoint presentation.

Hell, I've got do a PowerPoint on this:
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/gallery/pf_disc.htm
Yes, it will look just like that when really built, also... and the four
big ion engine arrays will look just like gigantic red bicycle
reflectors, and some of the smaller ancillary spacecraft crew sections
will bear a freakish resemblance to N gauge model railroad trash
dumpsters. :-D



The propulsion system is modular. In the initial configuration (LEO ops)
there isn't one, just a collar. Propulsion systems would be added or
changed out to fulfill mission requirements. The nuclear one is for
planetary missions AFAICT. CIS-lunar probably uses a chemical one.

Where is the fuel for the atomic engine? Even Prometheus needs pretty
good sized fuel tanks if it is to get up any velocity, and this thing
looks like it has almost zero delta v based on the little tanks ahead of
the engine.
I doubt it can even do a TLI from LEO with the amount of fuel shown
versus its mass, much less loop the Moon and reenter LEO.

The centrifuge is so small in diameter (around 25') that anyone using
it is going to get very sick if they try to move around while it's
running. In fact, it looks too small to stand up in, so maybe you just
sleep in it.


It is interesting you bring that up. According to Holderman there is
much work to do in this area. In the PowerPoint presentation there is a
table that lists
RPM, gravitation and proposed ring diameters that looks like this:

30ft OD with 50in. cross-section ID
All internal dimensions and layout
will accommodate EVA suite[d] Astronaut

Max RPM for Centrifuge may require
longer acclimation period for crew between
partial and zero-(g)

Partial - (g)
RPM 30ft dia. 40ft dia.
4 .08 .11
5 .13 .17
6 .18 .25
7 .25 .33
8 .33 .44
9 .41 .55
10 .51 .69

The only reason you need a centrifuge is for a many-month mission to
someplace like Mars.
And thanks to NASA ditching the centrifuge module for the ISS (the only
experiment I thought was worth doing on the whole thing), we have zip
data on how effective partial g rotation rates of a centrifuge are to
alleviating the long-term medical effects of zero g.
In fact, if the crew is going to be in there, you might want them to
stay there 24/7, lying down, and run the whole ship from their beds.
If they can't even stand up and move around for several hours a day, I
don't know what shape they would be in for moving around by the time
they got to their destination, which makes the centrifuge seem like a
worse idea than zero g and a lot of daily exercise on the way there.
They did studies on small diameter centrifuges clean back in the 1960's
and at best the crew gets really sick if they try to change their
positions in the centrifuge, and at worst they get severe vascular
problems due to the steep gravity gradients between different parts of
their bodies.
To get everything to work out right for complete crew comfort at 1 g,
you needed a centrifuge of around 400 feet across.
That's why my Discovery design is so long; as it rotates around its
midpoint, it forms a centrifuge of over 1,000 feet across as well as
keeping the main front crew living quarters as far away as possible from
the rear fission engines and nuclear electric power reactors.


A 50in cross-section ID means you need an EVA suited astronaut that that
can't
be taller than 4ft 2in tall to stand up straight in this. Maybe the
expectation is that with it being an inflatable, the walls will stretch
to accommodate?

It doesn't look like that from the drawings; it looks like you climb
down a tube from the centrifuge axis and lie down inside the ring, like
it's a sleeping area.
So why make it so small in diameter, and why does it need to be a
complete ring? Two counterbalanced crew modules would work as well and
you wouldn't be crawling over other sleeping astronauts as you went to
and from your bed.
In fact, the way to design it would be as two discs at the end of the
entry tubes that were set with their floors towards the outside of the
rotation axis; you would come down a ladder to the center of the disc,
and the beds would be arranged like pie slices around you.

I don't know, I'm confused by this spec, but tend to
agree with you Pat, this doesn't look big enough to stand up in, only
stretch out across. But this spec is also for the wheel proposed to be
attached to the ISS for artificial gravity study, not a part of a
permanent habitat, so maybe that's the reason for the small size?

If it can't be used for transporting people on a finished ship, there's
no reason to ever mount it on anything other than the ISS...yet here
it's shown on a ship that has a clearly noted command section at the
front end.


In the webcast he mentions that the commonly accepted idea that motion
sickness will be induced by the Coriolis Effect with rotational speeds
above 6 RPM are largely based on Russian studies done not in a
centrifuge such as this but in a spinning chair. You'll note in the
table above, Holderman wants to try different rotational speeds on a
test centrifuge attached to the ISS in experiments designed to see what
the actual effects on the occupants are. He not only wants to spin up to
the common wisdom limit of 6 RPM but all the way up to 10 RPM in
experiments to study the actual limits. If it turns out that people can
acclimate to the higher rotational speed, the ring diameter for a given
'gravitation' can be greatly reduced, thus also reducing cost.

I wish I could find online info and video on a test the Soviets did in
the late 1950's - early 1960's...they stuck two cosmonauts into a series
of rooms mounted so that they would spin at a 45 degree angle and
generate 2 g's on their floor; I've got video of this on a VHS tape
somewhere around here.
There's footage of one shooting an arrow from a bow and it turning
wildly as it flies, striking a target on the wall that is almost in the
same direction as the cosmonaut's back but 45 degrees away.
IIRC, they spent a couple of weeks in the thing, but whatever the
results were, that was about the last you heard of any centrifugal
gravity generation on Soviet spacecraft or stations


But all that aside, what is also important IMO is just conducting
studies to see just how *little* gravity we can get away with for long
duration missions.
If we can get healthy crews there and back on only 1/10G rather than say
1/2G so much the better.

Like I said, if the ISS centrifuge module was now in service we would
have a ton more info on that. It was designed to do any gravity from
zero to two g's
Tests on things like white rats and small monkeys could have given us a
pretty good idea of what the specifics of the situation are.
As a hunch, I think that partial g doesn't solve the problems, it just
means it takes longer for them to happen.


I think getting an artificial gravity study going on the ISS would be a
'good thing'.

As far as Nautilus-X goes, as proposed I have concerns. Mark Holderman
is a NASA insider. There are pluses and minuses to that. Among the
pluses is he knows how projects work and how to be successful working
from the inside. Among the minuses is he is still 'old school'. This
proposal, if fully funded and enabled, is purposely designed to get all
the NASA centers busy. In his mind this is a positive, because he
believes it would re-invigorate NASA, by not only allowing folks the
freedom to try things and fail in order to learn from mistakes, but also
to get the culture back in the mode where people work late, and leave
for work early because they are working on missions and programs that
not only challenge, but seize the imaginations of the people working on
them. I can understand where he is coming from, but on the other hand I
think we have to be realistic about government projects in an austere
budget climate.

You know what I think? I think this is the "Let's put the android on the
Moon!" project writ large:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFPNc...layer_embedded
If the graphics look fancy enough, hopefully no one is actually going to
ask: "Does this make any sense at all?", and the money train will keep
on arriving.
I love that android; it's got a very Mr. Spock like look about it as it
swings down onto the lunar surface, sitting with its hands in front of
its face.*
You can almost hear it thinking: "The surface of the Moon...fascinating."
Mind you, what exactly it's supposed to do after looking up at Earth is
a bit iffy, as it seems to have no means of doing any science other than
picking up rocks and looking at them while marooned on another world
forever.
But we have to get those robots to hate us somehow if the big future war
is going to occur...and believe me, if someone stuck me in a box and
marooned me on the Moon, I'd be a little PO'd also, to say the very least.
First thing I'd do is start extracting metals from the lunar regolith
and begin building a Basestar. :-D

*It's also a disaster area for NASA manned spaceflight, as it suggests
that there's no reason to send people to the Moon, as robots can go
there instead.
I imagine they figured that out after the video was released, like a
dinosaur getting bit in the butt and a day or so later letting out a
howl. :-D

Pat