A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA's new focus plan revealed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 23rd 10, 01:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default NASA's new focus plan revealed

Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new
kerosene/LOX engine: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/
New enabling technologies for General Bolden and the heroic men and
women of Star Command's engineering division!

Pat
Ads
  #2  
Old February 23rd 10, 01:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,516
Default NASA's new focus plan revealed

On Feb 23, 8:28´┐Żam, Pat Flannery wrote:
Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new
kerosene/LOX engine:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/
New enabling technologies for General Bolden and the heroic men and
women of Star Command's engineering division!

Pat


nasa high point is doing studies, overselling, then run away costs
  #3  
Old February 23rd 10, 03:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Allen Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 372
Default NASA's new focus plan revealed

On Feb 23, 7:28*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new
kerosene/LOX engine:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/


It sez,

"A strong candidate would be a hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene)
engine, capable of generating high levels of thrust approximately
equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built RD-180
engine," the NASA budget estimate said.

So why not continue to use the RD-180 or, if needed, license the
RD-170?

"Other key target characteristics for this new capability include
improvements in overall engine robustness and efficiency, health
monitoring, affordability, and operability."

Improvements over what? The RD-180?
  #4  
Old February 23rd 10, 04:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default NASA's new focus plan revealed


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new
kerosene/LOX engine: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/
New enabling technologies for General Bolden and the heroic men and women
of Star Command's engineering division!


I'd like to see this R&D go forward. Mostly because it would surely replace
ATK's large segmented solid rocket boosters (those things are evil).

Other technologies that were mentioned (and I support):

1. "in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, especially for cryogenic
liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen", in other words, fuel depots :-)

2. "Inflatable modules could be launched to the International Space Station
to test lightweight alternatives for space habitation and transportation."
In other words, something like Transhab would be back as a NASA R&D project.
:-)

3. "Automated rendezvous and docking is also a likely mission for the
flagship demonstration program." Considering the Russians have been doing
this routinely since the 70's, it's inexcusable that the US hasn't developed
the same technology.

4. "NASA may also test closed-loop life support systems aboard the space
station." Developing better life support systems on ISS is a must. As
we're seeing with the first generation of US built ISS hardware, making
these sorts of systems function reliably in zero gravity isn't as easy as it
seems.

5. "autonomous precision landing"

6. "advanced in-space propulsion"

I see this as a good thing. The POR was to go back to the moon using 1960's
and 1970's technologies. This never made sense to me, especially the large
segmented SRB part.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #5  
Old February 23rd 10, 04:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default NASA's new focus plan revealed


"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
...

So why not continue to use the RD-180 or, if needed, license the
RD-170?

"Other key target characteristics for this new capability include
improvements in overall engine robustness and efficiency, health
monitoring, affordability, and operability."

Improvements over what? The RD-180?


Unfortunately the US has no large (currently produced) LOX/kerosene engine
which is better than the RD-180. Besides the obvious reason that we don't
want to keep relying on the Russians for our launch vehicle engines, you may
want to note how old the RD-180 design is. Certainly the US could do
better, given some R&D dollars. Getting NASA back to R&D is a good thing.

As for the Russian angle, look how they appear to be charging NASA much
higher costs for Soyuz flights than they do for tourists. This is not a
good thing for the US.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #6  
Old February 23rd 10, 10:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default NASA's new focus plan revealed

On 2/23/2010 7:32 AM, Allen Thomson wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:28 am, Pat wrote:
Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new
kerosene/LOX engine:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/


It sez,

"A strong candidate would be a hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene)
engine, capable of generating high levels of thrust approximately
equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built RD-180
engine," the NASA budget estimate said.

So why not continue to use the RD-180 or, if needed, license the
RD-170?

"Other key target characteristics for this new capability include
improvements in overall engine robustness and efficiency, health
monitoring, affordability, and operability."

Improvements over what? The RD-180?


They might actually be able to do that. When it was designed the RD-170
on the Energia booster units was built for reuse,so it may be more
complex and robust than it needs to be, as well may be its RD-180
offspring. So maybe you can make a expendable one that's simpler and
cheaper, sort of the kerosene/LOX equivalent of the RS-68.
Unless they intend to resurrect the F-1 in some modified form.

Pat

  #7  
Old February 24th 10, 12:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default NASA's new focus plan revealed

Allen Thomson wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:28 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Lots of advanced demonstrator projects including a very high thrust new
kerosene/LOX engine:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22technology/


It sez,

"A strong candidate would be a hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene)
engine, capable of generating high levels of thrust approximately
equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built RD-180
engine," the NASA budget estimate said.

So why not continue to use the RD-180 or, if needed, license the
RD-170?


Reducing our dependency on Russia would be a good enough reason by
itself, IMO.
  #8  
Old February 24th 10, 01:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Allen Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 372
Default NASA's new focus plan revealed


So why not continue to use the RD-180 or, if needed, license the
RD-170?


Reducing our dependency on Russia would be a good enough reason by
itself, IMO.



I've lost track of this stuff somewhat, but doesn't P&W have license
(and presumably the blueprints and manufacturing techniques) to
manufacture RD-180s independently of Russia? Pat's point about the
engine being designed for somewhat more demanding requirements than
needed now should be noted.
  #9  
Old February 24th 10, 03:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default NASA's new focus plan revealed


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
They might actually be able to do that. When it was designed the RD-170 on
the Energia booster units was built for reuse,so it may be more complex
and robust than it needs to be, as well may be its RD-180 offspring.


It's likely to be "more robust" simply becaue it is a Russian design. The
"more complex" part, I'm not so sure about. If you have an engine like the
RD-180 which is a staged combustion engine which is regeneratively cooled,
there is no fundamental reason that it can't be classified as reusable.

So maybe you can make a expendable one that's simpler and cheaper, sort of
the kerosene/LOX equivalent of the RS-68.
Unless they intend to resurrect the F-1 in some modified form.


True you often can make an expendable version of an engine which is
simplified in some ways, but I have a feeling that what you're really doing
when making an expendable version is tweaking the design so it's easier to
manufacture. If that results in some trade-offs which would otherwise
reduce "reusability", then that trade would likely be made. But there is a
point where shaving margins off an engine makes it less reliable, even for a
single use.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #10  
Old February 24th 10, 09:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default NASA's new focus plan revealed

On 2/24/2010 7:30 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

It's likely to be "more robust" simply becaue it is a Russian design. The
"more complex" part, I'm not so sure about. If you have an engine like the
RD-180 which is a staged combustion engine which is regeneratively cooled,
there is no fundamental reason that it can't be classified as reusable.

So maybe you can make a expendable one that's simpler and cheaper, sort of
the kerosene/LOX equivalent of the RS-68.
Unless they intend to resurrect the F-1 in some modified form.


True you often can make an expendable version of an engine which is
simplified in some ways, but I have a feeling that what you're really doing
when making an expendable version is tweaking the design so it's easier to
manufacture. If that results in some trade-offs which would otherwise
reduce "reusability", then that trade would likely be made. But there is a
point where shaving margins off an engine makes it less reliable, even for a
single use.


I could picture them going with a simple non-staged combustion engine
and ablative nozzle that lowers isp in exchange for lower production costs.

Pat
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA's Moon base plan JOHN PAZMINO Amateur Astronomy 0 December 16th 06 04:58 PM
NASA's New Plan Drill Is A 60-Watt Time [email protected] Astronomy Misc 2 May 6th 06 07:04 PM
NASA's New Plan Drill Is A 60-Watt Time [email protected] News 0 May 5th 06 10:49 PM
NASA'S SPACE EYES FOCUS ON DEEP IMPACT TARGET (STScI-PR05-18) INBOX ASTRONOMY: NEWS ALERT Amateur Astronomy 0 June 2nd 05 07:44 PM
Revealed: Europe's master plan for space technology (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 July 7th 03 08:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ę2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.